once they get to 20 level, they get to choose one of 3 paragon trees. shapeshifter summoner order of circles/Warder
if they choose shapeshifter, 11 skill modifiers will be ability to change form of creatures, also a buffer if in groups T1 hawk form > speed buff/AP regen, T2 wolf form > shealth/avoidance (ability to jump away from red rings), T3 bear form > strength, T4 Ghost Hart (massive heals), and then T5 "Green Man" form > aoe resists.
summoner, 11 skill modifiers, ability to call the creatures. tier one > squirels/rabbits (bludgeon damages) up to 5 seconds, tier two > wildcats/badgers (slash damages) up to 5-6 seconds, Tier three > wolves/other biters (piercing damages), tier four > bears/ghost hunters (armor penerating {not same as piercing version}/ignore defense base), and last, Tier five "Lord of the Hunt" an elven huntmaster ghost) buff groups to deal 2x aoe effects up to 10 seconds and 30 seconds cooldowns.
order of the circles/Warders, 11 skill modifiers, ability to use force of nature. tier one > grapling vines, tier two > blood rose thorn darts (heals groups and damage to target/s), tier three > quicksand (stronger version of root effect with DoT damages/target mobs in range 10 seconds), tier four > summon the bees (poison damages over time - up to 5 seconds), tier 5 > Trent Gaurdian, (massive bludgeon aoe) up to 8 seconds.
any skills that druid have from level 1 to 19 will have some classic damages and heals. after any selected paragon tree they choose, will be slotted on 4th new combat slot for druids when they pick and switch when selected or needed for groups or solo.
You cant have it both ways. You cant say all strikers can be different. Yet all other class types are useless because the will duplicate themselves. Id like to think that WotC has done this long enough that leader classes can do similar jobs yet still remain unique. After all Paladin didn't kill DC or GF. Ranger or Warlock didn't kill CW, despite all the doom before hand. There is no reason at all to believe Bard wont have a place as well. Or Druid as an optional controller.
Both, have more unique skills to offer, and far more diversity then another striker. After all, where would monk fit? Another single target boss killer like TR? Another off-tank like GWF? We even got a duel wielding melee striker with HR.
Not that it really matters, Polls have indicated monk is popular, but it has in each and every single poll always come in behind some other class. Perhaps after a few more classes come up, monk might finally get reach the top. But I don't expect it to happen before either bard or druid.
The current classes are viable because they all fill their niche roles. That's why OP didn't kill DC, or GF (although OP almost did kill GF, hence the nerf) HR or SW didn't kill CW because CW is better at control. If your party doesn't need control you might want a SW who is pure caster dps - two different niche roles ... It's different for healing. There are only 2 main types of healers in any MMO and I've played enough MMO's to know. Single target heals and aoe heals. DC has good aoe heals and OP has good single target heals. SW is more of a less common type of healer; it does minor support heals which nobody ever picks so I make my point. There is not much else a Cryptic can do in terms of healing. Like I said; Cryptic would have to come up with something very unique to make another healer class viable. Making another caster/healer/buffer type champion just for the sake of giving players an option is redundant.
The problem with bards: a class based purely on support won't be viable because there are already classes who can fill that role with their feats. [...]
The introduction of a new classes is not based on if there are existing classes which can fill that role, but because players want it or because other reasons.
Take bard for example, of course we know DC can fill that role, but some players might have no desire to play a divine leader and would like to try out a arcane leader instead.
True, but if you have a class that can heal and support vs a class that can only support, which are you going to take with you into dungeons? Therefor bards will get the short end of the stick unless they can fill some kind of niche that the other classes can't.
Bard is a leader class, it can heal. In fact, if we get bard, it will be only the 2nd leader class in the game. So options, in this case, are a good thing. Or should we remove 3 of the 4 striker classes we currently have, because one might be better then the others?
I'm just saying, be careful with your with this line of argument, monk, after all, is another striker. The one class type we already have an abundance of. Do we really honestly need a 5th striker?
A healing bard who can support is basically another DC. Unless they make him excel at something, maybe single target heals. They would really need to make something unique about the class to make it viable.
