Diktator.8927

In your opinion. In my opinion, it's not a good thing, as I do prefer having a clear trinity (or even a quaternity? with support specs being added to that trio). I've been always saying that boons are a garbage system in general, due to what they became. I have no problem with some of them, or even most of them: - as long they aren't perma buffs (or at least for a lot of them you would need to really build your character to get it, with max concentration, runes, etc.) - as long as they all of them aren't present on every class/spec, because it kills class identity/diversity in a way, because everyone can do everything, regardless of the class (I think some stuff should be unique to some professions/specs, without making that unique stuff mandatory to have in group content - meaning they should be self buffs only) - as long as they aren't required for everyone in the group to have, because frankly, there should be more diversity. There should be power specs that benefit more from fury, and some that don't care about it (or crit) at all. The game should allow for more build diversity in terms of gear/stats, other than "go full berserker for power dps". Some classes should focus more on crit and fury, some should focus on the raw damage without the crit (endless possibilities really, some could focus on attack speed + crit, for the high apm specs, some could focus on pure damage, some could be dmg + crit for big but slower hits, etc.). Sadly this kind of thing doesn't seem to exist in GW2, as all power builds are fairly similar in terms of stats they choose (it's similar with condi), and crit is required to deal as much damage as possible.

None of that applies when stuff like stacking exists in endgame PvE content. And you don't want to sacrifice dps, so you wont use vitality gear. Sure for open-world PvE, you can be ranged. Same for PvP and WvW. In open-world, I run half viper's, half trailblazer's gear. I had plenty of survivability, when combined with some runes, sigils, traits, and skills (lots of healing when doing damage, so usually if I pull a bunch of mobs, I just heal through their damage). I didn't rely on shroud that much for survivability, though it was always a nice option for emergency heal/shield. Besides, the way some Wells work, you do want to use them on top of enemies, meaning you are going into melee range. So I wouldn't say it's a pure ranged class, like for example a Longbow Ranger would be. Don't get me wrong, it's not a melee class either. Other than wells, Specter doesn't really have much mobility, besides dodging. I think Shroud was fine in PvE. The changes should've been focused around Consume Shadows trait.

There should be a clear distinction imo. All professions should be able to have access to almost all roles. One elite spec however, shouldn't have access to all roles. Now the question of which roles, it depends on the espec. Berserker should mainly be a dps spec, be it condi or power. Druid, for example, is clearly a healer/support spec, it shouldn't be able to do DPS as well (if we're talking group content, in open-world PvE it should have enough tools and damage to make it viable for solo play). Now especs like Firebrand cover too many roles, while being good at all of them. While some specs that are a jack of all trades could/should exist, they shouldn't be the top mandatory picks that are simply too strong. Firebrand does great as a quickness provider, it's a great condi dps, it also offers a lot of defensive boons, even heals, all at the same time.

You're just amplifying the "issue" that doesn't exist. They said they wouldn't agree with most of your list, which is why they think there's no right answer to the question. To me it was a pretty clear and straightforward response. But you've somehow failed to understand what they were saying, and instead chose to debate over it. They could've made their own list, and then someone else could've disagreed with them and made their own list, and we could go on and on like that. There is no universal answer to this question, though some picks obviously can be better than others. I'd personally pick Firebrand over Willbender. Guardian is really squishy, and it relies on boons and active defense. Willbender kinda requires you to do damage to keep yourself alive, and is more difficult to play than Firebrand. Firebrand is just much easier and more versatile, while allowing you to use tomes to either heal yourself, buff yourself, deal dmg, etc. on top of having access to a ton of boons otherwise, via Mantras and stuff. For the Revenant, I'd say Renegade and Herald are both great picks. I'd say Renegade being ranged is irrelevant, as you're mostly going to fight close range anyways, especially against harder enemies that take a bit longer to kill. Also if you pick the All For One trait, you'd want to be in range of your summons to get Protection. Both are one of the tankiest especs you could pick, if built correctly. For Thief, I'd go with Specter any day. As you have said, you're relying on dodging and active defense on Daredevil. Specter can just tank damage, at least right now before the patch drops. Specter has Consume Shadows, which heals for a ton, or gives a large barrier, it has access to Shroud which automatically makes it more tanky, due to basically having 2 health bars. Overall it has a lot of tools that make it great for dealing with single target threats, like champions, bounties, etc. For a lot of these choices, the gear, runes, and sigils also matter a lot.

