1st time poster and feeling underwhelmed by the class issue. control wizard is all ice and nothing but ice...BLAH! Have never ever liked ice powers in any game...not a huge fire fan but prefer that over ice though electricity lightning is preffered as a caster
The devoted cleric seems blah as well
Anyway; a possible saving grace is that they might allow free form via some real world $$$ thing like cryptics CO does....and the thing that has kept CO alive for so long
Please no. I am in no way happy about how they decided to handle character class but forcing us to spend money just to have a normal character class progression is a bit too much for me. If they decide to go that way its all good with me as i am tired of verbal jousting and trying to make the point that the only problem with the game is the class design.
Not so long after this game launches, the elder scroll online will launch and we already know they have "freeform" classes and its one of the things they are pushing in their marketing campaing...
Yeah I hope they add this class in the near future.
0
Options
jonsi81Member, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero UsersPosts: 4Arc User
edited February 2013
1st time posting . What i have seen so far is that you do not start of in the core class and choose later to become the classes they have put so far up. That is what is bothering me the most is that i would like to maby start as fighter and then chooses how that class will play out. Though they only have 2 choices in that class so far and 1 in the others i would still like to play the core class first and then choose which path he goes.
I hope they add a ranger class in there at some point (hint hint devs)
Me too but I want a true ranger not this hunter type <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> that WoW started... something similar to the Everquest Ranger.
Me too but I want a true ranger not this hunter type <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> that WoW started... something similar to the Everquest Ranger.
I want it similar to the 4th edition Ranger more than the EQ version.
1st time posting . What i have seen so far is that you do not start of in the core class and choose later to become the classes they have put so far up. That is what is bothering me the most is that i would like to maby start as fighter and then chooses how that class will play out. Though they only have 2 choices in that class so far and 1 in the others i would still like to play the core class first and then choose which path he goes.
Don't know if iam making alot of sense or not.
Unfortunately, much like a run-of-the-mill MMO, this is the way 4e is designed (You probably know this, but it bears repeating). This was done to attract more digital RPGers to the PnP world. You have 2 build choices to start with from each class, which later branch out to Paragon builds. This wouldn't normally be a problem, but unlike 4e D&D, NWO doesn't allow for customization beyond a build's skillset at the moment. Speculation aside, it is unknown if this will change.
I think it seems like a very logical choise of release classes, it covers all the most basic roles a group would need to move forward tank/damage/crowd control/healing. Five for launch seems like a good number, to make sure these classes perform like they should its good that they dont have too many to focus on at launch.
Unfortunately, much like a run-of-the-mill MMO, this is the way 4e is designed (You probably know this, but it bears repeating). This was done to attract more digital RPGers to the PnP world. You have 2 build choices to start with from each class, which later branch out to Paragon builds. This wouldn't normally be a problem, but unlike 4e D&D, NWO doesn't allow for customization beyond a build's skillset at the moment. Speculation aside, it is unknown if this will change.
The way the game mechanics and character customization operate have nothing to do with how they operate in 4e.
4e is highly customizable, in many ways more than 3e. There are no "2 build choices", they do recommend builds for beginners which actually only means what you get at lvl 1. At every level up, even those build choices do not 'recommend' or even suggest you to take anything.
In short, class builds mean nothing in 4e, except to help people start by having powers and feats with synergy at lvl 1. That is their only function.
To further your knowledge bout how multiclassing/hybrid works, check my sigs on intro of 4e.
Also paragon paths are not limited to "builds" [but classes in many(not all) cases]. Infact many paragon paths are restricted to races or deities or even origins(or not restricted at all).
Please tell me that there will be a class I do not care which one were I will be able to dual wield longswords and above?
Maaaaaybe rogues, if the game allows you to use any one handed weapon without restrictions. Right now they can definitely use dual daggers (some of which look more like short swords to me) and people have reported an axe. When the two weapon ranger comes out, I'm sure they'll be using two longswords.
0
Options
sundraconMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 0Arc User
Please tell me that there will be a class I do not care which one were I will be able to dual wield longswords and above?
In 4e pnp, the only ones able to do that are rangers and characters with the ranger multiclass feat. Chances are good that the Two-Blade Ranger is on their short list of classes to add.
In 4e pnp, the only ones able to do that are rangers and characters with the ranger multiclass feat. Chances are good that the Two-Blade Ranger is on their short list of classes to add.
Awsome I can't wait I like dual welding a lot because well it looks so cool but I like only when the weapons are big not small like daggers and short swords and ranger is a good class still it seems that the last rule set for D&D is realy not that good but you get what you get.
When they say at launch do they mean beta launch? If you're going to launch the actual game with just 5 classes that's not enough. I think the first Neverwinter game had more than 8 classes.
Five initial classes at launch, with the priority to get more out there soon after.
