All weapons usable for every class - why?

Hi,

while we know, that all classes have access to all weapons, intrepid never showed what incentive you would have to switch to a non typical weapon. Or what options are open to you.

Most likely the weapon skill trees won't be super complex and will also most likely support a certain class more than others.

Edit: cause for some it seems not to be clear. Iam not complaining, that every weapon is available, iam asking what options do we have to play a build outside the intended standard class, that makes it worth to play a ranger with a sword and plate armor for example.

A problem might be, that you can always roll for need on a rate items cause it could fit your super creative build and no one could argue about that.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Pendragxn

Hopefully, they’ll flesh it out more after alpha testing and once they start testing all the classes. They still need to finish all the archetypes first, like rogue and summoner, so there’s a lot left to work on. It would make sense to balance weapon skills alongside classes, combat systems, and other mechanics as they continue development. Getting that balance right between the different systems would definitely improve the overall gameplay experience.

Caww

Garrtok wrote: »

A problem might be, that you can always roll for need on a rate items cause it could fit your super creative build and no one could argue about that.

People can always call out "Greed" if the healer puts in for dual daggers or other such nonsense....

ShivaFang

build diversity and party synnergy.

They gave an example during the wand showcase that a bard or cleric might use a wand to proc elemental statuses to set up the wizard to be more powerful.

ExiledByrd

A lot of class skills dont even work with certain weapons. I'm looking at you ranger. I'm more curious how they are supposed to use anything except what the class is designed for.

ShivaFang

ExiledByrd wrote: »

A lot of class skills dont even work with certain weapons. I'm looking at you ranger. I'm more curious how they are supposed to use anything except what the class is designed for.

So much my biggest beef with the Ranger and Fighter right now. The original campaign used the Pathfinder system, but Archer Fighters and dual-wield rangers that are staples of that system are not represented

nanfoodle

Garrtok wrote: »

nanfoodle wrote: »

Because it let's you make your own class like DnD. Great things like battle mages. Clerics designed got back line support or a Cleric that is tuned for frount Line battle support. You can wear all armor types as well

But whyyyy is the question? Is the game supporting such builds? Just based on the weapon you don't change to a melee focused mage. In guild wars for example it's easily possible

The freedom of class build can lead to people coming up with creative ways to build a class. The freedom Ashes is doing is much like ESO but Ashes took it to the next step. I loved seeing a Mage Class in ESO tank, and do it well. I RPed a Battlemage before in DnD and to see that in a MMO makes me smile.

You can play meta and meta often changes but with a skill system like Ashes, you can think outside the box and build a class that people will need to figuring you out. That gives you a few second advantage. I have my Bard built in my mind. I hope the skills and Augments let me do it.

Laetitian

Garrtok wrote: »

nanfoodle wrote: »

Because it let's you make your own class like DnD. Great things like battle mages. Clerics designed got back line support or a Cleric that is tuned for frount Line battle support. You can wear all armor types as well

But whyyyy is the question? Is the game supporting such builds? Just based on the weapon you don't change to a melee focused mage. In guild wars for example it's easily possible

The beautiful thing is that it doesn't need to support it. It leaves it up to the players to come up with a justification, instead of giving every potential configuration a viable benefit. So if you want to be a ranged tank, you better come up with a great reason for yourself why that has to exist, instead of the game making it viable for you.

It just gives players a way to fulfil their class fantasy. Real agency means that if your choice is suboptimal, you feel the full brunt of the disadvantage you've created for yourself, but you still get to make that choice.
Where in a game like ESO, if a weapon combo is suboptimal, you'll get the class mains whining until Bethesda gives them a new proc or interaction to make it work to "keep things interesting."
Some weapons skills might make some builds viable. Some ranger builds might be viable because rangers just happen to have a hidden strength that makes them more effective when they end up in melee combat. But you have to find that. It won't be created for you by changing your class when you start swinging a sword instead of a bow.

