Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Will there ever be new additions to Core classes?


Taril.8619

Recommended Posts

> > @VocalThought.9835 said:

> > > @Kulvar.1239 said:

> > > > @Yasai.3549 said:

> > > > I think it'll be ages before Anet will ever get on that because their balance team either has trouble balancing whatever we currently have, or adds in new stuff which power creeps really really hard.

> > > >

> > > > Still, I want to see more stuff for core professions.

> > > > I'm a little sick of Elite specs dominating the majority of the content, so much so that some professions are recognized by their Elite spec more than their core (Chrono was one of these for a LONG LONG time before it got hardcore dumpstered, Herald is also one of these)

> > >

> > > If only we had a 4th trait line only for eSpec and core was made into its own eSpec unlocked from level 1.

> > >

> > > > @VocalThought.9835 said:

> > > > I can't even think of a void that a new class could fill. They're doing a great job with the current classes and to add elites helps show the variations of class types within a theme. I think Revenant was a nice addition mixing the ritualist and the Dervish from the previous game, while filling the gap of the other-worldly Mystic / Dark Knight vibe. If there is another character type, I just don't see it.

> > >

> > > I can see a void in the scholars.

> > > We have an illusionist, an elementalist, a necromancer, but none is focused on functional magic itself on the more intellectual side.

> > > If we go by D&D : A wizard, magus, or arcanist.

> > > In game, it would be close to Asura magitech but done by someone rather than a device.

> > > Would also have some ties with Dwarven magic.

> > >

> > > Current light armor classes spells visuals are creativity based

> > > An elementalist can produce a gush of wind. That gush of wind can be used creatively to push a target, dry clothes, ...

> > > In game it pushes, but in lore it has no predefined purpose.

> > > The class I have in mind would be the opposite logic.

> > > It start from the intent (push the target), then the wizard use a spell that push and the visual effect is the magical embodiment of pushing (whatever it looks like) and couldn't be used otherwise.

> > > It would be more intellectual and less creativity.

> > > Because of this, the visual of the class skills would be more wild in creative freedom from ANet.

> > >

> > > It could have

> > > Cantrip : Only do one little thing, but on a short cooldown or with charges (high availability).

> > > Preparation : Similar to ritual casting, prepare an effect into the ground, after a delay you can trigger it at will.

> > > Mantra : Similar to prepared spells, 2s to 3s to charge, then released at will.

> > > Well: Typical AoE effects at range lingering for a few seconds.

> > >

> > > Weapons could be : Staff, Scepter, Focus, Daggers, Shortbow, MH Sword, Torch, Pistols, Warhorn.

> > >

> > > Class mechanic could be metamagic, arcane reservoir, sorcery points, ...

> >

> > I think for what you looking for the game would have to create another system. Dragon's Dogma has a system like that were certain spells make you wet or dry your clothes. GW2 has a combo system, but it's not close. As far as classes go... I think the elites are currently in a great position to add to a class what you feel is missing. I don't think there any missing class though. A new class would be more than what's needed. Especially if you want any order or consistency. I think the best way to look at this is by looking at each profession and their core and elite specializations, then think what's not here and does any of your ideas not fit with a current profession?

>

> I don't think we have an elementalist elite without attunements or a mesmer elite without clones, nor a necromancer elite that isn't themed after death/ghosts/bones/darkness :)

 

I'm so glad you brought that up. Tell me what you think about this.

https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/105008/expansion-predictions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@VocalThought.9835 said:

@VocalThought.9835 said:I can't even think of a void that a new class could fill. They're doing a great job with the current classes and to add elites helps show the variations of class types within a theme. I think Revenant was a nice addition mixing the ritualist and the Dervish from the previous game, while filling the gap of the other-worldly Mystic / Dark Knight vibe. If there is another character type, I just don't see it.

Necromancer is a massive void in the game atm that is not filled. And gw2 necromancer is not a necromancer. It's a warlock at best. Which isn't the same thing.

It might be the necro you had in mind, but it is a Necromancer. It totally fits the theme, but just because it doesn't do what other game Necromancers do, doesn't mean that wrong. The Devs created a world, created a class and gave it a name. The same can be said with other games. They are fitting within their license.

@Yasai.3549 said:I think it'll be ages before Anet will ever get on that because their balance team either has trouble balancing whatever we currently have, or adds in new stuff which power creeps really really hard.

Still, I want to see more stuff for core professions.I'm a little sick of Elite specs dominating the majority of the content, so much so that some professions are recognized by their Elite spec more than their core (Chrono was one of these for a LONG LONG time before it got hardcore dumpstered, Herald is also one of these)

If only we had a 4th trait line only for eSpec and core was made into its own eSpec unlocked from level 1.

@VocalThought.9835 said:I can't even think of a void that a new class could fill. They're doing a great job with the current classes and to add elites helps show the variations of class types within a theme. I think Revenant was a nice addition mixing the ritualist and the Dervish from the previous game, while filling the gap of the other-worldly Mystic / Dark Knight vibe. If there is another character type, I just don't see it.

I can see a void in the scholars.We have an illusionist, an elementalist, a necromancer, but none is focused on functional magic itself on the more intellectual side.If we go by D&D : A wizard, magus, or arcanist.In game, it would be close to Asura magitech but done by someone rather than a device.Would also have some ties with Dwarven magic.

Current light armor classes spells visuals are creativity basedAn elementalist can produce a gush of wind. That gush of wind can be used creatively to push a target, dry clothes, ...In game it pushes, but in lore it has no predefined purpose.The class I have in mind would be the opposite logic.It start from the intent (push the target), then the wizard use a spell that push and the visual effect is the magical embodiment of pushing (whatever it looks like) and couldn't be used otherwise.It would be more intellectual and less creativity.Because of this, the visual of the class skills would be more wild in creative freedom from ANet.

It could haveCantrip : Only do one little thing, but on a short cooldown or with charges (high availability).Preparation : Similar to ritual casting, prepare an effect into the ground, after a delay you can trigger it at will.Mantra : Similar to prepared spells, 2s to 3s to charge, then released at will.Well: Typical AoE effects at range lingering for a few seconds.

Weapons could be : Staff, Scepter, Focus, Daggers, Shortbow, MH Sword, Torch, Pistols, Warhorn.

Class mechanic could be metamagic, arcane reservoir, sorcery points, ...

I think for what you looking for the game would have to create another system. Dragon's Dogma has a system like that were certain spells make you wet or dry your clothes. GW2 has a combo system, but it's not close. As far as classes go... I think the elites are currently in a great position to add to a class what you feel is missing. I don't think there any missing class though. A new class would be more than what's needed. Especially if you want any order or consistency. I think the best way to look at this is by looking at each profession and their core and elite specializations, then think what's not here and does any of your ideas not fit with a current profession?

Regardless of the what its technically called the issue I have is the role the necromancer plays in other games is absent in Guild Wars 2 even when GW2's system is very capable of filling these roles without any hiccups or issues. As such the necromancer in gw2 emulates a few different roles, but none of them are the role the necromancer fills in other titles.

Core necromancer is more similar to a warlock which has some similarities with necromancer but are distinct enough that they could be two different classes entirely.

Reaper fits that Death knight or Dark knight role, somewhat. But death knight has even fewer similarities with necromancer.

Scourge fits the shaman role decently enough.

None of these fill the role of the necromancer typically fills. Necromancers are typically very glassy. They can't take hits and tend to act as support and control. Hexing foes, creating Dead zones which cause benefits to allies or negative effects to foes, summons massive number of minions as great expense of their own survival, and sacrifice health and minions to gain these effects as well. One way to describe them is cyclical. They burn through their own resources, weaken foes and self and give allies a chance to shread them then uses the dead to recover and begin their long process of spreading their power.

This role is absent. Necromancer is as similar to this as Guardian is to a Dungeons and Dragons Fighter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lily.1935 said:

None of these fill the role of the necromancer typically fills. Necromancers are typically very glassy. They can't take hits and tend to act as support and control. Hexing foes, creating Dead zones which cause benefits to allies or negative effects to foes, summons massive number of minions as great expense of their own survival, and sacrifice health and minions to gain these effects as well. One way to describe them is cyclical. They burn through their own resources, weaken foes and self and give allies a chance to shread them then uses the dead to recover and begin their long process of spreading their power.

This role is absent. Necromancer is as similar to this as Guardian is to a Dungeons and Dragons Fighter.

