If ogres were allowed to be Wizards in EQ -- about 1/3 of all wizards would be ogres for power-gaming reasons. The problem with this isn't that an ogre wizard should never happen -- but it should be very rare. It's not just this extreme example. There is a general tendency for races to be balanced partly based on the classes they can pick from. Only in games where races mean almost nothing is there unlikely to be issues like this.
I also think its lame when every other Ranger is a Dark Elf.
If ogres were allowed to be Wizards in EQ -- about 1/3 of all wizards would be ogres for power-gaming reasons. The problem with this isn't that an ogre wizard should never happen -- but it should be very rare. It's not just this extreme example. There is a general tendency for races to be balanced partly based on the classes they can pick from. Only in games where races mean almost nothing is there unlikely to be issues like this.
I also think its lame when every other Ranger is a Dark Elf.
If ogres were allowed to be Wizards in EQ -- about 1/3 of all wizards would be ogres for power-gaming reasons. The problem with this isn't that an ogre wizard should never happen -- but it should be very rare. It's not just this extreme example. There is a general tendency for races to be balanced partly based on the classes they can pick from. Only in games where races mean almost nothing is there unlikely to be issues like this.
I also think its lame when every other Ranger is a Dark Elf.
Well, before stats became all inflated with expansions, Ogre Wizards would have been absolutely horrible. Their INT would have been so low that they would have run out of mana after just a few nukes. All that stamina and stun immunity would have been amazing as a Wizard... until you realized you couldn't actually finish off any of your enemies
Point being, I don't think allowing those combinations would be ultimately bad, so long as they had severe penalties like that. But, just like in EQ, I imagine everyone might eventually have all of their stats capped from an overabundance of gear. Personally, I hope they never allow that kind of stat inflation, but that seems to be the road most common for games to take.
The only thing missing is that Gnomes do not have a healer or tank class. Each of the other races do. I'm all for having restrictions but having each race be able to fill the major roles would be nice.
As far as which classes I would say Cleric and Paladin. Given their energy state it wouldn't seem out of the question that they could tap into divine energy.
But, just like in EQ, I imagine everyone might eventually have all of their stats capped from an overabundance of gear. Personally, I hope they never allow that kind of stat inflation, but that seems to be the road most common for games to take.
I hope this is the case as well - I've talked about it across multiple platforms and threads. Make race selection continually matter - it would also allow for multiple pieces of Best in Slot gear based off race choice versus everyone going for AC or HPs for example because all stats are maxed. A halfling warrior may need strength and stamina where an ogre needs dex and agi.
We could play an MMO that let you pick any class with any race. Where you could pick any skill you wanted... But Pantheon is about choices matter so then people would not be getting the game they backed.
I thought SWtoR was the game where 'choices matter' LOL.
We could play an MMO that let you pick any class with any race. Where you could pick any skill you wanted... But Pantheon is about choices matter so then people would not be getting the game they backed.
I thought SWtoR was the game where 'choices matter' LOL.
In story yes, the end. Classes mirror, quests are common place not one has a epic journey. Races are 100% cosmetic. Don't get me wrong I love the game but choices matter and rpgs have been far removed for many years. Even little things in EQ1 like factions and your God. Picking them opened up options but closed others. Being able to switch factions was epic and that's something Pantheon embraces on even more ways I have mentioned in this post.
It's that type of RPG that has me replaying games like Morrowind and KotOR. Developers keep dumbing down games for the masses. Choices mattering is a big part of that.
Race/class restrictions just make sure that every Elf is a Bard or Mage....
I agree. Adventurers are those people that do NOT follow the usual stereotypes of their race. And its very hard to justify how sentient beings could be actually fully blocked from taking a certain path. Thus IMHO any race / class combination should be legal, EXCEPT if there is actually a real logical reason why this shouldnt work.
For example I understand no Ogre Rogue, if that class is very dexterity focused and Ogre doesnt have any.
I would also understand no Halfling Warrior, since well Halflings are the smallest race and its really tough to justify how a tiny Halfling could ever be an all out melee tank actually blocking mobs from attacking his allies. But ironically those are "in".