The strikers on the other hand are all unique in their own way. A TR is supposed to be good at single target bosses, GWF is good at off-tanking, HR is good at range. SW is more of a ranged TR with good sustained dps vs burst. It was also Cryptic's attempt at the 'summon pet' mechanic which kind of turned out to be just another dot. A CW is control.
Considering the new classes were, range, caster, tank/healer, another striker would be nice.
Bard is a leader class so it can heal, as sockmunkey said. Yet bard is noticeably different from cleric. From what I have learned from 4e rulebooks, bard does not have as many healing powers as cleric has, but it has a large amount of powers which can buff/debuff. At least 80% of bard powers not only deal damage, but also buff allies or debuff foes. That makes bard a superior buffer/debuffer. I really was impressed when I read that. That apparently is where bard excels at.
Damage dealing class with buffs is a poor option. Let me explain: the game only allows 3 encounter powers. If you're supposed to be dealing damage, but instead you're casting spells that buff/debuff, you are not dealing damage and you are not filling your role therefor your class will not be viable. When you cast a buff/debuff spell, that spell has to make up for the damage you could be dealing with a direct damaging spell. Take into consideration you will only be buffing 2 other damage dealers (tanks and healers won't be dealing much damage) and it's basically a waste of an encounter slot. This is why none of the current damage dealing classes have many support spells. This is also why Cryptic gave most of the support spells to the tanks and healers. The only exception to this is HR but he basically has 6 encounter powers because he has 2 stances. So a damage dealing/buffer will either be a weak damage dealer or a weak buffer, therefor nobody will pick it for groups (unless maybe raids but as the game is now there are only 2 raid trials)
I don't expect to see new classes this year. Cryptic has already said no to them until they are once again happy with balance. That said, Cryptic has a long habit of foreshadowing new classes by introducing NPCs and companions of that new class. After all, if you are going to introduce a new class, one that already has art or animation assets in game would be the logical choice. Even if such things are minimal, any head start is better then none.
We already have bard and druid companions. We even have central druid NPCs. The entire Elemental Evil plot line completely revolves around druids. So, two classes with a bit of work already invested in them. With the added bonus of having connections to existing story and lore. So, where does that put monks? Nowhere, monks have zip, zilch, nada. There isn't a single power, art asset, NPC, or even companion for monks. The closest one can come would be the Dragonborn brawler, but even that is a reskinned rogue. It is even listed and categorized as a rogue. Based on this alone, it's safe to say monk is not going to be next, and most likely wont be for some time.
The problem with bards: a class based purely on support won't be viable because there are already classes who can fill that role with their feats. [...]
The introduction of a new classes is not based on if there are existing classes which can fill that role, but because players want it or because other reasons.
Take bard for example, of course we know DC can fill that role, but some players might have no desire to play a divine leader and would like to try out a arcane leader instead.
True, but if you have a class that can heal and support vs a class that can only support, which are you going to take with you into dungeons? Therefor bards will get the short end of the stick unless they can fill some kind of niche that the other classes can't.
Bard is a leader class, it can heal. In fact, if we get bard, it will be only the 2nd leader class in the game. So options, in this case, are a good thing. Or should we remove 3 of the 4 striker classes we currently have, because one might be better then the others?
I'm just saying, be careful with your with this line of argument, monk, after all, is another striker. The one class type we already have an abundance of. Do we really honestly need a 5th striker?
A healing bard who can support is basically another DC. Unless they make him excel at something, maybe single target heals. They would really need to make something unique about the class to make it viable.
The strikers on the other hand are all unique in their own way. A TR is supposed to be good at single target bosses, GWF is good at off-tanking, HR is good at range. SW is more of a ranged TR with good sustained dps vs burst. It was also Cryptic's attempt at the 'summon pet' mechanic which kind of turned out to be just another dot. A CW is control.
Considering the new classes were, range, caster, tank/healer, another striker would be nice.