Hexing foes- MarksWeaken foes and self- Corruption SkillsDead zones- WellsMultiple Minions- Minions

Are we playing the same game, because what you stated is clearly in this game. Is it done to your standards, maybe not, but it's there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@VocalThought.9835 said:

None of these fill the role of the necromancer typically fills. Necromancers are typically very glassy. They can't take hits and tend to act as support and control. Hexing foes, creating Dead zones which cause benefits to allies or negative effects to foes, summons massive number of minions as great expense of their own survival, and sacrifice health and minions to gain these effects as well. One way to describe them is cyclical. They burn through their own resources, weaken foes and self and give allies a chance to shread them then uses the dead to recover and begin their long process of spreading their power.

This role is absent. Necromancer is as similar to this as Guardian is to a Dungeons and Dragons Fighter.

Hexing foes- MarksWeaken foes and self- Corruption SkillsDead zones- WellsMultiple Minions- Minions

Are we playing the same game, because what you stated is clearly in this game. Is it done to your standards, maybe not, but it's there.

A mark is little more than a trap. It's no better than a warrior which applies bleeds. A hex tends to he much more impactful than that. And conditions are not quite the same thing. Wells also are less akin to the persistent aoe Debuffs or buffs and more akin to the pulse of a fire storm or holy symbol flavored differently. Mechanically it's very different.

Also Warlocks have minions. Minions for necromancer don't typically make them bulky though. That's rare. The necromancer is more frequently fragile using a large number of minions. Warlocks typically use a smaller number of minions which do specific skills. Necromancer minions are typically designed to be destroyed. They are zergling.

Mechanically speaking, if you took everything on the necromancer and skinned over it with the Monk or a Priest identity it would make just as much sense. Mechanically it isn't necromancer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lily.1935 said:

None of these fill the role of the necromancer typically fills. Necromancers are typically very glassy. They can't take hits and tend to act as support and control. Hexing foes, creating Dead zones which cause benefits to allies or negative effects to foes, summons massive number of minions as great expense of their own survival, and sacrifice health and minions to gain these effects as well. One way to describe them is cyclical. They burn through their own resources, weaken foes and self and give allies a chance to shread them then uses the dead to recover and begin their long process of spreading their power.

This role is absent. Necromancer is as similar to this as Guardian is to a Dungeons and Dragons Fighter.

Hexing foes- MarksWeaken foes and self- Corruption SkillsDead zones- WellsMultiple Minions- Minions

Are we playing the same game, because what you stated is clearly in this game. Is it done to your standards, maybe not, but it's there.

A mark is little more than a trap. It's no better than a warrior which applies bleeds. A hex tends to he much more impactful than that. And conditions are not quite the same thing. Wells also are less akin to the persistent aoe Debuffs or buffs and more akin to the pulse of a fire storm or holy symbol flavored differently. Mechanically it's very different.

Also Warlocks have minions. Minions for necromancer don't typically make them bulky though. That's rare. The necromancer is more frequently fragile using a large number of minions. Warlocks typically use a smaller number of minions which do specific skills. Necromancer minions are typically designed to be destroyed. They are zergling.

Mechanically speaking, if you took everything on the necromancer and skinned over it with the Monk or a Priest identity it would make just as much sense. Mechanically it isn't necromancer.

Nah, mechanically it's still very much a necromancer, just not "your type of fantasy" necromancer. The fact that you don't like it, doesn't make it any less of a necromancer though. All the necromancer does is use black magic and has the ability to use/connect with the dead. You seem to be referring some kind of a specific type of a necromancer from a game you preferred, but that doesn't make gw2 necro any less of a necro.The design choices you dislike seem to be made into what they are due to the fact that it's a multiplayer game and they need to be balanced around player interaction.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sobx.1758 said:

None of these fill the role of the necromancer typically fills. Necromancers are typically very glassy. They can't take hits and tend to act as support and control. Hexing foes, creating Dead zones which cause benefits to allies or negative effects to foes, summons massive number of minions as great expense of their own survival, and sacrifice health and minions to gain these effects as well. One way to describe them is cyclical. They burn through their own resources, weaken foes and self and give allies a chance to shread them then uses the dead to recover and begin their long process of spreading their power.

This role is absent. Necromancer is as similar to this as Guardian is to a Dungeons and Dragons Fighter.

Hexing foes- MarksWeaken foes and self- Corruption SkillsDead zones- WellsMultiple Minions- Minions

Are we playing the same game, because what you stated is clearly in this game. Is it done to your standards, maybe not, but it's there.

A mark is little more than a trap. It's no better than a warrior which applies bleeds. A hex tends to he much more impactful than that. And conditions are not quite the same thing. Wells also are less akin to the persistent aoe Debuffs or buffs and more akin to the pulse of a fire storm or holy symbol flavored differently. Mechanically it's very different.

Also Warlocks have minions. Minions for necromancer don't typically make them bulky though. That's rare. The necromancer is more frequently fragile using a large number of minions. Warlocks typically use a smaller number of minions which do specific skills. Necromancer minions are typically designed to be destroyed. They are zergling.

Mechanically speaking, if you took everything on the necromancer and skinned over it with the Monk or a Priest identity it would make just as much sense. Mechanically it isn't necromancer.

Nah, mechanically it's still very much a necromancer, just not "your type of fantasy" necromancer. The fact that you don't like it, doesn't make it any less of a necromancer though. All the necromancer does is use black magic and has the ability to use/connect with the dead. You seem to be referring some kind of a specific type of a necromancer from a game you preferred, but that doesn't make gw2 necro any less of a necro.The design choices you dislike seem to be made into what they are due to the fact that it's a multiplayer game and they need to be balanced around player interaction.

Dungeons and Dragons, Diablo 2 and 3, Guild wars one, Somewhat Grim Dawn, Elder scrolls online(although I don't like that one), Path of Exile.

None of the games I've listed are solo experiences. So I don't know where you got that assumption. And they do some interesting things and diverge in a few directions ways. Not all use corpses for example. But the role of the necromancer is still fairly supportive. Dungeons and Dragons have multiple types of necromancers. But the strongest one without the dread necromancer from 3.5 I think are Wizards. Low health, cloth class. They will debuff foes and do have some buffs. Clerics can be necromancers too though not as effective. The Circle of spores druid is somewhat similar to the necromancer, more the reaper and somewhat scourge in a way at higher levels... They're weird. But that's the closest thing to a GW2 necromancer in D&D I've played but even them are far more supportive than our necromancer.

Guild wars 1 necromancer, which was my personal favorite is almost nothing like the gw2 necromancer. Read its abilities, play it you'll quickly see what I mean. Even if you argue "it's still a necromancer" which isn't quite my argument, the role that the gw2 necromancer and role the gw1 necromancer are completely different and the gw1 necromancer role is absent from gw2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lily.1935 said:

Mechanically speaking, if you took everything on the necromancer and skinned over it with the Monk or a Priest identity it would make just as much sense. Mechanically it isn't necromancer.

This is not true at all. Necromancers are fiction, actual necromancers don't exist and what exactly a necromancer is supposed to do is up to interpretation.

GW2's necromancer is just as much a necromancer as one from any other game. This has been their interpretation of the necromancy theme and it still inherents the thematical aspects which are needed to make it a necromancer, being summoning the dead, which is the origin of the word. There is no rule that necromancers have to use the dead in a zergling style, that is just one interpretation how the dead can be used. But using them to fulfill different tasks is just as valid.

You are tying rules to a fictional character which don't apply, since it is still fiction. Different interpretations can exist for this. This take might not be how you personally see a necromancer, but it is still a necromancer nonetheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kodama.6453 said:

Mechanically speaking, if you took everything on the necromancer and skinned over it with the Monk or a Priest identity it would make just as much sense. Mechanically it isn't necromancer.

This is not true at all. Necromancers are fiction, actual necromancers don't exist and what exactly a necromancer is supposed to do is up to interpretation.

GW2's necromancer is just as much a necromancer as one from any other game. This has been their interpretation of the necromancy theme and it still inherents the thematical aspects which are needed to make it a necromancer, being summoning the dead, which is the origin of the word. There is no rule that necromancers have to use the dead in a zergling style, that is just one interpretation how the dead can be used. But using them to fulfill different tasks is just as valid.

You are tying rules to a fictional character which don't apply, since it is still fiction. Different interpretations can exist for this. This take might not be how you personally see a necromancer, but it is still a necromancer nonetheless.

Not the argument. I've mentioned multiple times that I'm referring to a mechanical identity the necromancer shares accross games. And that this necromancer doesn't have that mechanical identity and as such does not fill that niche.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to see new core weapons added to the engineer. With just 3 weapons (rifle, pistol, shield), engineer is the most limited class when it comes to weapon options and I think it also hurts elite spec designs.