That's the point? It's an RPG game after all. You can't have everyone doing everything, you need some defined roles. Would you be complaining about Druids being kitten at dps right now? Their role is very-well defined, they're primarily a healing/support spec. If you wanted to go the DPS route, you technically could, but you're not gonna be great at it, in fact you'll be quite bad at it. Every other MMORPG I've played has defined roles, if you want to pick a certain role, you need to pick a certain class. That's the case with most games that deal with different classes. If we take @Kaleban.9834's example, where each elite spec is designed for a different role, in GW2 you would have access to all roles in all 9 professions.

Yeah, that's fine then. And obviously if we didn't care about the game, we wouldn't be discussing it here in the first place. It might be because we couldn't understand each other's points, though I think I understood yours fairly well, so I'm not sure if you necessarily made "better" points. If I wanted to sum it up in a few sentences, then it would be something like this. Mesmer's class theme and fantasy doesn't align with what Bard's usually are in other games. Bard would be it's own separate class, with it's own separate kit, with it's own separate class mechanics and unique abilities. It would work better that way, then being thrown into a profession that's thematically different, and that focuses on different things. If you disagree with this, then we simply perceive what Bards and Mesmers do (and how they do it) differently, and that's where our disagreement stems from. Cheers, and have a nice day/night.

Listen, this is going nowhere obviously. If you are trolling, then good job. If you aren't, then I'm so, so sorry. If Bards were introduced, they would have a separate profession mechanic, as well as other unique mechanics, just like any other class... I think this should be very obvious, without having to say it (apparently it isn't). The differences you pointed out between Warrior and Guardian mean nothing. In the end, they all end up doing damage, or buffing allies, right? They just do it differently, with different mechanics. Btw, those are already existing professions, ofc you would be able to list their differences, as they are straight forward. How do you expect me to list all the differences between a Bard and any currently available profession... when Bard doesn't even exist in the game lol. I'm not a game/class designer, and I frankly don't have enough time to theorycraft you an entire class from scratch, covering their entire kit, with all the abilities and what they do. Do you want me to create a brand new class, come up with new mechanics, new abilities, and everything? I'm sorry, if you were looking for that answer. Let's just say it would be very different from a Mesmer. Glamour abilities have nothing to do with Bards, Mantras don't have anything to do with Bards, Shatters have nothing to do with Bards. No I wouldn't be content if they just changed the name of some abilities. I seriously don't know where this is coming from. Yeah, that's EXACTLY what I meant. It's obvious that you aren't willing to accept anything other than your own view, and that you aren't even interesting in understanding my point. Thank you for confirming that.

Yeah, I'm not doing that. Again, I've been pretty clear, but you intentionally keep dismissing or ignoring my points. What can any class do that other class cannot? I mean it's such a weird question. What can a Warrior do that a Guardian cannot? Each class can do almost everything in this game, boons, ranged and melee dps. The way they look like while doing it differs, the way how they do it might differ, but they do end up doing the same thing as everyone else (doing damage, buffing allies, healing, etc.). What would Bard do that's not in the game? Again, you have to look at how it does what it does, and how does it look like when it does it. You can't simply ignore that point. I wouldn't be able to do it playing as a Mesmer, because it's simply not a class focused around instruments, sounds, songs, chords, notes. You play a song to buff allies, you play a chord to damage an enemy. Maybe you could have different instruments being used for different things, certain "softer" sounding instruments focusing on buffing and healing, and harsher ones being used for damaging abilities. I mean the possibilities are there. I have pointed out to other games, as they have well designed Bard classes. So if you are for some reason unfamiliar with them, there's a chance to familiarize yourselves with the concept of a Bard class.