Bard is a leader class so it can heal, as sockmunkey said. Yet bard is noticeably different from cleric. From what I have learned from 4e rulebooks, bard does not have as many healing powers as cleric has, but it has a large amount of powers which can buff/debuff. At least 80% of bard powers not only deal damage, but also buff allies or debuff foes. That makes bard a superior buffer/debuffer. I really was impressed when I read that. That apparently is where bard excels at.
Damage dealing class with buffs is a poor option. Let me explain: the game only allows 3 encounter powers. If you're supposed to be dealing damage, but instead you're casting spells that buff/debuff, you are not dealing damage and you are not filling your role therefor your class will not be viable. When you cast a buff/debuff spell, that spell has to make up for the damage you could be dealing with a direct damaging spell. Take into consideration you will only be buffing 2 other damage dealers (tanks and healers won't be dealing much damage) and it's basically a waste of an encounter slot. This is why none of the current damage dealing classes have many support spells. This is also why Cryptic gave most of the support spells to the tanks and healers. The only exception to this is HR but he basically has 6 encounter powers because he has 2 stances. So a damage dealing/buffer will either be a weak damage dealer or a weak buffer, therefor nobody will pick it for groups (unless maybe raids but as the game is now there are only 2 raid trials)
Not sure if I was clear. I was saying those bard powers do both damage and buff/debuff at the same time. So you won't need different power slots for damaging and buff/debuff powers.
I don't expect to see new classes this year. Cryptic has already said no to them until they are once again happy with balance. That said, Cryptic has a long habit of foreshadowing new classes by introducing NPCs and companions of that new class. After all, if you are going to introduce a new class, one that already has art or animation assets in game would be the logical choice. Even if such things are minimal, any head start is better then none.
We already have bard and druid companions. We even have central druid NPCs. The entire Elemental Evil plot line completely revolves around druids. So, two classes with a bit of work already invested in them. With the added bonus of having connections to existing story and lore. So, where does that put monks? Nowhere, monks have zip, zilch, nada. There isn't a single power, art asset, NPC, or even companion for monks. The closest one can come would be the Dragonborn brawler, but even that is a reskinned rogue. It is even listed and categorized as a rogue. Based on this alone, it's safe to say monk is not going to be next, and most likely wont be for some time.
The foreshadowing new classes by introducing NPCs sometimes makes me think of Drizzt. Although I'm not likely to play melee classes, Drizzt's combat animations looks cool to me. And I once even suspected that the next class would be Two-Blade Ranger since some of its combat animations have been implemented. That said, I personally hope the next class is bard.
The problem with bards: a class based purely on support won't be viable because there are already classes who can fill that role with their feats. [...]
The introduction of a new classes is not based on if there are existing classes which can fill that role, but because players want it or because other reasons.
Take bard for example, of course we know DC can fill that role, but some players might have no desire to play a divine leader and would like to try out a arcane leader instead.
True, but if you have a class that can heal and support vs a class that can only support, which are you going to take with you into dungeons? Therefor bards will get the short end of the stick unless they can fill some kind of niche that the other classes can't.
Bard is a leader class, it can heal. In fact, if we get bard, it will be only the 2nd leader class in the game. So options, in this case, are a good thing. Or should we remove 3 of the 4 striker classes we currently have, because one might be better then the others?
I'm just saying, be careful with your with this line of argument, monk, after all, is another striker. The one class type we already have an abundance of. Do we really honestly need a 5th striker?
A healing bard who can support is basically another DC. Unless they make him excel at something, maybe single target heals. They would really need to make something unique about the class to make it viable.
The strikers on the other hand are all unique in their own way. A TR is supposed to be good at single target bosses, GWF is good at off-tanking, HR is good at range. SW is more of a ranged TR with good sustained dps vs burst. It was also Cryptic's attempt at the 'summon pet' mechanic which kind of turned out to be just another dot. A CW is control.
Considering the new classes were, range, caster, tank/healer, another striker would be nice.