When, for example, thief gets a new power elite spec added (like they got with daredevil and deadeye), then they have a wide array of power weapons they can combine with the new elite spec besides the new elite spec weapon, allowing many different builds.Engineer has just 1 condi option (pistol) and 1 power option (rifle), which means they will never be able to craft as many different builds as other classes with their new elite specs.

Some examples of weapons they could add:Dagger - imagine it as a supportive weapon with some condis, basically using it as a scalpel like a surgeonStaff - maybe as a sonic based power AoE weapon without projectilesTorch - unlike most classes, I imagine it as a power based offhand for engineer with an oilfield (dark combo field?) that ticks damage and applies slow on 4, then an explosion skill on 5 that has the gimmick to become a more powerful explosion if detonated on the oildield

There are so many weapons with skins fitting for the engineer, but unfortunately we can't use them....

I am also a fan of the idea to add another elite skill to each class. But it should really just be 1, since engineer just has 1 elite slot open since they ae designed differently. But giving all classes 1 new elite skill would also already be awesome.in another thread with exactly this topic, I already suggested an idea for a new elite gadget skill:Shield GeneratorYou gain 4.000 barrier for the next 3 seconds.Cast time: 1/2 s Cooldown: 90 s

Flips over to: Detonate ShieldReactivating the skill will consume all barrier from that skill that is left, damaging and ccing the enemies around based on the damage that got absorbed by barrier. Counts as an explosion.

1.000 damage absorbed: deal low damage and crippling foes struck.2.000 damage absorbed: deal medium damage and crippling and dazing foes struck.3.000 damage absorbed: deal high damage and stunning foes struck.Instant cast.

Toolbelt skill: Dismantle DefenseRemove protection, regeneration, resistance and aegis, dealing damage. Damage gets reduced for every boon removed (meaning that it will deal more damage if none of these boons are on the target).Instant cast, Cooldown: 30 s

PS: While we're at it, please REWORK ELIXIR X. It is a relic from the time when elixir skills were randomly copying skills from other classes like Elixir U also did in the past. The randomness got removed almost entirely from the elixirs, which is good, since RNG shouldn't have such a huge impact on your gameplay.

Give engineer a new own transformation skill for Elixir X, transforming them into a big ooze with a new set of skills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lily.1935 said:

Mechanically speaking, if you took everything on the necromancer and skinned over it with the Monk or a Priest identity it would make just as much sense. Mechanically it isn't necromancer.

This is not true at all. Necromancers are fiction, actual necromancers don't exist and what exactly a necromancer is supposed to do is up to interpretation.

GW2's necromancer is just as much a necromancer as one from any other game. This has been their interpretation of the necromancy theme and it still inherents the thematical aspects which are needed to make it a necromancer, being summoning the dead, which is the origin of the word. There is no rule that necromancers have to use the dead in a zergling style, that is just one interpretation how the dead can be used. But using them to fulfill different tasks is just as valid.

You are tying rules to a fictional character which don't apply, since it is still fiction. Different interpretations can exist for this. This take might not be how you personally see a necromancer, but it is still a necromancer nonetheless.

Not the argument. I've mentioned multiple times that I'm referring to a mechanical identity the necromancer shares accross games. And that this necromancer doesn't have that mechanical identity and as such does not fill that niche.

There is no such thing as mechanical identity. There are certain tropes, like for example how rangers tend to have bows because people don't understand what the word ranger means and thus have certain expectation, but classes are meant to cover certain fantasies/theme. The theme of manipulating dark magic and the dead is covered by GW2 necro just fine.

The fact that you wish to play a buff/debuff support character from a mechanical standpoint doesn't mean that necro should be the class that fulfils that need because that's what happens on other games.

And the role of debuffing in has been codified in this game in the form of non-damaging condition and boon removal. Necro has loads of both of those mechanics, and their support is delivered through life steal and barriers (scourge). Sure, support necro could be better, but the fact that it's not to your liking doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@RabbitUp.8294 said:

Mechanically speaking, if you took everything on the necromancer and skinned over it with the Monk or a Priest identity it would make just as much sense. Mechanically it isn't necromancer.

This is not true at all. Necromancers are fiction, actual necromancers don't exist and what exactly a necromancer is supposed to do is up to interpretation.

GW2's necromancer is just as much a necromancer as one from any other game. This has been their interpretation of the necromancy theme and it still inherents the thematical aspects which are needed to make it a necromancer, being summoning the dead, which is the origin of the word. There is no rule that necromancers have to use the dead in a zergling style, that is just one interpretation how the dead can be used. But using them to fulfill different tasks is just as valid.

You are tying rules to a fictional character which don't apply, since it is still fiction. Different interpretations can exist for this. This take might not be how you personally see a necromancer, but it is still a necromancer nonetheless.

Not the argument. I've mentioned multiple times that I'm referring to a mechanical identity the necromancer shares accross games. And that this necromancer doesn't have that mechanical identity and as such does not fill that niche.

There is no such thing as mechanical identity. There are certain tropes, like for example how rangers tend to have bows because people don't understand what the word ranger means and thus have certain expectation, but classes are meant to cover certain fantasies/theme. The theme of manipulating dark magic and the dead is covered by GW2 necro just fine.

The fact that you wish to play a buff/debuff support character from a mechanical standpoint doesn't mean that necro should be the class that fulfils that need because that's what happens on other games.

And the role of debuffing in has been codified in this game in the form of non-damaging condition and boon removal. Necro has loads of both of those mechanics, and their support is delivered through life steal and barriers (scourge). Sure, support necro could be better, but the fact that it's not to your liking doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Exactly! Glad other people understand that :p

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@RabbitUp.8294 said:

Mechanically speaking, if you took everything on the necromancer and skinned over it with the Monk or a Priest identity it would make just as much sense. Mechanically it isn't necromancer.

This is not true at all. Necromancers are fiction, actual necromancers don't exist and what exactly a necromancer is supposed to do is up to interpretation.

GW2's necromancer is just as much a necromancer as one from any other game. This has been their interpretation of the necromancy theme and it still inherents the thematical aspects which are needed to make it a necromancer, being summoning the dead, which is the origin of the word. There is no rule that necromancers have to use the dead in a zergling style, that is just one interpretation how the dead can be used. But using them to fulfill different tasks is just as valid.

You are tying rules to a fictional character which don't apply, since it is still fiction. Different interpretations can exist for this. This take might not be how you personally see a necromancer, but it is still a necromancer nonetheless.

Not the argument. I've mentioned multiple times that I'm referring to a mechanical identity the necromancer shares accross games. And that this necromancer doesn't have that mechanical identity and as such does not fill that niche.

There is no such thing as mechanical identity. There are certain tropes, like for example how rangers tend to have bows because people don't understand what the word ranger means and thus have certain expectation, but classes are meant to cover certain fantasies/theme. The theme of manipulating dark magic and the dead is covered by GW2 necro just fine.

The fact that you wish to play a buff/debuff support character from a mechanical standpoint doesn't mean that necro should be the class that fulfils that need because that's what happens on other games.

And the role of debuffing in has been codified in this game in the form of non-damaging condition and boon removal. Necro has loads of both of those mechanics, and their support is delivered through life steal and barriers (scourge). Sure, support necro could be better, but the fact that it's not to your liking doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Okay, then how to I play my blood nova build. Or battery? Or orders build? Or Suicide nuker? or MoP build? What about my Zergling build? None of those exist... Could a necromancer fill them? YES! Yes they could. So why haven't they when these are the roles people expect?

ALso, again i'm not arguing theme. Let me repeat that for those who haven't been paying attention.

I'm not arguing about theme!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lily.1935 said:

Mechanically speaking, if you took everything on the necromancer and skinned over it with the Monk or a Priest identity it would make just as much sense. Mechanically it isn't necromancer.

This is not true at all. Necromancers are fiction, actual necromancers don't exist and what exactly a necromancer is supposed to do is up to interpretation.

GW2's necromancer is just as much a necromancer as one from any other game. This has been their interpretation of the necromancy theme and it still inherents the thematical aspects which are needed to make it a necromancer, being summoning the dead, which is the origin of the word. There is no rule that necromancers have to use the dead in a zergling style, that is just one interpretation how the dead can be used. But using them to fulfill different tasks is just as valid.

You are tying rules to a fictional character which don't apply, since it is still fiction. Different interpretations can exist for this. This take might not be how you personally see a necromancer, but it is still a necromancer nonetheless.