The class is literally about illusions, phantasms, deception, mind control. How do you even come to a conclusion that spells out Bard, is just beyond me. I've given you a bone with the lullaby, and not only have you took it, but you are now using it as your argument. It's only one potential spell, out of the entire Bard kit.. Playing different songs, chords, notes, even using voice, so sound is a big component of the class. AoE spells that buff allies are also a thing. Aion, Allods Online, Lost Ark, all have great Bard classes so if you're unfamiliar with them, go check out some videos from those games.

Well, at least now I know I'm not touching my Scrapper ever again.

I'm sorry, but it's like I'm talking to a brick wall. Have you tried reading what I've said, and tried understanding my point? I've explained it very well, and you are getting caught up on an irrelevant Bloodmage comment. I've said Necro already encompasses the Blood mage fantasy, and I've just given an example of how they could make an elite that focuses more on it. They don't need to, they just could if they wanted to. I'm not asking for it, it's an example. I said Paladin does fit into the Guardian fantasy style of class, though visually it's not currently 100% there. It could be with a new elite. Cleric is a cloth wearing character (among other things), I wouldn't put it under Guardian, as it's different. I have also explained the profession themes fairly well, and given the equivalents from other games. In your descriptions, where does the Bard theme fit? Is it about Strength and physical prowess? Nope, so not a Warrior. Is it about Conviction and Altruism? Nah, not really. So not a Guardian either. Is it about Possession and Otherworldly Magic? Nope. Not a Revenant. Is it about Nature Magic and Wilderness Master? Nah, not a Ranger either. Is it about Science and Ingenuity? Nope, not a scientist, not an Engineer. Is it about Shadows and Cunning? No, I don't see bards as that dark and mysterious. Not a Thief. Is it about Reality and Mind Alteration? No, overall it's not. You could reach and say playing a lullaby to put an enemy to sleep could be mind alteration. But it's not a Mesmer either. Is it about Matter Creation and Manipulation? No, it's simply not an elementalist or a mage. Is it about Occultism and Contamination? Hell no it isn't, so it's not a Necro either. That was simple enough. Bard doesn't fit anywhere. It's not only about color schemes, it's about an overall visual appearance of the class. That encompasses skill icons, visual effects from abilities, animations, particle effects, how the skills interact with everything, etc. It's also about the lore/fantasy/theme/identity of the class.