Depraved

Garrtok wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Garrtok wrote: »

RedLeader wrote: »

I doubt that every node will have the ability (the artisans or the materials) to make the very best weapons of every type. I think achieving the exact build you want, with the most synergistic augments possible, is going to take many years, and maybe even a few relocations. you are going to have to grow the right nodes and the right POIs in exactly the right way, to get the mats for the BIS gear/weapons, work on the right religion, grow your node of the right type in the right way and so on. most of us are going to have to make trade-offs for the first year or so.

It isn't going to be zerg these 7 POIs and then wait for the expansion.

Can we maybe talk about what they showed and not about some theoretical one day maybe stuff?

it's not theoretical. they already said that you wont have all crafting stations in every node. majors will decide what to set up and IIRC its 2 per node. with that mind, there will only be 5 metros, therefore 10 stations. there are 8 crafting professions, so if metros repeat stations, some players wont be able to craft t5 stuff until those nodes are destroyed or change the stations. it could take a while. its this way until intrepid changes things

But how are good crafting stations related to the topic at all?

because they will allow you to craft / modify the item to get the exact build you want 8D

Depraved

Garrtok wrote: »

Pendragxn wrote: »

I can’t wait to play a battle mage with some cool 2-handed melee weapons like a spear or halberd. It’d be pretty awesome to be clapping people with a trident or something similar. Being able to mix it up with different weapon styles is going to be sweet. I really like the weapon skill system too—it seems like a solid way to offer more freedom and diversity in player builds. The ability to wear any armor type and use any weapon is definitely a bonus, allowing for more dynamic gameplay. It feels like it’ll let players experiment and find their own unique playstyle.

But until now there is nothing shown to support this.

ExiledByrd wrote: »

A lot of class skills dont even work with certain weapons. I'm looking at you ranger. I'm more curious how they are supposed to use anything except what the class is designed for.

I think the greatsword has a proc that does extra physical damage whenever you use a direct physical skill, I think its called second strike) therefore a ranger could use a greatsword to activate the proc (for example if a warrior or rogue dashes to him, or just in pve), then use a bow skill to proc the greatsword proc and do extra damage with the bow.

the wand has something similar, and unless its a mistake on the wiki, it can also extend the duration of second strike. so a warrior with a greatsword could proc it, then swap to a wand, then back to the gs, making the wand a desirable weapon for a warrior (maybe a warrior with sub mage).

we already have things like this, we just have to wait for more.

Pendragxn

The best approach would likely be to separate weapon skills and class skills. Technically, a
class is the combination of two archetypes. So, a fighter, rogue, or mage isn’t a fully defined class until combined with a secondary archetype, forming something like a beast master or paladin.

Class skills could use augments to enhance abilities, though the application of augments to weapon skills is less clear. Ideally, they should avoid implementing a system like Throne and Liberty, which feels clunky and confusing. The user interface (UI) is poorly designed, to the point where you need a build guide just to figure out how things work.

ShivaFang

Pendragxn wrote: »

The best approach would likely be to separate weapon skills and class skills. Technically, a
class is the combination of two archetypes. So, a fighter, rogue, or mage isn’t a fully defined class until combined with a secondary archetype, forming something like a beast master or paladin.

Class skills could use augments to enhance abilities, though the application of augments to weapon skills is less clear. Ideally, they should avoid implementing a system like Throne and Liberty, which feels clunky and confusing. The user interface (UI) is poorly designed, to the point where you need a build guide just to figure out how things work.

Yes, this is very much part of it. Any archetype that subs fighter is more likely to want a greatsword (the mage showcase where the dev played with a greatsword talked about how this is the starting point for the feel of the battlemage), and any archetype that subs ranger is probably going to want a bow, even if they don't use it normally.

Likewise any archetype that subs mage might fight synergies open up with wand elemental procs that would encourage them to use a wand more than any other primary archetype.

Artificial limits are unnecessary. Let people experiment and gravitate to what works or doesn't organically.

CROW3

Garrtok wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

Freedom for folks to experiment and play what they want & how they want without silly restrictions for armor or weapons.

You don't get it right? Right now there is no incentive to play something else than your standard weapons. There is no mechanic to play as an melee wizard. You would downgrade yourself massively

Hehe. Well, on what basis are you claiming there is no incentive? The reason why “there is no mechanic to play as a melee wizard” is that Intrepid has literally released no practical information about secondary archetype augments such that you could make an informed decision about the benefits and drawbacks of a melee wizard.