Not the argument. I've mentioned multiple times that I'm referring to a mechanical identity the necromancer shares accross games. And that this necromancer doesn't have that mechanical identity and as such does not fill that niche.

There is no such thing as mechanical identity. There are certain tropes, like for example how rangers tend to have bows because people don't understand what the word ranger means and thus have certain expectation, but classes are meant to cover certain fantasies/theme. The theme of manipulating dark magic and the dead is covered by GW2 necro just fine.

The fact that you wish to play a buff/debuff support character from a mechanical standpoint doesn't mean that necro should be the class that fulfils that need because that's what happens on other games.

And the role of debuffing in has been codified in this game in the form of non-damaging condition and boon removal. Necro has loads of both of those mechanics, and their support is delivered through life steal and barriers (scourge). Sure, support necro could be better, but the fact that it's not to your liking doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Okay, then how to I play my blood nova build. Or battery? Or orders build? Or Suicide nuker? or MoP build? What about my Zergling build? None of those exist... Could a necromancer fill them? YES! Yes they could. So why haven't they when these are the roles people expect?

ALso, again i'm not arguing theme. Let me repeat that for those who haven't been paying attention.

I'm not arguing about theme!

I know you are not taking about theme, I'm saying that theme is the only thing that matters when you are asking the question whether GW2 has the "necromancer" niche covered.

Mechanics are a complete different subject. The fact that one game does things a certain way doesn't mean this game should do the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lily.1935 said:

Mechanically speaking, if you took everything on the necromancer and skinned over it with the Monk or a Priest identity it would make just as much sense. Mechanically it isn't necromancer.

This is not true at all. Necromancers are fiction, actual necromancers don't exist and what exactly a necromancer is supposed to do is up to interpretation.

GW2's necromancer is just as much a necromancer as one from any other game. This has been their interpretation of the necromancy theme and it still inherents the thematical aspects which are needed to make it a necromancer, being summoning the dead, which is the origin of the word. There is no rule that necromancers have to use the dead in a zergling style, that is just one interpretation how the dead can be used. But using them to fulfill different tasks is just as valid.

You are tying rules to a fictional character which don't apply, since it is still fiction. Different interpretations can exist for this. This take might not be how you personally see a necromancer, but it is still a necromancer nonetheless.

Not the argument. I've mentioned multiple times that I'm referring to a mechanical identity the necromancer shares accross games. And that this necromancer doesn't have that mechanical identity and as such does not fill that niche.

There is no such thing as mechanical identity. There are certain tropes, like for example how rangers tend to have bows because people don't understand what the word ranger means and thus have certain expectation, but classes are meant to cover certain fantasies/theme. The theme of manipulating dark magic and the dead is covered by GW2 necro just fine.

The fact that you wish to play a buff/debuff support character from a mechanical standpoint doesn't mean that necro should be the class that fulfils that need because that's what happens on other games.

And the role of debuffing in has been codified in this game in the form of non-damaging condition and boon removal. Necro has loads of both of those mechanics, and their support is delivered through life steal and barriers (scourge). Sure, support necro could be better, but the fact that it's not to your liking doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Okay, then how to I play my blood nova build. Or battery? Or orders build? Or Suicide nuker? or MoP build? What about my Zergling build? None of those exist...

None of them are equivalent of "necromancer", none of these are needed to fill a necro role.

Could a necromancer fill them? YES! Yes they could. So why haven't they when these are the roles people expect?

People expect? Sure -some do, but then again some don't. They didn't fill them, because they literally can't fulfill every expectation any player in the game has.

ALso, again i'm not arguing theme. Let me repeat that for those who haven't been paying attention.

I'm not arguing about theme!

You're claiming that "mechanically that's not necro", but there's no such thing as "necro mechanic". Unless you really want to go with such watered down "mechanics", that they basically become the equivalent of theme -like "has minions", "debuffs", "uses dark/death magic" and so on. In which case the gw2 necro is still easly "mechanically necro".You're free to want/prefer any iteration of the class from any game (or other media) in the existance, nothing wrong about that. But stop using overblown claims like "mechanically it's not necromancer", because that doesn't make much sense.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Lily.1935" said:Could a necromancer fill them? YES! Yes they could. So why haven't they when these are the roles people expect?

What people?

People who've explicitly played the exact games you have and no others that show Necromancers in a multitude of different lights (Including actually in games you've listed such as PoE which doesn't necessarily fit any of your classifications of "Necromancer". Heck, I've played several seasons as a Zombie build where I summoned one giant Zombie who gained my Strength so I stacked Strength out the wazoo and thus was one of my tankiest characters, running around with this giant zombro who pummelled things)

Not to mention, class crossover. Mesmer has the playstyle of a "Zerglings" type character, in the way that they constantly pump out weak AI (Clones in their case) that rush at enemies and in many cases stack debuffs on their targets until it's time for the Mesmer to blow them up. That's literally a Necromancer trope build that just happens to not be on Necromancer (Though, Necro still has some potential with it, what with Death Nova and Bone Minions, though with less support than general Mesmer gameplay)

A lot of what you state is intrinic of Necromancer, often finds its way to "Sorcerer" archetypes (Hexes, Blood magic, Dead zones etc) that have nothing to do with "Death" at all and are just Mages like Elementalist but with some emo spells.

I've played plenty of games where Necromancer have few tough minions (City of Villains, Everquest, Path of Exile, WoW's Death Knight can qualify as a Necromancer)

I've played plenty of games where Necromancer summons vast hoards.

I've played plenty of games where Necromancers used Hexes and could support.

I've played plenty of games where Necromancers were very selfish and were basically a 1 man party who just raised whatever they needed.

All that makes a "Necromancer" is having Death magic. That's literally the meaning of the name. Necro meaning Death. Mancer meaning practicioner of magic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@RabbitUp.8294 said:

Mechanically speaking, if you took everything on the necromancer and skinned over it with the Monk or a Priest identity it would make just as much sense. Mechanically it isn't necromancer.

This is not true at all. Necromancers are fiction, actual necromancers don't exist and what exactly a necromancer is supposed to do is up to interpretation.

GW2's necromancer is just as much a necromancer as one from any other game. This has been their interpretation of the necromancy theme and it still inherents the thematical aspects which are needed to make it a necromancer, being summoning the dead, which is the origin of the word. There is no rule that necromancers have to use the dead in a zergling style, that is just one interpretation how the dead can be used. But using them to fulfill different tasks is just as valid.

You are tying rules to a fictional character which don't apply, since it is still fiction. Different interpretations can exist for this. This take might not be how you personally see a necromancer, but it is still a necromancer nonetheless.

Not the argument. I've mentioned multiple times that I'm referring to a mechanical identity the necromancer shares accross games. And that this necromancer doesn't have that mechanical identity and as such does not fill that niche.

There is no such thing as mechanical identity. There are certain tropes, like for example how rangers tend to have bows because people don't understand what the word ranger means and thus have certain expectation, but classes are meant to cover certain fantasies/theme. The theme of manipulating dark magic and the dead is covered by GW2 necro just fine.

The fact that you wish to play a buff/debuff support character from a mechanical standpoint doesn't mean that necro should be the class that fulfils that need because that's what happens on other games.

And the role of debuffing in has been codified in this game in the form of non-damaging condition and boon removal. Necro has loads of both of those mechanics, and their support is delivered through life steal and barriers (scourge). Sure, support necro could be better, but the fact that it's not to your liking doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Okay, then how to I play my blood nova build. Or battery? Or orders build? Or Suicide nuker? or MoP build? What about my Zergling build? None of those exist... Could a necromancer fill them? YES! Yes they could. So why haven't they when these are the roles people expect?

ALso, again i'm not arguing theme. Let me repeat that for those who haven't been paying attention.

I'm not arguing about theme!

I know you are not taking about theme, I'm saying that theme is the only thing that matters when you are asking the question whether GW2 has the "necromancer" niche covered.

Mechanics are a complete different subject. The fact that one game does things a certain way doesn't mean this game should do the same.

It creates an expectation of players. This is something that game developers do discuss and talk about. Mark Rosewater actually talked about this in one of his podcasts about player expectations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lily.1935 Anet said they wanted to get away from actual hex and mechanics like that and instead make them into things like wells and other such abilities. They did this with mesmer hexes too, but instead they are in the form of phantasms and clones. It's more of a physical manifistation of what the hexes do instead of just another condition on your status bar that just needs to be removed. All these mechanics that you speak of aren't necessarily mandatory for the class identity. All those things are just sorta common because most games follow how D&D and other early fantasy genres portrayed the abilities and playstyles of the classes. But, Anet has taken there own initiative to take common themes and give them their own twist. This is why we have things like a guardian who is a tank with the lowest health pool that relies on aegis and other defensive traits to survive because they are squishier than the norm. We have an elementalist who is mostly more effective at melee range than afar casting spells with a staff, and who has less large powerful spells than the typical elemental mage has. Our engineers are more so garage tinkerers who go to action inspector gadget style instead of a more refined, steampunk, or militaristic type of engineer usually found. Our thieves are generally not hard hitting classes in this game and instead are in-and-out types, basically removing the rouge/assassin aspect to this archetype.