The base of the whole argument wasn't about what class I think is missing. Everyone has their own preference, and everyone might want different classes to be added. I also haven't spent any time theorycrafting potential new classes, I just have rough ideas of what's missing, that other games have. The way I see classes currently, is that a profession determines the visuals, the identity/fantasy of the class. Each profession is unique and different from each other. Different especs just act as different ways to play within that profession fantasy/identity, in most cases. In other games they are called builds, in GW2 they're elite specs (and they do a bit more than what changing a build in other games does). Adding a Bard as a new profession, for example, would add a completely new and different class identity/fantasy, with completely new and different visuals, mechanics, etc. Adding a Bard as an elite spec to whatever other profession just wouldn't be the same in any way. You're missing out on completely different visuals, weapon choices and their skills, mechanics, etc. You're just getting a different build for the base profession, that acts as a Bard. You're also missing out on potential new especs for that profession, that would have the same theme, but with different twists, just like current especs. So instead of just having one bard class as the elite spec, you could have 3-4 different types of Bards. The same way you have 3-4 different Summoners or Elementalists (core + 3 especs). We're just back to my main argument, and I think I've been pretty clear at explaining it. Though I seem to have to repeat it in every single post, so that might not be the case. You think that any new class could be added under current professions as an elite spec. I'm simply arguing that some new classes would be better suited to having a whole new dedicated profession to them. I wouldn't, for example, want a Reaper to be its own profession. It fits nicely as the melee summoner/necromancer, Scythe fits the theme and the identity of the core profession perfectly. Here are just a few descriptions of the current professions. Elementalists - Mages/Spellcasters that use different elemental magic, fire, water, air, earth. Pretty straightforward. - (Potentially)Covers all magic type of classes from other games. Warriors - Weapon masters, heavy armor, strength. - Covers default melee warriors/knights from other games. Rangers - Nature, survival, spirits, pets. - Covers Archers, Rangers, Druids, Wardens from other games. Necromancers - Dark/blood magic, undead, summoning, corruption, plagues, feeding on life force. - Covers the summoner/necromancer, dark/blood magic, etc. type of classes from other games. Guardians - By the description, Paladins essentially, holy knights. Visually, not really. In practice, lots of fire. Virtuous fighters, protect/support allies, etc. - (Potentially)Covers the holy knight/Paladin classes from other games. Thieves - Stealthy, using shadows, sneaking. Very agile. - Covers assassins, thieves, and other similar classes from other games. Engineers - Different sorts of turrets, gadgets, explosives, elixirs, mines, bombs, rifles, pistols, etc. - Covers all the engineer/tinkerer type of classes from other games. Mesmers - Magical illusionists, using clones, phantasms. - Covers all the illusionist/psionicist types of classes from other games. Revenants - More unique to this game I guess. Using different heroes/legends from the mists, utilizing their power. Dark-ish knights? - (Potentially)Covers the dark knight/shaman types of classes from other games. Now mind you, while they do cover certain class fantasies, etc., some of them cover more than one fantasy. Necro for example covers summoners, the undead, dark magic, blood magic, plagues and diseases, corruption...but they all have the same visuals. It does allow for 4th expansion to add a blood mage for example. So a Paladin could be introduced under the Guardian profession, sure. It seems to fit in perfectly, even though we don't really have a "real Paladin" in the game right now. Visually it's just not the same as Paladins from most other games, but an espec could potentially change that. A Bard just wouldn't fit in anywhere, other than as a separate profession. The current elite specs do fit in in those professions, but how would a Bard fit any of them? When I actually think about it, it's the only class fantasy that isn't represented. Sure, there might be a few others like Monks/Martial Arists/weaponless classes, but they just wouldn't fit in GW2, as it ties your abilities to your weapons. Cleric/Priest type of class arguably doesn't exist either. I'm not sure if there are any other classes that are so unique that wouldn't fit into current professions. Most melee warrior type of unique classes could just be placed under warrior. The solution would be straight forward, but apparently it's a sin to have one armor type with 4 professions, compared to the usual 3.

I just don't understand the obsession with " 3 new classes per health bar or 3 classes per armor type". Just put it anywhere honestly, it doesn't matter that much. It doesn't matter if you have the same "Health level" as another class of the same armor type. But yeah, your suggestions are perfectly applicable to the game, and I don't see why they couldn't do something like that, at some point. I'm not even saying they need to add all the elite specs at once, or even all professions at once. This way you have 3 brand new unique classes, which can have their own separate especs that differ from one another. The reason why I didn't go in depth about theorycrafting new possible classes and their especs, is because I was stuck arguing about whether these already exist in game, or the difference between introducing them into the game as especs vs new professions. In my opinion, those classes would be completely different if introduced as new professions, rather than just especs. This way, Bard as a whole is focused around music, notes, chords, etc. You could have different especs, focusing on different parts of the musical theme, rather than just having one espec from a completely unrelated profession doing it all (which ends up in doing none of it to the fullest). With Paladin, you could have a more healing oriented spec (like Druid), a more durable, support-like spec, and a full on dps spec. Though I'm unsure if that aligns with anet's current vision of everyone doing everything. The only issue that rarely anyone brings up, is time and money required to develop those. For a game as big as GW2, you'd think they'd have a massive team behind it, yet they don't. So right now we can only dream about something like this happening.

Agreed. Boons are nothing special at this point. They should be temporary buffs to help you in certain situations, not perma buffs.