The restrictions of Gnomes in Pantheon are pretty well justifyable, too.
I also understood well why Dragon Age didnt allow Dwarves as Mages.
But many other combinations however have no logical reason why not SOMEBODY SOMETIMES would pick them.
However thats how EQ rolled. And EQ2, Vanguard, and now Pantheon.
Kajidourden said: Edit:
Also pretty sure that the most beloved characters from the forgotten
realms are those who break away from the racial norms.
Drizzt, the drow ranger, comes to mind.
And a certain EQ/Vanguard/Pantheon developer that runs around as a ranger with a twohanded sword in these games that do not actually allow this combination.
I have to wonder about people that complain about race or sex specific classes.
Well sex specific classes, thats also sometimes justifyable.
For example, if you're a Valkyr, the deity you follow might simply only accept pretty females to give them these special magical abilities.
Or, also as a Valkyr, you're required to ride an unicorn, and unicorns only tolerate women.
Thats IIRC also the reason why in AD&D only humans could be Paladin - only some deities accepted Paladins, and they only accepted humans. By personally I think Dwarf as the "tank race" should be able to play all tank classes. And Elf, especially High Elf, is IMHO the most "paladinesque" of all races.
I have to agree though, that a game without restrictions can be just as boring as a game with restrictions.
I definitely like restrictions in games. Such as levels, classes. Allows for more variance in gameplay, better replayability, better synergy, better game design.
However restrictions in race/class choices are often simply restrictions of the imagination of the game designer. Not restrictions that make the game harder, more interesting, etc.
Its like when people argue that long travel times or excessive grinds make a game harder. It doesnt. It makes the game slower and more boring.
Elf/Bard will be my main. I just hope it makes launch as Bards are still
a working progress and as they said "We want to get them right" Not
sure what that means? Do they know what direction they want to take the
class yet? I need to know lol
Bard and Necromancer probably wont be "in" during game release. So Summoner it will be.
I have little fear that Bard will rock ... at least for Bard players. Personally I never could keep interest in my Vanguard bards.
I also hope they'll add more classes:
- Vanguard style Blood Mage because that was an awesome class (arcane magic healer). - Vanguard style Inquisitor (but they never got implemented) as a magic/psionic/anti-mage tank.
Especially since those two would finally give Gnome a healer and a tank class.
We could play an MMO that let you pick any class with any race.
Where you could pick any skill you wanted... But Pantheon is about
choices matter so then people would not be getting the game they
backed.
I really hate skillbased games because every character feels the same.
With
classes, and thats what at least Vanguard did very right, different
classes have completely different playstyles. Elements that are
extremely important with one class turn completely irrelevant with other
classes. This massively increased my fun with playing alts in Vanguard.
I also think its lame when every other Ranger is a Dark Elf.
Vanguard dropped race/class restrictions in the last years of its development and yet I dont remember meeting even a single Dark Elf Ranger there. In fact the only reason to play Dark Elf anything was liking the race, because their race bonus was defunct and their attribute bonus nothing special.
Way too restrictive IMO. Not just from a race prospective (Halflings, Ogre) but classes as well (Cleric, Paladin). Im all for some class restrictions to build some kind of identity with each race but 5 out of 14? Bit much. Same goes for classes ... I mean 2 Paladins, 3 Clerics, and 3 Rangers? Those are typically among the most popular (classic ) classes for fantasy RPGs!
Would it really be such a big deal to have a few borderline fringe classes?
Well its probably enough combos in total, if they would only drop their favorism a bit.
Meaning
Human does NOT get all classes, Dark Myr is a bit more restricted as
well, Warrior is NOT the common denominator class (all except Gnome),
and Bard is a bit more restricted as well.
Would it really be such a big deal to have a few borderline fringe classes?
Again, I agree.
For example, in my understanding, in Pantheon:
Human, Elf and Halfling are the "light/goodhearted" "nature" races Dwarf, Archai and Gnome are the "neutral" "stone/element" races, and Dark Myr, Ogre and Skar are the "dark/evil" races
Light classes are Paladin, Druid, and maybe Ranger ? Dark classes are Dire Lord, Necromancer, and hmmm mabye Rogue ?