Bard is a leader class so it can heal, as sockmunkey said. Yet bard is noticeably different from cleric. From what I have learned from 4e rulebooks, bard does not have as many healing powers as cleric has, but it has a large amount of powers which can buff/debuff. At least 80% of bard powers not only deal damage, but also buff allies or debuff foes. That makes bard a superior buffer/debuffer. I really was impressed when I read that. That apparently is where bard excels at.
Damage dealing class with buffs is a poor option. Let me explain: the game only allows 3 encounter powers. If you're supposed to be dealing damage, but instead you're casting spells that buff/debuff, you are not dealing damage and you are not filling your role therefor your class will not be viable. When you cast a buff/debuff spell, that spell has to make up for the damage you could be dealing with a direct damaging spell. Take into consideration you will only be buffing 2 other damage dealers (tanks and healers won't be dealing much damage) and it's basically a waste of an encounter slot. This is why none of the current damage dealing classes have many support spells. This is also why Cryptic gave most of the support spells to the tanks and healers. The only exception to this is HR but he basically has 6 encounter powers because he has 2 stances. So a damage dealing/buffer will either be a weak damage dealer or a weak buffer, therefor nobody will pick it for groups (unless maybe raids but as the game is now there are only 2 raid trials)
Not sure if I was clear. I was saying those bard powers do both damage and buff/debuff at the same time. So you won't need different power slots for damaging and buff/debuff powers.
It's the same thing. An ability that does damage and buffs simultaneously would be similar to HR Longstrider Shot. But this does very little damage because an ability that does high damage and buffs would be too strong. This is why people rarely ever use in 5 man dungeons. So, if they were to make a class that dealt damage and buffs at the same time, it would be similar to this.
It's the same thing. An ability that does damage and buffs simultaneously would be similar to HR Longstrider Shot. But this does very little damage because an ability that does high damage and buffs would be too strong. This is why people rarely ever use in 5 man dungeons. So, if they were to make a class that dealt damage and buffs at the same time, it would be similar to this.
Bard's powers don't need to do high damage since bard is a Leader class. Moderate damage would be okay. Maybe somewhat higher than cleric's and lower than wizard's and fighter's.
As a side note, the class diversity is being in need of an improvement. Currently, it looks like that every class can buff allies, and that makes bard not so special. Buffing/debuffing should be an ability which only a certain classes are proud to feature, not a common ability which everyone can do.
Looking at how the classes have been rolled out, GF and GWF have dungeone skill, DC and OP have religious skill, CW and SW have arcane skill, the HR with nature skill, and the TR has thief skill. If balance is the name of the game, then a bard, monk, or thief sub-class seems in order. A fighting monk between "the Drunken Master" and "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" would seem ideal to my liking.
I love martial arts movies and blended worlds like Jade Empire, but always hated the inclusion in Forgotten Realms.
Casual Gamers
Join us brothers and sisters and distant relations and confused onlookers.
Join us in the shadows where we stand mostly vigilant... although slightly distracted by our inventories. "In war, unqualified. In peace, disorganised. In death, mild irritation."
Well, the vote sets the order of liking as Druid, Monk, Bard for new character classes. The remaining 5th edition rules class is the Barbarian, while the other possibilities have appeared as companions including the Bard. The Moonshae Druid looks okay as a prototype for a new class to pair with the Hunter Ranger religious skill kit.
I still like the Monk as two fighting styles with overlap is fairly easy, and still have two Paragon paths. The monk would get their apparel from the Tailor like the Control Wizard, and saber/dagger type weapons from the Weaponsmith like those for the Trickster Rogue.
Monk would be cool if they gave them claws as a weapon, but monks have to wait in line behind druid and bard. Druid will probably get a staff or a club, bard should have a short sword I guess. In between the trickster rogue's dagger and the guardian fighter's longsword. Offhand for bard should be his or her musical instrument. Lute would be the default, but can have appearance changes to flutes, drums, harps, etc. I think the instrument should be on the bard's back, tied/attached to a backpack.
Bard is versatile. It can also be played as a ranged class and is not restricted to be a melee class only.
Post edited by ianthewizard2012 on
0
hammerslam1Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 20Arc User
Honestly I would love to see Assassin's but all that are listed are good too. Monk if done right would be brutal with attacks!