The necromancer is a necromancer because of the theme of It's abilities and because of the skill animations. That's basically it. If there was a necromancer throwing fireballs or healing allies with the power of dwayna, then I might need an explanation of what's going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sobx.1758 said:

Mechanically speaking, if you took everything on the necromancer and skinned over it with the Monk or a Priest identity it would make just as much sense. Mechanically it isn't necromancer.

This is not true at all. Necromancers are fiction, actual necromancers don't exist and what exactly a necromancer is supposed to do is up to interpretation.

GW2's necromancer is just as much a necromancer as one from any other game. This has been their interpretation of the necromancy theme and it still inherents the thematical aspects which are needed to make it a necromancer, being summoning the dead, which is the origin of the word. There is no rule that necromancers have to use the dead in a zergling style, that is just one interpretation how the dead can be used. But using them to fulfill different tasks is just as valid.

You are tying rules to a fictional character which don't apply, since it is still fiction. Different interpretations can exist for this. This take might not be how you personally see a necromancer, but it is still a necromancer nonetheless.

Not the argument. I've mentioned multiple times that I'm referring to a mechanical identity the necromancer shares accross games. And that this necromancer doesn't have that mechanical identity and as such does not fill that niche.

There is no such thing as mechanical identity. There are certain tropes, like for example how rangers tend to have bows because people don't understand what the word ranger means and thus have certain expectation, but classes are meant to cover certain fantasies/theme. The theme of manipulating dark magic and the dead is covered by GW2 necro just fine.

The fact that you wish to play a buff/debuff support character from a mechanical standpoint doesn't mean that necro should be the class that fulfils that need because that's what happens on other games.

And the role of debuffing in has been codified in this game in the form of non-damaging condition and boon removal. Necro has loads of both of those mechanics, and their support is delivered through life steal and barriers (scourge). Sure, support necro could be better, but the fact that it's not to your liking doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Okay, then how to I play my blood nova build. Or battery? Or orders build? Or Suicide nuker? or MoP build? What about my Zergling build? None of those exist...

None of them are equivalent of "necromancer", none of these are needed to fill a necro role.

Could a necromancer fill them? YES! Yes they could. So why haven't they when these are the roles people expect?

People expect? Sure -some do, but then again some don't. They didn't fill them, because they literally can't fulfill every expectation any player in the game has.

ALso, again i'm not arguing theme. Let me repeat that for those who haven't been paying attention.

I'm not arguing about theme!

You're claiming that "mechanically that's not necro", but there's no such thing as "necro mechanic". Unless you really want to go with such watered down "mechanics", that they basically become the equivalent of theme -like "has minions", "debuffs", "uses dark/death magic" and so on. In which case the gw2 necro is still easly "mechanically necro".You're free to want/prefer any iteration of the class from any game (or other media) in the existance, nothing wrong about that. But stop using overblown claims like "mechanically it's not necromancer", because that doesn't make much sense.

Mechanically speaking I could slap a shroud mechanic on any class for another Game and it would work just as well with them if the theme was changed. IT actually has been done before. Most resent example of this is Wolcen. They have this avatar system that functions almost exactly like a shroud, all be it both better and worse in a lot of ways. It is mechanically nearly identical, but thematically its distinct. Another Mechanically similar ability to shroud is Dungeon's and Dragon's wildshape mechanic for the druid.

If we boil down what shroud is based on its mechanical design, it could fit a lot of different classes without a problem. The only part of it mechanically speaking that is "Necromancer" is the fact that its generated through deaths. Everything else could easily be emulated on another class.

I can agree that thematically, necromancer is a necromancer. Mechanically, no, I can't. Mechanically its too similar to a watered down druid from Dungeons and dragons than it is to what was unique about the necromancer class in other games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ScottBroChill.3254 said:@"Lily.1935" Anet said they wanted to get away from actual hex and mechanics like that and instead make them into things like wells and other such abilities. They did this with mesmer hexes too, but instead they are in the form of phantasms and clones. It's more of a physical manifistation of what the hexes do instead of just another condition on your status bar that just needs to be removed. All these mechanics that you speak of aren't necessarily mandatory for the class identity. All those things are just sorta common because most games follow how D&D and other early fantasy genres portrayed the abilities and playstyles of the classes. But, Anet has taken there own initiative to take common themes and give them their own twist. This is why we have things like a guardian who is a tank with the lowest health pool that relies on aegis and other defensive traits to survive because they are squishier than the norm. We have an elementalist who is mostly more effective at melee range than afar casting spells with a staff, and who has less large powerful spells than the typical elemental mage has. Our engineers are more so garage tinkerers who go to action inspector gadget style instead of a more refined, steampunk, or militaristic type of engineer usually found. Our thieves are generally not hard hitting classes in this game and instead are in-and-out types, basically removing the rouge/assassin aspect to this archetype.

The necromancer is a necromancer because of the theme of It's abilities and because of the skill animations. That's basically it. If there was a necromancer throwing fireballs or healing allies with the power of dwayna, then I might need an explanation of what's going on.

My argument is about a mechanical niche not being filled. As for Hexes, there are work arounds Arena net can employ that a few people have suggested before. The idea of Fields which create HEX like zones which have a Pillar that can be destroyed by an opponent, but gives this sort of Curse feel for example. Some Conditions do have hex like qualities like Confusion, torment and Poison, but they can include new ways to modify conditions if they so chose.

And Hexes aren't the only thing I'm missing. The health sacrifice for support and power is something I'm desperate for in this game which is sorely lacking. We got a small TASTE of it with Signet of Undeath which has now become one of my favorite skills in the game. Its so engaging and fun to use and some players hate to use it, sure, however the necromancer class wasn't as popular as it is in GW2, but that's sorta because its filling a mechanical niche it didn't use to. Now was that the right decision on Arena Net's part? Well, looking at the numbers I'd have to begrudgingly say yes, but from a player standpoint who loved this sort of play style I'd say no.

NOW My original post was sorta a tongue and cheek post, but, I do actually feel that the mechanical niche necromancer's typically fill is sorely absent from this game. And when people make the claim that "All niches are filled" I scoff at this notion as there are plenty of mechanical niches which just aren't. The Typical Niche the necromancer fills is one of those such niches that are currently not in the game. So when people tell me "You can't play what you enjoy most" it sucks pretty bad. And I've abandoned games for that reason before. As have a few of my friends.

There are certain archetypes that should be filled in the game and Although I Don't necessarily believe that a new class is absolutely needed, I do believe that Arena net has a lot of work ahead of them if they want to fill the desired archetypes for their game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lily.1935 said:

Mechanically speaking, if you took everything on the necromancer and skinned over it with the Monk or a Priest identity it would make just as much sense. Mechanically it isn't necromancer.

This is not true at all. Necromancers are fiction, actual necromancers don't exist and what exactly a necromancer is supposed to do is up to interpretation.

GW2's necromancer is just as much a necromancer as one from any other game. This has been their interpretation of the necromancy theme and it still inherents the thematical aspects which are needed to make it a necromancer, being summoning the dead, which is the origin of the word. There is no rule that necromancers have to use the dead in a zergling style, that is just one interpretation how the dead can be used. But using them to fulfill different tasks is just as valid.

You are tying rules to a fictional character which don't apply, since it is still fiction. Different interpretations can exist for this. This take might not be how you personally see a necromancer, but it is still a necromancer nonetheless.

Not the argument. I've mentioned multiple times that I'm referring to a mechanical identity the necromancer shares accross games. And that this necromancer doesn't have that mechanical identity and as such does not fill that niche.

There is no such thing as mechanical identity. There are certain tropes, like for example how rangers tend to have bows because people don't understand what the word ranger means and thus have certain expectation, but classes are meant to cover certain fantasies/theme. The theme of manipulating dark magic and the dead is covered by GW2 necro just fine.

The fact that you wish to play a buff/debuff support character from a mechanical standpoint doesn't mean that necro should be the class that fulfils that need because that's what happens on other games.

