Loading wrote: » ONE SINGULAR WORD SAYS IT ALL BUT I WANNA GO INTO EXCRUCIATING DETAIL ON THIS AND SAY THAT I WANT TO BE ABLE TO PULL OUT A PAN FLUTE AND HAVE A RAT ARMY RUN THROWING OUT *ALL* THE DEBUFFS AND ALSO DOING DOT DMG AS RAT SWARMS................
Taleof2Cities wrote: » Whatever Intrepid decides on summons, remember that it has to be balanced with the other classes, @Loading.
Summpwner wrote: » Surely transforming a basic skill into one that works with a pet would drastically change the functionality both when playing and when playing against.
Summpwner wrote: » Why would you pick one secondary or another if the augments are "slight difference in effect"? Surely that would mean that which one you pick wouldn't matter.... so then why would the system exist? Surely the changes are significant enough that choosing one over the other will change your build's efficacy in some way.
NiKr wrote: » I expect ranger/summoner to have changes to his self buffs that would also influence his battle pet and temporary summons
Summpwner wrote: » Are you saying that a ranger/ might always have summons and battle pets and that /summoner would augment them, or that ranger/ would have summons that don't exist unless you take /summoner? If /summoner turns a non-pet ability into a pet ability, isn't that a pretty significant shift in function? Yes the summoner augments MAY grant augments that summon weapons, but surely not all /summoner augments will function identically.
Summpwner wrote: » Obviously "deal damage" probably will still be "deal damage" but now it could be tied to a targetable ally that now you need to monitor in some way.
Summpwner wrote: » Yes the summoner augments MAY grant augments that summon weapons, but surely not all /summoner augments will function identically.
Summpwner wrote: » IMO that seems like something that they could scrap, as it seem to me like a player who wants to use pets would play S/x or x/S,. Players not interested in pets won't do either and won't tame one either.
Summpwner wrote: » I suppose my concept of the skills would be that each primary class would have 30-40, and if there were 2 augments for each, that would expand to 60-80 skills with mechanical variation. Perhaps that's a lot to expect from 8 classes. In that light, it certainly would make sense that the secondary augments have common effects regardless of which class... eg "Sword Slash" from a fighter with mage(fire) augment makes it deal all or part fire damage, which will make the same changes to "Fire an Arrow" from a ranger with mage(fire) augment. Previously I thought that augments like that would be boring and that's why I assumed it needed to be more mechanically interesting, but the resistances/weaknesses could make these interesting choices depending on what types of mobs you expect to fight.