Since this started off with 4th Ed., I'd like to see Warlord, but I think between GF and OP they would be lost. I see the GF already has some Warlord type powers, and the heal from OP class kinda make the Warlord suboptimal as a new class.
I'm kind of interested to hear not just what classes people want, but some specific ideas about functions/abilities, gear proposals, etc.
Some thoughts: Monk would be nice, something else that wears cloth would be some nice variety, lots of leathery types now. However that would be 3 Religion characters, I assume. Would they have handwraps as both weapon slots, or would one slot be handwraps and the other be Prayer Beads? Shift can't be tumble (Rogues have that) so I guess they would either Leap or have a "deflection" type guard position? Perhaps Tab would shift from offensive stance to defensive stance, changing Powers like the Ranger does?
Bard I would love. Cloth or Mail armor (at least in 2ed they could wear chain). I just don't want another leather. I think one of their Features (yellow power) could be the ability to act as if they had an appropriate kit for nodes, or give them a 50% chance if they don't have the right kit (jack of all trades, master of none). I hope they have a weapon and an instrument. When I first started playing a while back I was crushed I could not have a Cleric with a mace like I was used to (I know Pally does that now, though THEY should have swords...).
Fighters: I am with the people who say GF and GWF should be combined (and yes I have both classes and it wouldn't bother me) this would allow Barbarians to be introduced. I would be in favor of having one weapon slot be a one handed weapon AND a shield and the othe slot being a two handed weapon. Tab would swap the weapons, effecting the powers ala Rangers.
On a final note when I saw that there were two distinct types of Fighters in the beginning and all the other classes also had a descriptor before their class type (Trickster Rogue etc.) I thought this would be a pattern for future classes. I thought we were going to get Thug Rogues, Righteous (War) Clerics, Illusionist Wizards, Swashbuckler Rogues. Otherwise why not just call them Wizards, Clerics etc. I still think, if GF and GWF are kept separate (which I know they will be, sigh) releasing new Rogues, Clerics, etc would be neat.
I hadn't played the game for a while until recently, I kept checking back once in a while to see if we had monks yet and logging out when there were none. I've been playing lately, but really I want to see monks in this game so bad. I came to the forums to see if there was a feedback thread just so I could make a post to ask for monks. I'm glad to see this poll, but sad to see that monks are second to druids.
I want an engineer who makes his tools through professions that may or may not work in combat. Nifty contraptions that can turn the tides of battle in your favor or horribly backfire, leaving you knocked down wondering what the hell just happened.
Yes i know it sounds like a profession/class from another game but it was fun. Not much laughter going on here, it's all ego stroking stats and scores bragging.
A bit more sillyness wouldnt hurt in my opinion. It's just pixels.
Well, It would be nice to see a Dwarven battlerager or just Battlerager class.
0
obsiddiaMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,025Arc User
edited May 2016
Monk with psionic abilities. Should be able to toss single opponents away with a powered strike. Also mind attacks along the line of Demogorgon. Mirror image, no falling damage, etc.
(If I get a dream race thrown in for this: Thri-kreen)
Did you really think anyone could steal the power of the god of thieves?
0
arandompandaMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 107Arc User
For me it's a toss-up between Druid and Bard. Barbarian already exists in the game and is named GWF.
To be honest. All I want is a dual sword wielder that attacks like drizzt. I like the trickster rogue's daggers, but when fighting next to drizzt, your at wills seem so lame in comparison.
0
minotaur2857Member, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 1,141Arc User
Voted druid, but would like to see a PC psionic class, possibly ardent or psion plus also monk. Bard doesn't really interest me. If barbarian is done, I'd like to see 2 forms much like the way OP was done, the classic fighter type and the warcry shouty buff/debuff type.
I did not like doing this vote. I do think a druid or shaman is needed for the option of a different type of healer/buff/debuff. That being said the Bard to me is the most appealing and have always been instrumental in lore. After all who will sing of our glorious battles? Who better to bolster our morale and inspire us to charge in to battle?! Necromancer just seems to fit with all D&D type games regardless of title. The SW almost fits that roll and I believe they have little choice but to work on the SW class and hone in on that style of game play so not really at the top of the list IMO.