Then I kinda like the idea that all light races get a "dark" class and all dark races get a "light" class.
Obviously Halfling already gets Rogue, so Human could get Dire Lord (but they'd lose a lot other stuff) and Elf could get Necromancer.
Well Ogres already have Druids, so Skar gets Ranger and Dark Myr gets Paladin.
And about neutral races, I also would like the Dwarf gets all tanks (including Dire Lord), Archai gets all tricksters (missing Rogue and Ranger right now), and Gnome gets all mages (thats already the case).
Its simply related to the lore. They want the game to be challenging in the more traditional sense, but they want it to be a challenge with the social nature and factions as well. The other piece of the puzzle is the element of immersion in relationship to the lore. These are the reasons for the current race/class restrictions. They have worked real hard on the lore and inter-weaving it into the story. They arent going to abandon it at this point just to make everyone happy. If nothing else it just forces you to think about what you really want to play.
I do find it a little strange that human get almost every class. They could have dropped like necro/dire lord in addition to shaman. I'm guessing there will be a lot of hummies running round.
But, just like in EQ, I imagine everyone might eventually have all of their stats capped from an overabundance of gear. Personally, I hope they never allow that kind of stat inflation, but that seems to be the road most common for games to take.
I hope this is the case as well - I've talked about it across multiple platforms and threads. Make race selection continually matter - it would also allow for multiple pieces of Best in Slot gear based off race choice versus everyone going for AC or HPs for example because all stats are maxed. A halfling warrior may need strength and stamina where an ogre needs dex and agi.
They could do this by separating base stats from item stats in that, no matter what the cap is or how much of a particular stat you have from gear, the base racial stats always go beyond it. Basically, the cap would only apply to your items, not your natural strengths.
The design challenge is this. If you allow all classes to play all races, but then give some races attributes where almost everyone will play that race/class combination (because the combination is clearly superior), then the goal of promoting diversity is largely defeated. But if, to avoid that, you give all races essentially the same stats so you can effectively play every class, the goal of having racial diversity is defeated.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Gnome warrior in everquest 1 was the Worst class/race combo But still I Persisted and became number 1 tank on server for a While During PoP First to tank/kill Quarm and I was a Gnome Warrior
I mean, good on them for sticking to their guns but it sure as hell isn't going to help sell boxes and subs to have a bunch of limitations and narrow race choices for classes.
According to that chart only THREE races can be clerics or rangers and only TWO can be Paladins. Sorry, lore or not that's just stupid.
The design challenge is this. If you allow all classes to play all races, but then give some races attributes where almost everyone will play that race/class combination (because the combination is clearly superior), then the goal of promoting diversity is largely defeated. But if, to avoid that, you give all races essentially the same stats so you can effectively play every class, the goal of having racial diversity is defeated.
I would still play a Race I love with Lower stats..i have proved it in everquest 1, a Lower stat race/class can still be the Number 1 on a server if you work hard and join the best guilds
I would still play a Race I love with Lower stats..i have proved it in everquest 1, a Lower stat race/class can still be the Number 1 on a server if you work hard and join the best guilds
Comments
It's not just this extreme example. There is a general tendency for races to be balanced partly based on the classes they can pick from. Only in games where races mean almost nothing is there unlikely to be issues like this.
I also think its lame when every other Ranger is a Dark Elf.
Point being, I don't think allowing those combinations would be ultimately bad, so long as they had severe penalties like that.
But, just like in EQ, I imagine everyone might eventually have all of their stats capped from an overabundance of gear.
Personally, I hope they never allow that kind of stat inflation, but that seems to be the road most common for games to take.
As far as which classes I would say Cleric and Paladin. Given their energy state it wouldn't seem out of the question that they could tap into divine energy.
It's that type of RPG that has me replaying games like Morrowind and KotOR. Developers keep dumbing down games for the masses. Choices mattering is a big part of that.
For example I understand no Ogre Rogue, if that class is very dexterity focused and Ogre doesnt have any.
I would also understand no Halfling Warrior, since well Halflings are the smallest race and its really tough to justify how a tiny Halfling could ever be an all out melee tank actually blocking mobs from attacking his allies. But ironically those are "in".