BDO, and honestly a lot of action-combat MMOs, usually come nowhere close to having as much customization and uniqueness about their class systems as tab-target games do. AA doesn't really have "more" classes, rather it allows you to combine different skill trees and make your own class. Majority of the influence comes from one tree, a bit less from the other tree, and the least from the 3rd tree (though you could distribute skill points equally between the 3, it wouldn't be great though). ESO is great, the only reason I'm not playing it over GW2, is because of its terrible combat. The class system in ESO is alright, nothing special, not great, not terrible. Listen, sure, elite specs could fill different class ideas instead of new professions, to an extent. But they would need to be at least on the level of Druid and Specter when it comes to how much they alter the class visuals, feel, role, identity, fantasy, gameplay, etc. Harbinger is just a variation of Necro, Reaper is a melee variation of Necro, Chrono is a variation of Mesmer, Virtuoso is a variation of Mesmer, etc. Specter feels like a somewhat unique class, taking the shroud mechanic from Necro, and using it to get that Warlock feel when combined with scepter. Druid transforms the class in a way, especially when you use a Staff. It's not just a boring dps with a pet. Compare that to the other 2 especs that feel very similar, and you see how different the Druid actually is. So if they were ever to create a true Paladin class, or a Bard, a Priest/Cleric, or whatever other class that exists in other games, it would need to be on that level, otherwise they simply wont feel like brand new classes.

No, I have explained it. And yes those are common themes from other MMORPGs, as is the OPs class suggestion. I see nothing wrong with it. I have also explained why I dislike the class system, and your abilities being tied to weapons - and why those things are kinda limiting. Disagreeing with importing them into GW2 is one thing, but trying to argue those already exist in this game is another. And to answer the OP, honestly I can't see how a weaponless class would work in a game which ties your abilities to different weapons.

What is holy in any other game? Usually the opposite of evil and darkness. You know I'm not talking specifically about religion, but about the class feel, and visuals, which other games seem to have done fairly well. If you really feel that way about the word "holy", maybe a better description would be a Warrior of Light? Again, closest to that sort of class is actually Holosmith, if we go by the visuals. I'm not the one getting hung up on that. Instead, it seems like a lot of you are, since you are flocking to this thread and focusing only on that part. Again, visuals are a huge part of the class, don't try to dismiss it. That last sentence basically reads as, "Do as ANET likes or shut up". Weird. Why not change up things a bit? After all, it's a discussion, there's 99% chance Anet wont even see this, let alone try to implement it. If you don't like this discussion, then I suggest you don't participate in it. 🙂 Well yes, and Ranger also is connected to the nature, and has yellow-ish/green-ish color visuals as well. With some classes it's more rigid than others. Fire mage could honestly use the colors of fire, but depending on the actual class fantasy/lore, it could use flames of any color...as long as you can visually tell they're flames. I really don't see how a warrior of light could have purple visuals, for example. Yeah, the thread has derailed from the original post. If we were to look at how the classes would fit in the existing lore, then it's just unnecessarily limiting. No it doesn't sound like that, and it isn't my main point. I don't want Guardians to have yellowish skill effects and Necros to have purplish skill effects. I have specifically explained this over and over, but you just refuse to read and acknowledge my point. Glad we can agree on something at least. The difference is, I dislike it, and you seem to like it. I really like having separate classes with separate themes, visuals, mechanics. Though a class system like Archeage's was also amazing, as you could create a lot of unique class fantasies/identities yourself. Even Rift, which similarly has 3 talent trees (or whatever they're called) for a class (which can be comparable to 3 specs you pick on a class in GW2, except they are much more in depth and offer much more customization), has one of the best class systems around. I kind of agree on you that they could make Mesmers into bards. My points still stand though, it's just gonna be a mix of Mesmer and Bard, rather than a fully fleshed out, completely unique Bard class. I'm honestly done explaining myself over and over again, as it's going nowhere.