And the role of debuffing in has been codified in this game in the form of non-damaging condition and boon removal. Necro has loads of both of those mechanics, and their support is delivered through life steal and barriers (scourge). Sure, support necro could be better, but the fact that it's not to your liking doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Okay, then how to I play my blood nova build. Or battery? Or orders build? Or Suicide nuker? or MoP build? What about my Zergling build? None of those exist...

None of them are equivalent of "necromancer", none of these are needed to fill a necro role.

Could a necromancer fill them? YES! Yes they could. So why haven't they when these are the roles people expect?

People expect? Sure -some do, but then again some don't. They didn't fill them, because they literally can't fulfill every expectation any player in the game has.

ALso, again i'm not arguing theme. Let me repeat that for those who haven't been paying attention.

I'm not arguing about theme!

You're claiming that "mechanically that's not necro", but there's no such thing as "necro mechanic". Unless you really want to go with such watered down "mechanics", that they basically become the equivalent of theme -like "has minions", "debuffs", "uses dark/death magic" and so on. In which case the gw2 necro is still easly "mechanically necro".You're free to want/prefer any iteration of the class from any game (or other media) in the existance, nothing wrong about that. But stop using overblown claims like "mechanically it's not necromancer", because that doesn't make much sense.

Mechanically speaking I could slap a shroud mechanic on any class for another Game and it would work just as well with them if the theme was changed. IT actually has been done before. Most resent example of this is Wolcen. They have this avatar system that functions almost exactly like a shroud, all be it both better and worse in a lot of ways. It is mechanically nearly identical, but thematically its distinct. Another Mechanically similar ability to shroud is Dungeon's and Dragon's wildshape mechanic for the druid.

If we boil down what shroud is based on its mechanical design, it could fit a lot of different classes without a problem. The only part of it mechanically speaking that is "Necromancer" is the fact that its generated through deaths. Everything else could easily be emulated on another class.

Necro isn't limited to just shroud, so I'm not sure how that's meaningful in any way here? And changing theme would work the same on majority -if not all- of classes/skills/mechanics in the game (most probably in most of the games, not only this one btw). I don't understand how's that a valid argument about anything?

By that logic -as far as I understand it- we could remove shroud from the necro and we'd be left with "death magic, minions and whatnot", which apparently somehow would make a great "mechanically necro!", because there's no longer an additional shroud mechanic that you can complain about because it's "so not necro". That makes no sense to me.

I can agree that thematically, necromancer is a necromancer. Mechanically, no, I can't. Mechanically its too similar to a watered down druid from Dungeons and dragons than it is to what was unique about the necromancer class in other games.

There's nothing like "mechanically necromancer". There are different iterations of casters using necromancer theme and just because you liked one over the other doesn't make it THE default "necro mechanic". Unless, of course:

@Sobx.1758 said:Unless you really want to go with such watered down "mechanics", that they basically become the equivalent of theme -like "has minions", "debuffs", "uses dark/death magic" and so on. In which case the gw2 necro is still easly "mechanically necro".

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Lily.1935" said:Mechanically speaking I could slap a shroud mechanic on any class for another Game and it would work just as well with them if the theme was changed. IT actually has been done before. Most resent example of this is Wolcen. They have this avatar system that functions almost exactly like a shroud, all be it both better and worse in a lot of ways. It is mechanically nearly identical, but thematically its distinct. Another Mechanically similar ability to shroud is Dungeon's and Dragon's wildshape mechanic for the druid.

If we boil down what shroud is based on its mechanical design, it could fit a lot of different classes without a problem. The only part of it mechanically speaking that is "Necromancer" is the fact that its generated through deaths. Everything else could easily be emulated on another class.

I can agree that thematically, necromancer is a necromancer. Mechanically, no, I can't. Mechanically its too similar to a watered down druid from Dungeons and dragons than it is to what was unique about the necromancer class in other games.

Mechanically speaking, you can easily turn ANY mechanic into one that fits another class. You just have to think up some thematic way of getting the same end effect.

Hexes? > Rogue uses Poison > Warrior uses debilitating Shout > Paladin smites with divine justice > Wizard uses arcane jiggery pokery etc.

Health as a resource? > Rogue doesn't have "Health" they have "Luck" and once their luck runs out, they get hit and die. Hence, they can spend this luck for power > Warrior your standard Berserker archetype > Paladin makes and offering to the divine (Think: the practice of self flagellation which has been prevalent in many religious cultures) > Wizard casts spells so powerful they drain their very life essence etc.

Minions? > Rogue calls in their Thief Guild buddies > Warrior calls in their Fighter guild buddies > Paladin summons up holy spirits > Wizard conjures elementals etc.

No mechanic is inherently related to a class. It all comes down to how you colour it and what lore you use to substantiate it. Hence why "Zergling Necro" is literally just Mesmer. It has taken the mechanic and made it pink with butterflies and voila, it's now suitable for a Mesmer.

Classes are entirely defined by how their skills are animated and justified. Which is why I've played plenty of Warlocks that summon Demons that play identically to Necromancers just instead of Zombies and Skeletons being summoned and "Death magic" spells, it's Demons and "Demon magic". I've also played some Wizard types that summon Elementals and use "Elemental magic". Just as I've played Wizards and Sorcerors that use their health as a resource (Notably, in Warhammer Online where Bright Wizard and Sorceror classes unique mechanic was that as they cast spells, they build up Power and the higher their power the greater the chance for spells to "Backfire" and deal damage to themselves with increasing damage too but at the same time, the stronger their spells would be)

I've also played things like Engineers that "Hex" because they throw vials of acid and poison as well as bombs to debilitate enemies (Sometimes these Engineers could even build small machines that could run after enemies and nibble at them until they were detonated by the Engineer), even Bards have "Hex-like" effects through debilitating songs (Such as Dirge in EQ2) as well as the occasional poison coated dagger.

So, complaining that a class doesn't "Mechanically feel like a class" is silly. Given that literally any mechanic can be utilized by literally any class because nothing is directly related. At best, there are some stereotypical archetypes that lean on specific tropes (Such as Necromancers raising the dead) but that's not a necessity and stems a lot from how popular Tolkein's fantasy design became (Since it has influenced a large portion of fantasy, from class archetypes to races (I.e. Elves are tall, slender, beautiful, Dwarfs are stout, muscular and 90% beard, Human heroes always have an Elf GF, Orcs are ugly, savage beasts etc) as well as the minutia of various classes such as how Archers are typically Elves because for some reason dexterity/agility is considered the stat needed to use a bow as opposed to strength to actually draw a powerful bow, or how Wizards often have robes, pointy hats and a staff (Ignoring the fairly notable part of the trilogy where Gandalf fights a Balrog with a SWORD but whatever...)) as well as influence from D&D (Which often parallels Tolkein's designs)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Taril.8619 said:

@"Lily.1935" said:Mechanically speaking I could slap a shroud mechanic on any class for another Game and it would work just as well with them if the theme was changed. IT actually has been done before. Most resent example of this is Wolcen. They have this avatar system that functions almost exactly like a shroud, all be it both better and worse in a lot of ways. It is mechanically nearly identical, but thematically its distinct. Another Mechanically similar ability to shroud is Dungeon's and Dragon's wildshape mechanic for the druid.

If we boil down what shroud is based on its mechanical design, it could fit a lot of different classes without a problem. The only part of it mechanically speaking that is "Necromancer" is the fact that its generated through deaths. Everything else could easily be emulated on another class.

I can agree that thematically, necromancer is a necromancer. Mechanically, no, I can't. Mechanically its too similar to a watered down druid from Dungeons and dragons than it is to what was unique about the necromancer class in other games.

Mechanically speaking, you can easily turn ANY mechanic into one that fits another class. You just have to think up some thematic way of getting the same end effect.

Hexes? > Rogue uses Poison > Warrior uses debilitating Shout > Paladin smites with divine justice > Wizard uses arcane jiggery pokery etc.

Health as a resource? > Rogue doesn't have "Health" they have "Luck" and once their luck runs out, they get hit and die. Hence, they can spend this luck for power > Warrior your standard Berserker archetype > Paladin makes and offering to the divine (Think: the practice of self flagellation which has been prevalent in many religious cultures) > Wizard casts spells so powerful they drain their very life essence etc.

Minions? > Rogue calls in their Thief Guild buddies > Warrior calls in their Fighter guild buddies > Paladin summons up holy spirits > Wizard conjures elementals etc.

No mechanic is inherently related to a class. It all comes down to how you colour it and what lore you use to substantiate it. Hence why "Zergling Necro" is literally just Mesmer. It has taken the mechanic and made it pink with butterflies and voila, it's now suitable for a Mesmer.