The restrictions of Gnomes in Pantheon are pretty well justifyable, too.
I also understood well why Dragon Age didnt allow Dwarves as Mages.
But many other combinations however have no logical reason why not SOMEBODY SOMETIMES would pick them.
However thats how EQ rolled. And EQ2, Vanguard, and now Pantheon.
Drizzt, the drow ranger, comes to mind.
And a certain EQ/Vanguard/Pantheon developer that runs around as a ranger with a twohanded sword in these games that do not actually allow this combination.
For example, if you're a Valkyr, the deity you follow might simply only accept pretty females to give them these special magical abilities.
Or, also as a Valkyr, you're required to ride an unicorn, and unicorns only tolerate women.
Thats IIRC also the reason why in AD&D only humans could be Paladin - only some deities accepted Paladins, and they only accepted humans. By personally I think Dwarf as the "tank race" should be able to play all tank classes. And Elf, especially High Elf, is IMHO the most "paladinesque" of all races.
I definitely like restrictions in games. Such as levels, classes. Allows for more variance in gameplay, better replayability, better synergy, better game design.
However restrictions in race/class choices are often simply restrictions of the imagination of the game designer. Not restrictions that make the game harder, more interesting, etc.
Its like when people argue that long travel times or excessive grinds make a game harder. It doesnt. It makes the game slower and more boring.
Bard and Necromancer probably wont be "in" during game release. So Summoner it will be.
I have little fear that Bard will rock ... at least for Bard players. Personally I never could keep interest in my Vanguard bards.
I also hope they'll add more classes:
- Vanguard style Blood Mage because that was an awesome class (arcane magic healer).
- Vanguard style Inquisitor (but they never got implemented) as a magic/psionic/anti-mage tank.
Especially since those two would finally give Gnome a healer and a tank class.
I really hate skillbased games because every character feels the same.
With classes, and thats what at least Vanguard did very right, different classes have completely different playstyles. Elements that are extremely important with one class turn completely irrelevant with other classes. This massively increased my fun with playing alts in Vanguard.
Vanguard dropped race/class restrictions in the last years of its development and yet I dont remember meeting even a single Dark Elf Ranger there. In fact the only reason to play Dark Elf anything was liking the race, because their race bonus was defunct and their attribute bonus nothing special.
Would it really be such a big deal to have a few borderline fringe classes?
I agree.
Well its probably enough combos in total, if they would only drop their favorism a bit.
Meaning Human does NOT get all classes, Dark Myr is a bit more restricted as well, Warrior is NOT the common denominator class (all except Gnome), and Bard is a bit more restricted as well.
And in turn we get a bit more variance elsewhere.
Again, I agree.
For example, in my understanding, in Pantheon:
Human, Elf and Halfling are the "light/goodhearted" "nature" races
Dwarf, Archai and Gnome are the "neutral" "stone/element" races, and
Dark Myr, Ogre and Skar are the "dark/evil" races
Light classes are Paladin, Druid, and maybe Ranger ?
Dark classes are Dire Lord, Necromancer, and hmmm mabye Rogue ?
Then I kinda like the idea that all light races get a "dark" class and all dark races get a "light" class.
Obviously Halfling already gets Rogue, so Human could get Dire Lord (but they'd lose a lot other stuff) and Elf could get Necromancer.
Well Ogres already have Druids, so Skar gets Ranger and Dark Myr gets Paladin.
And about neutral races, I also would like the Dwarf gets all tanks (including Dire Lord), Archai gets all tricksters (missing Rogue and Ranger right now), and Gnome gets all mages (thats already the case).
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
wow they are Not letting gnomes play as Tanks ?? that is harsh =(
I have always been a Gnome Main tank raider in Everquest games
guess I wont be playing your game Brad =( Really wish I could
Gnome warrior in everquest 1 was the Worst class/race combo But still I Persisted and became number 1 tank on server for a While During PoP First to tank/kill Quarm
and I was a Gnome Warrior
According to that chart only THREE races can be clerics or rangers and only TWO can be Paladins. Sorry, lore or not that's just stupid.