Funny enough I haven't played WoW past level 10 or so, never really got into the game. I'm talking about colors mainly because it's a big part of a class identity and fantasy. When you think of "Holy" magic and "Holy" looking abilities, you don't associate blue with it. We attribute colors to everything, each color can represent and invoke a certain emotion. And if you had read my previous replies, you'd see what my argument was. It's only now that I went more in-depth in another aspect of that, which are the colors. Colors contribute to the overall theme and feeling of the class. Again, you "could" try to make completely brand new, separate class identities/fantasies within the elite specs, but they will always feel like base class mixed in with that new class. Not only because of the colors used, but because you'd use base class weapons with their base class abilities. You'd use some base class utility/healing abilities as well, and the base class mechanics will often stay almost the same.

Well if you think those classes fit the current professions/elite specs, then idk if there's a point in arguing about this at all. We must have a very different pair of eyes. How do the devs agree with you btw? So a traditional Paladin/Holy Warrior color scheme and overall look and feel of the class is light blue? You know, I always thought it was yellow-ish, focusing on light/holy magic, shields/barriers, etc. Sure it can have some fire added to it as well. The closest the Guardian gets to it is if he gets a light aura on him. Everything else is just a bunch of blue flames. Hell, my Holosmith feels more like a Holy Warrior than Guardian does. The whole class focuses on proccing burning to do damage in some way, shape, or form. So having enitrely different mechanics contributes greatly to the feeling of using a different class. Firebrand actually gets a bit closer with tome skills, having a lot of AoE buffs, etc. I never knew Necro focused on dark and shadow magic, occultism and witchcraft. As I see it, it's main focuses are minions aka summoning, plagues and corruption. It focuses on death, and resurrecting dead. It's a Necromancer, as it says, not a Warlock. When you think of Necromancers, plagues, corruption, poison, etc. you think of a green color. When it comes to warlocks, in other games it's usually darker colors, often including purple. Just the color of abilities can change the way you perceive your class, as well as what the abilities themselves do. Specter (with a scepter, and especially the Shroud) is a lot closer to a Warlock than a Necromancer is in this game, so I could give it a pass as a Warlock. But Necromancer just isn't it. Bards just don't exist in any shape or form in this game. Yeah sure, Mantras are something that you could attribute to them, but Mesmers just aren't bards in any shape or form. Just because professions have one certain feature that you could associate to a certain class, doesn't mean they're fully that class. Mesmers are primarily illusionists, and the whole class reflects that. What do I think is missing? I mean, I could write an essay, but I'd rather not. I've explained pretty clearly what I think of GW2's classes and the class system in my previous posts. Elite specs at the moment simply don't cover the entire class fantasies/identities, rather they just provide certain bits from them. In the end you get the core class mixed in with a different class fantasy, but almost never get the entirely new class with its whole brand new fantasy/identity. I'd say Druids and Specters get the closest to actually feeling like entirely different classes, that have almost entirely different fantasy/identity compared to the core class.

Okay, please tell me which profession would then make a Holy warrior (a Paladin sort of class). Guardian tries to be that, but it's just a fire bot. Bunch of blue abilities that focus on burning. So it doesn't fit. What about a Holy Priest/Cleric type of class. Being the ranged version of the holy warrior pretty much. What about a warlock/witch/occultism type of class? Necro isn't that, Spectre tries to be it. I've explained why elite specs are pretty much variations of core specs. The core mechanics stay the same, even if you introduce some new mechanics. Examples: Guardians apply burning on F1, heal on F2, def. boon on F3 between all 3 especs. Blue class. Engineers utilize toolbelt skills that vary depending on utility skills you pick. Necro actually changes a bit with Scourge, dismissing the shroud mechanic. Green class. Mesmers rely on summoning clones, with Virtuoso instead changing clones for Blades, but it works similarly. F1 power dmg, F2 condi, F3 cc, F4 defensive tool, across all 3 especs. Purple/Pink class. I've explained Revenants and Elementalists already. Warriors, build up a bar to unleash a powerful skill, they vary between especs, but the core is the same, with Bladesworn being the most different. For me they would have to have different core mechanics, and different theme and identity (both visual and in terms of gameplay, and role) to be considered "brand new, separate classes". If you wanted to introduce a Paladin like class, you would need to create a brand new profession, or completely change Guardian's abilities and weapon abilities when that espec is selected, different mechanics would also be nice - compared to having F1-F3 abilities doing the same thing on all other specs. One requires making a new profession, the other requires changing a lot more stuff. What about a Bard-like class? That focuses on instruments to deal damage and buff/heal allies? You would need a completely new profession. Instead what they do is introduce one new weapon that may fit the espec, and that's it. If you choose a core weapon, you're playing the same class, with different flavors. So no. They wouldn't need to break the system to create a new profession. They would need to break the system in order to create a truly unique class (espec) within the existing professions.