Classes are entirely defined by how their skills are animated and justified. Which is why I've played plenty of Warlocks that summon Demons that play identically to Necromancers just instead of Zombies and Skeletons being summoned and "Death magic" spells, it's Demons and "Demon magic". I've also played some Wizard types that summon Elementals and use "Elemental magic". Just as I've played Wizards and Sorcerors that use their health as a resource (Notably, in Warhammer Online where Bright Wizard and Sorceror classes unique mechanic was that as they cast spells, they build up Power and the higher their power the greater the chance for spells to "Backfire" and deal damage to themselves with increasing damage too but at the same time, the stronger their spells would be)

I've also played things like Engineers that "Hex" because they throw vials of acid and poison as well as bombs to debilitate enemies (Sometimes these Engineers could even build small machines that could run after enemies and nibble at them until they were detonated by the Engineer), even Bards have "Hex-like" effects through debilitating songs (Such as Dirge in EQ2) as well as the occasional poison coated dagger.

So, complaining that a class doesn't "Mechanically feel like a class" is silly. Given that literally any mechanic can be utilized by literally any class because nothing is directly related. At best, there are some stereotypical archetypes that lean on specific tropes (Such as Necromancers raising the dead) but that's not a necessity and stems a lot from how popular Tolkein's fantasy design became (Since it has influenced a large portion of fantasy, from class archetypes to races (I.e. Elves are tall, slender, beautiful, Dwarfs are stout, muscular and 90% beard, Human heroes always have an Elf GF, Orcs are ugly, savage beasts etc) as well as the minutia of various classes such as how Archers are typically Elves because for some reason dexterity/agility is considered the stat needed to use a bow as opposed to strength to actually draw a powerful bow, or how Wizards often have robes, pointy hats and a staff (Ignoring the fairly notable part of the trilogy where Gandalf fights a Balrog with a SWORD but whatever...)) as well as influence from D&D (Which often parallels Tolkein's designs)

too much of a stretch, wouldn't work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lily.1935 said:

@Lily.1935 said:Mechanically speaking I could slap a shroud mechanic on any class for another Game and it would work just as well with them if the theme was changed. IT actually has been done before. Most resent example of this is Wolcen. They have this avatar system that functions almost exactly like a shroud, all be it both better and worse in a lot of ways. It is mechanically nearly identical, but thematically its distinct. Another Mechanically similar ability to shroud is Dungeon's and Dragon's wildshape mechanic for the druid.

If we boil down what shroud is based on its mechanical design, it could fit a lot of different classes without a problem. The only part of it mechanically speaking that is "Necromancer" is the fact that its generated through deaths. Everything else could easily be emulated on another class.

I can agree that thematically, necromancer is a necromancer. Mechanically, no, I can't. Mechanically its too similar to a watered down druid from Dungeons and dragons than it is to what was unique about the necromancer class in other games.

Mechanically speaking, you can easily turn ANY mechanic into one that fits another class. You just have to think up some thematic way of getting the same end effect.

Hexes? > Rogue uses Poison > Warrior uses debilitating Shout > Paladin smites with divine justice > Wizard uses arcane jiggery pokery etc.

Health as a resource? > Rogue doesn't have "Health" they have "Luck" and once their luck runs out, they get hit and die. Hence, they can spend this luck for power > Warrior your standard Berserker archetype > Paladin makes and offering to the divine (Think: the practice of self flagellation which has been prevalent in many religious cultures) > Wizard casts spells so powerful they drain their very life essence etc.

Minions? > Rogue calls in their Thief Guild buddies > Warrior calls in their Fighter guild buddies > Paladin summons up holy spirits > Wizard conjures elementals etc.

No mechanic is inherently related to a class. It all comes down to how you colour it and what lore you use to substantiate it. Hence why "Zergling Necro" is literally just Mesmer. It has taken the mechanic and made it pink with butterflies and voila, it's now suitable for a Mesmer.

Classes are entirely defined by how their skills are animated and justified. Which is why I've played plenty of Warlocks that summon Demons that play identically to Necromancers just instead of Zombies and Skeletons being summoned and "Death magic" spells, it's Demons and "Demon magic". I've also played some Wizard types that summon Elementals and use "Elemental magic". Just as I've played Wizards and Sorcerors that use their health as a resource (Notably, in Warhammer Online where Bright Wizard and Sorceror classes unique mechanic was that as they cast spells, they build up Power and the higher their power the greater the chance for spells to "Backfire" and deal damage to themselves with increasing damage too but at the same time, the stronger their spells would be)

I've also played things like Engineers that "Hex" because they throw vials of acid and poison as well as bombs to debilitate enemies (Sometimes these Engineers could even build small machines that could run after enemies and nibble at them until they were detonated by the Engineer), even Bards have "Hex-like" effects through debilitating songs (Such as Dirge in EQ2) as well as the occasional poison coated dagger.

So, complaining that a class doesn't "Mechanically feel like a class" is silly. Given that literally any mechanic can be utilized by literally any class because nothing is directly related. At best, there are some stereotypical archetypes that lean on specific tropes (Such as Necromancers raising the dead) but that's not a necessity and stems a lot from how popular Tolkein's fantasy design became (Since it has influenced a large portion of fantasy, from class archetypes to races (I.e. Elves are tall, slender, beautiful, Dwarfs are stout, muscular and 90% beard, Human heroes always have an Elf GF, Orcs are ugly, savage beasts etc) as well as the minutia of various classes such as how Archers are typically Elves because for some reason dexterity/agility is considered the stat needed to use a bow as opposed to strength to actually draw a powerful bow, or how Wizards often have robes, pointy hats and a staff (Ignoring the fairly notable part of the trilogy where Gandalf fights a Balrog with a SWORD but whatever...)) as well as influence from D&D (Which often parallels Tolkein's designs)

too much of a stretch, wouldn't work.

That's not a stretch, that's exactly what you are talking about and it works just as much. Change theme/name/particles and you can switch almost any mechanic to fit a class you want. As you can see multiple people understand that, those last posts were literally added in the span of 3 minutes. You might not like that, but that's the fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sobx.1758 said:

@Lily.1935 said:Mechanically speaking I could slap a shroud mechanic on any class for another Game and it would work just as well with them if the theme was changed. IT actually has been done before. Most resent example of this is Wolcen. They have this avatar system that functions almost exactly like a shroud, all be it both better and worse in a lot of ways. It is mechanically nearly identical, but thematically its distinct. Another Mechanically similar ability to shroud is Dungeon's and Dragon's wildshape mechanic for the druid.

If we boil down what shroud is based on its mechanical design, it could fit a lot of different classes without a problem. The only part of it mechanically speaking that is "Necromancer" is the fact that its generated through deaths. Everything else could easily be emulated on another class.

I can agree that thematically, necromancer is a necromancer. Mechanically, no, I can't. Mechanically its too similar to a watered down druid from Dungeons and dragons than it is to what was unique about the necromancer class in other games.

Mechanically speaking, you can easily turn ANY mechanic into one that fits another class. You just have to think up some thematic way of getting the same end effect.

Hexes? > Rogue uses Poison > Warrior uses debilitating Shout > Paladin smites with divine justice > Wizard uses arcane jiggery pokery etc.

Health as a resource? > Rogue doesn't have "Health" they have "Luck" and once their luck runs out, they get hit and die. Hence, they can spend this luck for power > Warrior your standard Berserker archetype > Paladin makes and offering to the divine (Think: the practice of self flagellation which has been prevalent in many religious cultures) > Wizard casts spells so powerful they drain their very life essence etc.

Minions? > Rogue calls in their Thief Guild buddies > Warrior calls in their Fighter guild buddies > Paladin summons up holy spirits > Wizard conjures elementals etc.

No mechanic is inherently related to a class. It all comes down to how you colour it and what lore you use to substantiate it. Hence why "Zergling Necro" is literally just Mesmer. It has taken the mechanic and made it pink with butterflies and voila, it's now suitable for a Mesmer.

Classes are entirely defined by how their skills are animated and justified. Which is why I've played plenty of Warlocks that summon Demons that play identically to Necromancers just instead of Zombies and Skeletons being summoned and "Death magic" spells, it's Demons and "Demon magic". I've also played some Wizard types that summon Elementals and use "Elemental magic". Just as I've played Wizards and Sorcerors that use their health as a resource (Notably, in Warhammer Online where Bright Wizard and Sorceror classes unique mechanic was that as they cast spells, they build up Power and the higher their power the greater the chance for spells to "Backfire" and deal damage to themselves with increasing damage too but at the same time, the stronger their spells would be)

I've also played things like Engineers that "Hex" because they throw vials of acid and poison as well as bombs to debilitate enemies (Sometimes these Engineers could even build small machines that could run after enemies and nibble at them until they were detonated by the Engineer), even Bards have "Hex-like" effects through debilitating songs (Such as Dirge in EQ2) as well as the occasional poison coated dagger.