Any class any weapon gives you the freedom to opimize your mage to whatever min/max asymtote you like. It also gives me the freedom to not be bound by your path.

Dygz

P0GG0 wrote: »

locking weapons to classes would really help with visual clarity during fights. i really hate not knowing what i'm facing. but they are alternative was to do that.

Why would there be no visual clarity when you see a Tank/Mage wielding a Wand or Bow?
You will recognize the Active Skills of the Tank and the Weapon Skills of the Wand or Bow.
What's not clear about that?

Lodrig

ShivaFang wrote: »

Yes, this is very much part of it. Any archetype that subs fighter is more likely to want a greatsword (the mage showcase where the dev played with a greatsword talked about how this is the starting point for the feel of the battlemage), and any archetype that subs ranger is probably going to want a bow, even if they don't use it normally.

Likewise any archetype that subs mage might fight synergies open up with wand elemental procs that would encourage them to use a wand more than any other primary archetype.

Artificial limits are unnecessary. Let people experiment and gravitate to what works or doesn't organically.

CROW3 wrote: »

Hehe. Well, on what basis are you claiming there is no incentive? The reason why “there is no mechanic to play as a melee wizard” is that Intrepid has literally released no practical information about secondary archetype augments such that you could make an informed decision about the benefits and drawbacks of a melee wizard.

Any class any weapon gives you the freedom to opimize your mage to whatever min/max asymtote you like. It also gives me the freedom to not be bound by your path.

I'm of the opinion that Battle Mage just being a mage with a sword is a terrible design and showcases like that were part of the general fear of classes being lame and unimaginative if they are thinking of a class as being a strait frenkenstein of the surface level features of two archetypes. For one it gives us no distinction between a Fighter/Mage and a Mage/Fighter.

A Fighter/Mage should have an elemental inflused weapon hits linked with combat stances, and a Mage/Fighter should be using spells like Burning hands aka short range quick cast AoE's to litterally 'Pyro' the enemy with. That's how you properly blend the two archetypes into a gestalt while keeping them two inverted classes distinct. Obviously a Mage/Fighter could still weild a sword but it should not be a prerequisite of their skills or abilities, while for the Fighter/Mage dose require a melee weapon because most of the fighter ability set already works that way.

As weapon types are not archetype restricted (with the anoying Ranger dependency on bow which should be removed by making most skills able to be used in melee) the classes should not either. For example Ranger secondary archetypes should not be introducing bow dependency onto a class. They should focus on things like integrating the Mark/Hunt mechanics, and things like traps, camoflage etc. Where ranged abilities already exist they can be made longer range etc but direct bow dependency should be avoided at all costs.

Pendragxn

I envision a battle mage as a character who wields a polearm, which fits perfectly as it combines both the physicality of a weapon and the similarity to a two-handed staff. This weapon choice complements their role—blending magic and melee combat—while allowing them to maintain a dynamic fighting style. They’d wear medium leather armor for agility and protection, engaging in close-range combat with a mix of physical prowess and magical abilities.

However, it’s important to draw a clear line between a fighter/mage hybrid and a mage/fighter. For example, a Spellsword might enchant their weapons and use a great sword, emphasizing the “fighter” side of the hybrid, but I don’t see this approach fitting a battle mage. Instead, I see the battle mage more like a high-fantasy, Western version of a monk, incorporating bojutsu-like skills and martial arts along with their magic.

Ultimately, I hope the developers have the vision to ensure each class is distinct, vivid, and exciting. It’s key to strike a balance between unique class identity and combat dynamics while keeping the gameplay balanced and fun.

Effah

Dygz wrote: »

P0GG0 wrote: »

locking weapons to classes would really help with visual clarity during fights. i really hate not knowing what i'm facing. but they are alternative was to do that.

Why would there be no visual clarity when you see a Tank/Mage wielding a Wand or Bow?
You will recognize the Active Skills of the Tank and the Weapon Skills of the Wand or Bow.
What's not clear about that?

the fact that you took 3 spells before having any clue of who is who? then ur brain has no way of making proper decisions. do you even pvp ?