Not cool, seriously not cool. Appreciate the work they're doing but yes they're going to have to make that a priority.
I'm really not feeling this class system I don't think. I think I will be waiting for the other classes before playing. Yes and as the article said what about multi-classing? Why do we have two types of fighters instead of having one fighter class which we can modify?
What's interesting to me is how the action gameplay works. I don't really want cosmetic classes that play the same even if they are D&D cannon. Actually, I DO want those classes, but I'd like to see clever engineers and combat designers come up with way to make them feel like they play a bit differently.
For example, I can easily imagine a druid playing differently because they are healers capable of switching out of a heal role to be combat specialist polymorphs who then only retain minor healing. They could have a healer/control tree and a hybrid-combat/healer tree. Likewise, the bard seems like it would be a fun hybrid that has a spell-singer build that focuses on casting and buffing and a song-sword who fights from the front lines while providing excellent group buffs and attacks that provide both short-but-powerful spikes of control as well as damage. That would also be fun for the sound engineer as they'd need to make the bard actually sound good or we'd all hate being grouped with him (like Force Field heroes when CoH launched). The ranger could be made a pet class, though I'm not sure how that would work or be fun with the system I've seen in videos so far, though I can imagine an acrobatic thief that uses either a bow or a staff as a possibly very fun class that springs around the battlefield to avoid damage and get flanking bonuses. Hmm. . . I guess there is a lot of room for variety still. I think they already know that too, but they are hitting the major archetypes for launch.
0
Options
asboeMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited March 2013
thats it then ....not buying it with no ranger sorry ...got all excited for nothing (
some one call me if you decide to make a propper game.
As a pnp player I am an avid MAGI player. Warlock, Inquisitor and Wizards are NOT Magi. When are we to have magi? My favorite build was a BattleMagi and I see nothing to compare this to., nor have I seen anything when doing research on this game.
I understand 4th Ed is completely different from all the other editions, with the gaming industry it had to be made to fit in with that society.
I will look at this new game with a jaundiced eye, I play STO, and I am aware of the Publishing tricks of PWE/C I will take my free weekend and look around. I probably will not play until Magi are introduced into the game.
Please remember Beta can show a lot of "Pretties" and a bunch of them could not be in the main launch of the game. Good luck PWE/C and may we fill your coffers with Zen.
0
Options
muzrub333Member, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
thats it then ....not buying it with no ranger sorry ...got all excited for nothing (
some one call me if you decide to make a propper game.
LOL.
First, it's F2P so you can't buy the game, second, if you'd do a little research, you'd see that they plan on having the ranger soon. Would you rather have a bugged Ranger, that later gets nerfed, or wait a bit for one that actually works?
As a pnp player I am an avid MAGI player. Warlock, Inquisitor and Wizards are NOT Magi. When are we to have magi? My favorite build was a BattleMagi and I see nothing to compare this to., nor have I seen anything when doing research on this game.
I understand 4th Ed is completely different from all the other editions, with the gaming industry it had to be made to fit in with that society.
Wizards are in fact magi, if by magi you mean mage. The only edition where "mages" actually exist as a name for the class was the 2nd, and even in 2nd edition the book that described the class in extensive detail was the "Complete Wizards Handbook." In 1st edition the class was called magic-user, and in 3rd and 4th edition the class was called wizard. You are right, though, warlocks and inquisitors are not wizards(or mages which is the plural used in 2nd edition most usually, despite items like the staff of the magi.)
Now if you instead mean magi and not mage, I don't know what to tell you as that has never been an official class name in any edition of D&D.
makari2180Member, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 3Arc User
edited March 2013
I have read all about how they chose these 5 classes to attempt to fill all roles, but I think they've left out some very important aspects of gameplay.
from a traditional MMO viewpoint:
1. as far as i can tell there's no physical ranged class, no ranger / archer / marksman what-have-you (I think this alone will dissuade a significant portion of players that identify with that character type / playstyle)
2. there's also no "nuker" glass-cannon style wizard / warlock high damage mage that we've had any hint of (again i think this carves out a significant player base that identifies with that character type and playstyle)
and from a traditional DnD view
3. there are no fighter / cleric hybrids of any sort, which practically every dnd game i've ever played has relied on, paladin, warrior-clerics for helm or moradin, or even druids (which i think was a huge missed opportunity for player diversity)
and from both points of view
4. Lack of a Bard / Harper / true support cleric, any full group support style character i think dissappoints players looking at it from both perspectives, dnd enthusiasts would love the story / setting elements of being able to play the swashbuckling bard / lore and knowledge hunter type character, and players from the MMO perspective are seeing an entire lack of support role, you seem to either be damage or healing with an emphasis on damage, there is no form of support class in the way of increasing party damage, increasing party chance to dodge, increasing party attack speed, decreasing nearby enemy damage, other variations of party support (i've seen some very small party helping effects as a side-effect of another classes main ability, but nothing major)
I have read all about how they chose these 5 classes to attempt to fill all roles, but I think they've left out some very important aspects of gameplay.