So, complaining that a class doesn't "Mechanically feel like a class" is silly. Given that literally any mechanic can be utilized by literally any class because nothing is directly related. At best, there are some stereotypical archetypes that lean on specific tropes (Such as Necromancers raising the dead) but that's not a necessity and stems a lot from how popular Tolkein's fantasy design became (Since it has influenced a large portion of fantasy, from class archetypes to races (I.e. Elves are tall, slender, beautiful, Dwarfs are stout, muscular and 90% beard, Human heroes always have an Elf GF, Orcs are ugly, savage beasts etc) as well as the minutia of various classes such as how Archers are typically Elves because for some reason dexterity/agility is considered the stat needed to use a bow as opposed to strength to actually draw a powerful bow, or how Wizards often have robes, pointy hats and a staff (Ignoring the fairly notable part of the trilogy where Gandalf fights a Balrog with a SWORD but whatever...)) as well as influence from D&D (Which often parallels Tolkein's designs)

too much of a stretch, wouldn't work.

That's not a stretch, that's exactly what you are talking about and it works just as much. Change theme/name/particles and you can switch almost any mechanic to fit a class you want. As you can see multiple people understand that, those last posts were literally added in the span of 3 minutes. You might not like that, but that's the fact.

Its not though. You might not like that but games have followed these designs for a while. What sort of skills works with what themes. Necromancer is in an unfortunate position of not being too common. So what typically defines them is often left out.

Aspects of necromancer's design tropes are pretty specific, trying to shoehorn it into a thief in the example just wouldn't work because their typical mechanical and archetypal design just doesn't match up. Their design is so divergent. At what point does it stop being what it originally was designed to be? If I joined in on a game and the thief was playing the role of the cleric or white mage, or sang songs like bard, at what point is it no longer a thief? The game calls it a thief but it doesn't use steal and it sings songs and heals allies. Is it still a thief because the game says it is? Or is there a clear design disconnect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lily.1935 said:

@Lily.1935 said:Mechanically speaking I could slap a shroud mechanic on any class for another Game and it would work just as well with them if the theme was changed. IT actually has been done before. Most resent example of this is Wolcen. They have this avatar system that functions almost exactly like a shroud, all be it both better and worse in a lot of ways. It is mechanically nearly identical, but thematically its distinct. Another Mechanically similar ability to shroud is Dungeon's and Dragon's wildshape mechanic for the druid.

If we boil down what shroud is based on its mechanical design, it could fit a lot of different classes without a problem. The only part of it mechanically speaking that is "Necromancer" is the fact that its generated through deaths. Everything else could easily be emulated on another class.

I can agree that thematically, necromancer is a necromancer. Mechanically, no, I can't. Mechanically its too similar to a watered down druid from Dungeons and dragons than it is to what was unique about the necromancer class in other games.

Mechanically speaking, you can easily turn ANY mechanic into one that fits another class. You just have to think up some thematic way of getting the same end effect.

Hexes? > Rogue uses Poison > Warrior uses debilitating Shout > Paladin smites with divine justice > Wizard uses arcane jiggery pokery etc.

Health as a resource? > Rogue doesn't have "Health" they have "Luck" and once their luck runs out, they get hit and die. Hence, they can spend this luck for power > Warrior your standard Berserker archetype > Paladin makes and offering to the divine (Think: the practice of self flagellation which has been prevalent in many religious cultures) > Wizard casts spells so powerful they drain their very life essence etc.

Minions? > Rogue calls in their Thief Guild buddies > Warrior calls in their Fighter guild buddies > Paladin summons up holy spirits > Wizard conjures elementals etc.

No mechanic is inherently related to a class. It all comes down to how you colour it and what lore you use to substantiate it. Hence why "Zergling Necro" is literally just Mesmer. It has taken the mechanic and made it pink with butterflies and voila, it's now suitable for a Mesmer.

Classes are entirely defined by how their skills are animated and justified. Which is why I've played plenty of Warlocks that summon Demons that play identically to Necromancers just instead of Zombies and Skeletons being summoned and "Death magic" spells, it's Demons and "Demon magic". I've also played some Wizard types that summon Elementals and use "Elemental magic". Just as I've played Wizards and Sorcerors that use their health as a resource (Notably, in Warhammer Online where Bright Wizard and Sorceror classes unique mechanic was that as they cast spells, they build up Power and the higher their power the greater the chance for spells to "Backfire" and deal damage to themselves with increasing damage too but at the same time, the stronger their spells would be)

I've also played things like Engineers that "Hex" because they throw vials of acid and poison as well as bombs to debilitate enemies (Sometimes these Engineers could even build small machines that could run after enemies and nibble at them until they were detonated by the Engineer), even Bards have "Hex-like" effects through debilitating songs (Such as Dirge in EQ2) as well as the occasional poison coated dagger.

So, complaining that a class doesn't "Mechanically feel like a class" is silly. Given that literally any mechanic can be utilized by literally any class because nothing is directly related. At best, there are some stereotypical archetypes that lean on specific tropes (Such as Necromancers raising the dead) but that's not a necessity and stems a lot from how popular Tolkein's fantasy design became (Since it has influenced a large portion of fantasy, from class archetypes to races (I.e. Elves are tall, slender, beautiful, Dwarfs are stout, muscular and 90% beard, Human heroes always have an Elf GF, Orcs are ugly, savage beasts etc) as well as the minutia of various classes such as how Archers are typically Elves because for some reason dexterity/agility is considered the stat needed to use a bow as opposed to strength to actually draw a powerful bow, or how Wizards often have robes, pointy hats and a staff (Ignoring the fairly notable part of the trilogy where Gandalf fights a Balrog with a SWORD but whatever...)) as well as influence from D&D (Which often parallels Tolkein's designs)

too much of a stretch, wouldn't work.

That's not a stretch, that's exactly what you are talking about and it works just as much. Change theme/name/particles and you can switch almost any mechanic to fit a class you want. As you can see multiple people understand that, those last posts were literally added in the span of 3 minutes. You might not like that, but that's the fact.

Its not though. You might not like that but games have followed these designs for a while.

Way too broad statement to be true. Also no matter how many games would copy each other, it doesn't change the meaning of the word necromancer and still doesn't have any other "classic necromancer mechanics" than what was already stated multiple times above.

What sort of skills works with what themes. Necromancer is in an unfortunate position of not being too common. So what typically defines them is often left out.

Any skill, with any theme you want to in literally the same way you said it about necro skills -"change the theme and it fits another class". What's so hard to understand about that?

The only "typically necromancer defining" things are death magic and... generally anything death/black magic related. That's all there is despite you thinking otherwise for some unknown reason.Actually probable reason is just: "I've played THAT game and I liked THAT deisgn, so now THAT is what necromancer means/is represented by!" -too bad that's not how it works, so... still wrong.

Aspects of necromancer's design tropes are pretty specific, trying to shoehorn it into a thief in the example just wouldn't work because their typical mechanical and archetypal design just doesn't match up.

It would. You change the skin/particles/name of the skill and it's anything you want it to be for any class. Just like you wrote in your example. For some reason you think it works for whatever you want it to work, but doesn't for anything else. But that's clearly false.

Their design is so divergent. At what point does it stop being what it originally was designed to be?

I mean you were hypotetically allowed to change something that was designed for necro just so you can claim it could fit another class if we change it enough, so... I'm missing the point of your question here. The theme is the main thing making the class, not the mechanic. Reskin minions into elementals, divine beings, animals or anything else and WOAH suddenly it fits 10 other classes, but not necro?! What a surprise. At least to you, apparently.Can be done with any other skill as well if we're allowed to change what we need to (and going by your earlier example, we are).

If I joined in on a game and the thief was playing the role of the cleric or white mage, or sang songs like bard, at what point is it no longer a thief? The game calls it a thief but it doesn't use steal and it sings songs and heals allies. Is it still a thief because the game says it is? Or is there a clear design disconnect.

That's not what anyone here suggested, sorry but it seems you didn't understand what you've read.(but that aside, there were already people suggesting bard for thief espec long time ago. So much for complaining about anet not catering to every player's expectations)

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...