Smaashley

CROW3 wrote: »

Garrtok wrote: »

CROW3 wrote: »

Freedom for folks to experiment and play what they want & how they want without silly restrictions for armor or weapons.

You don't get it right? Right now there is no incentive to play something else than your standard weapons. There is no mechanic to play as an melee wizard. You would downgrade yourself massively

Hehe. Well, on what basis are you claiming there is no incentive? The reason why “there is no mechanic to play as a melee wizard” is that Intrepid has literally released no practical information about secondary archetype augments such that you could make an informed decision about the benefits and drawbacks of a melee wizard.

Any class any weapon gives you the freedom to opimize your mage to whatever min/max asymtote you like. It also gives me the freedom to not be bound by your path.

The best answer I read in this thread as of now.

nanfoodle

P0GG0 wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

P0GG0 wrote: »

locking weapons to classes would really help with visual clarity during fights. i really hate not knowing what i'm facing. but they are alternative was to do that.

Why would there be no visual clarity when you see a Tank/Mage wielding a Wand or Bow?
You will recognize the Active Skills of the Tank and the Weapon Skills of the Wand or Bow.
What's not clear about that?

the fact that you took 3 spells before having any clue of who is who? then ur brain has no way of making proper decisions. do you even pvp ?

When you target a player you will see the icon beside their name plat that will let you know you are fighting a "Fighter" "Bard" "Tank" What you wont know is how they are spec-ed. How is that any different in RL. Martial Arts, Boxer? Pick a fight, you never know anything till they swing their first punch.

Parsil

This weapon diversity is mostly allowed because secondary class augments might change some of your skills from ranged to melee or from melee to ranged. There is no world where a mage will do good with a huge double-handed melee weapon like an axe or mace instead of a wand or staff. But a Battle Mage (mage + fighter secondary) for example might need a strong melee weapon if you augment many of his spells to require a melee weapon to cast. They were also talking about ranged characters swapping to a melee weapon when engaged in melee range but I don't know if that idea still stands or if they will change it until launch. (I think they gave an example for archer not being allowed to use his bow melee and instead auto-swap for a melee secondary weapon)

Dygz

Lodrig wrote: »

I'm of the opinion that Battle Mage just being a mage with a sword is a terrible design and showcases like that were part of the general fear of classes being lame and unimaginative if they are thinking of a class as being a strait frenkenstein of the surface level features of two archetypes. For one it gives us no distinction between a Fighter/Mage and a Mage/Fighter.

Uh. What??
The primary distinction is that a Fighter/Mage uses Fighter Active Skills while a Mage/Fighter uses Mage Active Skills.
The Fighter/Mage can do a little bit of Mage stuff and the Mage/Fighter can do a little bit of Fighter stuff.
And, yeah, they both could choose to wield a Sword, or the Fighter/Mage could also choose to use a Bow while the Mage/Fighter chooses to wield Daggers.

Lodrig wrote: »

A Fighter/Mage should have an elemental inflused weapon hits linked with combat stances, and a Mage/Fighter should be using spells like Burning hands aka short range quick cast AoE's to litterally 'Pyro' the enemy with. That's how you properly blend the two archetypes into a gestalt while keeping them two inverted classes distinct. Obviously a Mage/Fighter could still weild a sword but it should not be a prerequisite of their skills or abilities, while for the Fighter/Mage dose require a melee weapon because most of the fighter ability set already works that way.

They should use whatever they prefer to use.
And Enchant their weapons however they choose to Enchant their weapons.

Lodrig wrote: »

As weapon types are not archetype restricted (with the annoying Ranger dependency on bow which should be removed by making most skills able to be used in melee) the classes should not either. For example Ranger secondary archetypes should not be introducing bow dependency onto a class. They should focus on things like integrating the Mark/Hunt mechanics, and things like traps, camoflage etc. Where ranged abilities already exist they can be made longer range etc but direct bow dependency should be avoided at all costs.

Probably already the case. Yes.

Child Item