from a traditional MMO viewpoint:
1. as far as i can tell there's no physical ranged class, no ranger / archer / marksman what-have-you (I think this alone will dissuade a significant portion of players that identify with that character type / playstyle)
2. there's also no "nuker" glass-cannon style wizard / warlock high damage mage that we've had any hint of (again i think this carves out a significant player base that identifies with that character type and playstyle)
and from a traditional DnD view
3. there are no fighter / cleric hybrids of any sort, which practically every dnd game i've ever played has relied on, paladin, warrior-clerics for helm or moradin, or even druids (which i think was a huge missed opportunity for player diversity)
and from both points of view
4. Lack of a Bard / Harper / true support cleric, any full group support style character i think dissappoints players looking at it from both perspectives, dnd enthusiasts would love the story / setting elements of being able to play the swashbuckling bard / lore and knowledge hunter type character, and players from the MMO perspective are seeing an entire lack of support role, you seem to either be damage or healing with an emphasis on damage, there is no form of support class in the way of increasing party damage, increasing party chance to dodge, increasing party attack speed, decreasing nearby enemy damage, other variations of party support (i've seen some very small party helping effects as a side-effect of another classes main ability, but nothing major)
As I posted on several occasions, the "Archer" and the "Scourge" (warlock) are in the code and will probably be released shortly after launch.
Could they use more Gods? Sure. Should gods give some kind of flavor as well as their background? HECK YES. but they dont.
While bards would be interesting, the clerics in place are not bad. There are no "buff bots" in game. It is all buffs through combat, which I enjoy. No more sitting around for 10 minutes laying on 20 buffs just to be combat effective.
Is this game perfect? No. Could it be better? Yes. I would like it to be more in line with Neverwinter Nights. But I am not going to get that.
there is no form of support class in the way of increasing party damage, increasing party chance to dodge, increasing party attack speed, decreasing nearby enemy damage, other variations of party support (i've seen some very small party helping effects as a side-effect of another classes main ability, but nothing major)
I have read all about how they chose these 5 classes to attempt to fill all roles, but I think they've left out some very important aspects of gameplay.
...snip...
Give them time, it will come later. They didn't say that those classes would be the only ones ever existing but rather only used as a solid "core" or roles to start the game with. Besides they are talking about the D&D roles of defender, striker, tactician and controller.
0
Options
bruddajokkaMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Hero Users, Neverwinter Knight of the Feywild UsersPosts: 447Bounty Hunter
edited March 2013
You are aware this isn't Pathfinder? It's 4th Edition Forgotten Realms. Which means the classes available are the ones that have been released in books for Fourth Edition DnD.
Comments
Please no. I am in no way happy about how they decided to handle character class but forcing us to spend money just to have a normal character class progression is a bit too much for me. If they decide to go that way its all good with me as i am tired of verbal jousting and trying to make the point that the only problem with the game is the class design.
Not so long after this game launches, the elder scroll online will launch and we already know they have "freeform" classes and its one of the things they are pushing in their marketing campaing...
Yeah I hope they add this class in the near future.
Don't know if iam making alot of sense or not.
Me too but I want a true ranger not this hunter type <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> that WoW started... something similar to the Everquest Ranger.
I want it similar to the 4th edition Ranger more than the EQ version.
Unfortunately, much like a run-of-the-mill MMO, this is the way 4e is designed (You probably know this, but it bears repeating). This was done to attract more digital RPGers to the PnP world. You have 2 build choices to start with from each class, which later branch out to Paragon builds. This wouldn't normally be a problem, but unlike 4e D&D, NWO doesn't allow for customization beyond a build's skillset at the moment. Speculation aside, it is unknown if this will change.
I'll probably come back to this game in a year then.
The way the game mechanics and character customization operate have nothing to do with how they operate in 4e.
4e is highly customizable, in many ways more than 3e. There are no "2 build choices", they do recommend builds for beginners which actually only means what you get at lvl 1. At every level up, even those build choices do not 'recommend' or even suggest you to take anything.
In short, class builds mean nothing in 4e, except to help people start by having powers and feats with synergy at lvl 1. That is their only function.
To further your knowledge bout how multiclassing/hybrid works, check my sigs on intro of 4e.
Also paragon paths are not limited to "builds" [but classes in many(not all) cases]. Infact many paragon paths are restricted to races or deities or even origins(or not restricted at all).
Maaaaaybe rogues, if the game allows you to use any one handed weapon without restrictions. Right now they can definitely use dual daggers (some of which look more like short swords to me) and people have reported an axe. When the two weapon ranger comes out, I'm sure they'll be using two longswords.