Devs have given a bit more detail than that, let's be honest. Druids have been in the works for over 2 years now. How much more time is needed for class balance?
Is the next class indefinitely on hold? Perhaps pending graphics assets and artwork left unfinished since spring '15?
Any news about new class? Mod2 - HR, Mod4 - SW, Mod6 - OP, now we have got Mod9 and we do not even know which one (Druid won?) from poll and when next class will goes live?
Comments
once they get to 20 level, they get to choose one of 3 paragon trees.
shapeshifter
summoner
order of circles/Warder
if they choose shapeshifter, 11 skill modifiers will be ability to change form of creatures, also a buffer if in groups
T1 hawk form > speed buff/AP regen, T2 wolf form > shealth/avoidance (ability to jump away from red rings), T3 bear form > strength, T4 Ghost Hart (massive heals), and then T5 "Green Man" form > aoe resists.
summoner, 11 skill modifiers, ability to call the creatures.
tier one > squirels/rabbits (bludgeon damages) up to 5 seconds, tier two > wildcats/badgers (slash damages) up to 5-6 seconds, Tier three > wolves/other biters (piercing damages), tier four > bears/ghost hunters (armor penerating {not same as piercing version}/ignore defense base), and last, Tier five "Lord of the Hunt" an elven huntmaster ghost) buff groups to deal 2x aoe effects up to 10 seconds and 30 seconds cooldowns.
order of the circles/Warders, 11 skill modifiers, ability to use force of nature.
tier one > grapling vines, tier two > blood rose thorn darts (heals groups and damage to target/s), tier three > quicksand (stronger version of root effect with DoT damages/target mobs in range 10 seconds), tier four > summon the bees (poison damages over time - up to 5 seconds), tier 5 > Trent Gaurdian, (massive bludgeon aoe) up to 8 seconds.
any skills that druid have from level 1 to 19 will have some classic damages and heals.
after any selected paragon tree they choose, will be slotted on 4th new combat slot for druids when they pick and switch when selected or needed for groups or solo.
It's different for healing. There are only 2 main types of healers in any MMO and I've played enough MMO's to know. Single target heals and aoe heals. DC has good aoe heals and OP has good single target heals. SW is more of a less common type of healer; it does minor support heals which nobody ever picks so I make my point. There is not much else a Cryptic can do in terms of healing. Like I said; Cryptic would have to come up with something very unique to make another healer class viable. Making another caster/healer/buffer type champion just for the sake of giving players an option is redundant. Damage dealing class with buffs is a poor option. Let me explain: the game only allows 3 encounter powers. If you're supposed to be dealing damage, but instead you're casting spells that buff/debuff, you are not dealing damage and you are not filling your role therefor your class will not be viable. When you cast a buff/debuff spell, that spell has to make up for the damage you could be dealing with a direct damaging spell. Take into consideration you will only be buffing 2 other damage dealers (tanks and healers won't be dealing much damage) and it's basically a waste of an encounter slot. This is why none of the current damage dealing classes have many support spells. This is also why Cryptic gave most of the support spells to the tanks and healers. The only exception to this is HR but he basically has 6 encounter powers because he has 2 stances. So a damage dealing/buffer will either be a weak damage dealer or a weak buffer, therefor nobody will pick it for groups (unless maybe raids but as the game is now there are only 2 raid trials)
We already have bard and druid companions. We even have central druid NPCs. The entire Elemental Evil plot line completely revolves around druids. So, two classes with a bit of work already invested in them. With the added bonus of having connections to existing story and lore. So, where does that put monks? Nowhere, monks have zip, zilch, nada. There isn't a single power, art asset, NPC, or even companion for monks. The closest one can come would be the Dragonborn brawler, but even that is a reskinned rogue. It is even listed and categorized as a rogue. Based on this alone, it's safe to say monk is not going to be next, and most likely wont be for some time.