Rhun, Halfing Fighter of the Greater Weapons
Not cool, seriously not cool. Appreciate the work they're doing but yes they're going to have to make that a priority.
I'm really not feeling this class system I don't think. I think I will be waiting for the other classes before playing. Yes and as the article said what about multi-classing? Why do we have two types of fighters instead of having one fighter class which we can modify?
For example, I can easily imagine a druid playing differently because they are healers capable of switching out of a heal role to be combat specialist polymorphs who then only retain minor healing. They could have a healer/control tree and a hybrid-combat/healer tree. Likewise, the bard seems like it would be a fun hybrid that has a spell-singer build that focuses on casting and buffing and a song-sword who fights from the front lines while providing excellent group buffs and attacks that provide both short-but-powerful spikes of control as well as damage. That would also be fun for the sound engineer as they'd need to make the bard actually sound good or we'd all hate being grouped with him (like Force Field heroes when CoH launched). The ranger could be made a pet class, though I'm not sure how that would work or be fun with the system I've seen in videos so far, though I can imagine an acrobatic thief that uses either a bow or a staff as a possibly very fun class that springs around the battlefield to avoid damage and get flanking bonuses. Hmm. . . I guess there is a lot of room for variety still. I think they already know that too, but they are hitting the major archetypes for launch.
some one call me if you decide to make a propper game.
As a pnp player I am an avid MAGI player. Warlock, Inquisitor and Wizards are NOT Magi. When are we to have magi? My favorite build was a BattleMagi and I see nothing to compare this to., nor have I seen anything when doing research on this game.
I understand 4th Ed is completely different from all the other editions, with the gaming industry it had to be made to fit in with that society.
I will look at this new game with a jaundiced eye, I play STO, and I am aware of the Publishing tricks of PWE/C I will take my free weekend and look around. I probably will not play until Magi are introduced into the game.
Please remember Beta can show a lot of "Pretties" and a bunch of them could not be in the main launch of the game. Good luck PWE/C and may we fill your coffers with Zen.
LOL.
First, it's F2P so you can't buy the game, second, if you'd do a little research, you'd see that they plan on having the ranger soon. Would you rather have a bugged Ranger, that later gets nerfed, or wait a bit for one that actually works?
Wizards are in fact magi, if by magi you mean mage. The only edition where "mages" actually exist as a name for the class was the 2nd, and even in 2nd edition the book that described the class in extensive detail was the "Complete Wizards Handbook." In 1st edition the class was called magic-user, and in 3rd and 4th edition the class was called wizard. You are right, though, warlocks and inquisitors are not wizards(or mages which is the plural used in 2nd edition most usually, despite items like the staff of the magi.)
Now if you instead mean magi and not mage, I don't know what to tell you as that has never been an official class name in any edition of D&D.
Neverwinter Official Wiki - http://neverwinter.gamepedia.com/
from a traditional MMO viewpoint:
1. as far as i can tell there's no physical ranged class, no ranger / archer / marksman what-have-you (I think this alone will dissuade a significant portion of players that identify with that character type / playstyle)
2. there's also no "nuker" glass-cannon style wizard / warlock high damage mage that we've had any hint of (again i think this carves out a significant player base that identifies with that character type and playstyle)
and from a traditional DnD view
3. there are no fighter / cleric hybrids of any sort, which practically every dnd game i've ever played has relied on, paladin, warrior-clerics for helm or moradin, or even druids (which i think was a huge missed opportunity for player diversity)
and from both points of view
4. Lack of a Bard / Harper / true support cleric, any full group support style character i think dissappoints players looking at it from both perspectives, dnd enthusiasts would love the story / setting elements of being able to play the swashbuckling bard / lore and knowledge hunter type character, and players from the MMO perspective are seeing an entire lack of support role, you seem to either be damage or healing with an emphasis on damage, there is no form of support class in the way of increasing party damage, increasing party chance to dodge, increasing party attack speed, decreasing nearby enemy damage, other variations of party support (i've seen some very small party helping effects as a side-effect of another classes main ability, but nothing major)
As I posted on several occasions, the "Archer" and the "Scourge" (warlock) are in the code and will probably be released shortly after launch.
Could they use more Gods? Sure. Should gods give some kind of flavor as well as their background? HECK YES. but they dont.
While bards would be interesting, the clerics in place are not bad. There are no "buff bots" in game. It is all buffs through combat, which I enjoy. No more sitting around for 10 minutes laying on 20 buffs just to be combat effective.
Is this game perfect? No. Could it be better? Yes. I would like it to be more in line with Neverwinter Nights. But I am not going to get that.
When you want to break the mold
BETA Tips and Tricks
Never saw Pants in beta?