The foreshadowing new classes by introducing NPCs sometimes makes me think of Drizzt. Although I'm not likely to play melee classes, Drizzt's combat animations looks cool to me. And I once even suspected that the next class would be Two-Blade Ranger since some of its combat animations have been implemented. That said, I personally hope the next class is bard.
As a side note, the class diversity is being in need of an improvement. Currently, it looks like that every class can buff allies, and that makes bard not so special. Buffing/debuffing should be an ability which only a certain classes are proud to feature, not a common ability which everyone can do.
I love martial arts movies and blended worlds like Jade Empire, but always hated the inclusion in Forgotten Realms.
Join us brothers and sisters and distant relations and confused onlookers.
Join us in the shadows where we stand mostly vigilant... although slightly distracted by our inventories.
"In war, unqualified. In peace, disorganised. In death, mild irritation."
JOIN US.
With this post alone membership in NoMonk has doubled. We are growing into an army!
I still like the Monk as two fighting styles with overlap is fairly easy, and still have two Paragon paths. The monk would get their apparel from the Tailor like the Control Wizard, and saber/dagger type weapons from the Weaponsmith like those for the Trickster Rogue.
Some thoughts:
Monk would be nice, something else that wears cloth would be some nice variety, lots of leathery types now. However that would be 3 Religion characters, I assume. Would they have handwraps as both weapon slots, or would one slot be handwraps and the other be Prayer Beads? Shift can't be tumble (Rogues have that) so I guess they would either Leap or have a "deflection" type guard position? Perhaps Tab would shift from offensive stance to defensive stance, changing Powers like the Ranger does?
Bard I would love. Cloth or Mail armor (at least in 2ed they could wear chain). I just don't want another leather. I think one of their Features (yellow power) could be the ability to act as if they had an appropriate kit for nodes, or give them a 50% chance if they don't have the right kit (jack of all trades, master of none). I hope they have a weapon and an instrument. When I first started playing a while back I was crushed I could not have a Cleric with a mace like I was used to (I know Pally does that now, though THEY should have swords...).
Fighters: I am with the people who say GF and GWF should be combined (and yes I have both classes and it wouldn't bother me) this would allow Barbarians to be introduced. I would be in favor of having one weapon slot be a one handed weapon AND a shield and the othe slot being a two handed weapon. Tab would swap the weapons, effecting the powers ala Rangers.
On a final note when I saw that there were two distinct types of Fighters in the beginning and all the other classes also had a descriptor before their class type (Trickster Rogue etc.) I thought this would be a pattern for future classes. I thought we were going to get Thug Rogues, Righteous (War) Clerics, Illusionist Wizards, Swashbuckler Rogues. Otherwise why not just call them Wizards, Clerics etc. I still think, if GF and GWF are kept separate (which I know they will be, sigh) releasing new Rogues, Clerics, etc would be neat.
Yes i know it sounds like a profession/class from another game but it was fun. Not much laughter going on here, it's all ego stroking stats and scores bragging.
A bit more sillyness wouldnt hurt in my opinion. It's just pixels.
with a powered strike. Also mind attacks along the line of Demogorgon.
Mirror image, no falling damage, etc.
(If I get a dream race thrown in for this: Thri-kreen)
I hope to be able to make a Silvanite Druidess and a Ffolk Druid of the Moonshae Isles (i loved the Moonshae trilogy novels).
I also play Druids and Rangers in the p&p too
Necromancer just seems to fit with all D&D type games regardless of title. The SW almost fits that roll and I believe they have little choice but to work on the SW class and hone in on that style of game play so not really at the top of the list IMO.
Devs have given a bit more detail than that, let's be honest. Druids have been in the works for over 2 years now. How much more time is needed for class balance?
Is the next class indefinitely on hold? Perhaps pending graphics assets and artwork left unfinished since spring '15?
Any news about new class? Mod2 - HR, Mod4 - SW, Mod6 - OP, now we have got Mod9 and we do not even know which one (Druid won?) from poll and when next class will goes live?
Regards