They do doo-doo damage* But yes, I was checking it out in the PvP lobby. I've just tested it during leveling, and I have to say it's not bad, but I'm not sure how well it does in "endgame" PvE.

I just wanted to level up a Warrior. Decided to check out all the weapons first, and I actually do like the way Hammer abilities look and work...except my F1, my 4 and 5 deal NO DAMAGE. Noped out of it really quickly.

Right now, I'm loving my Holosmith. Corona Burst is my favorite skill in the game at the moment, and when combined with Prismatic Singularity (AoE pull), Hard Light Arena, and Laser Disk, it's just everything I want out of a class. I'm dealing a lot of AoE dmg to anything that comes near me. It's also decently tanky with barriers from Corona Burst and Blast Shield passive, HLA... I would love to create a similar build for a different class, but I haven't really found any other classes that come close to this. Warrior just lacks that AoE for me. Edit: Scrapper was a good spec as well, but I got tired of it eventually. I really dislike the core Engi and the Mechanist though, so I can't say I'm overall fan of the profession, I'm just the fan of those 2 especs.

Oh, absolutely. It would appear as if GW2 has more builds per class, and that's true. But I don't think there's much of a difference between say, a Power Willbender and a Power Alacrity Willbender. Or between Condi Willbender and Condi Alacrity Willbender. Those are just slight variations. They mostly use the same weapons/skills, so there's virtually no difference in that regard. They would probably pick a few different traits, and use a different gearset, but other than that, it's very-very-very similar. In my example, you had 3 distinct playstyles. A tank, a holy dps (focuses on DoTs, AoE, medium range, and overall holy looking spells), a physical dps (more focused on single target, close range, and mostly physical dps looking abilities). I'm sure even there you could make some variations. The builds themselves, and their names on sites like metabattle, don't really paint a real picture. Just for the Firebrand you have 3 builds that are virtually the same in terms of gameplay, "Firebrand - Condi DPS", "Firebrand - Quickness Support Condi DPS", "Firebrand - Quickness Support Celestial DPS". They use mostly the same skills. Another problem I have with weapons, is that most of them aren't viable, or they just feel clunky and unimpactful to use. I thought Mace Guardian was okay, but it's not focused on damage, and it often feels impactless. Most shields can also feel like a complete waste of a weapon slot. Overall, if we could actually choose our weapon abilities like we do with utility skills, I wouldn't have an issue with that. But right now, weapons just act as presets, and certain weapons just aren't meant to fulfill a certain role. You just end up going with the same 2 weapons for power dmg build, and same one or 2 weapons for a condi build. There's little variety there. If we had a more robust passive tree, where a lot of passives could directly impact our weapon abilities, and give them different effects, it would be an amazing system. Something like what Virtue spec's "Glacial Heart" does for Guardian's Hammer 2. It changes the ability slightly, and gives it some additional effects.

I had to use kits while leveling, as the default weapons were trash. But I dislike them very much in their current state. They feel impact-less and boring. Yes, it's optimal to use them in a lot of damage builds, but I just can't bring myself to ever use them. Besides, they don't really fit my interpretation of a class identity/theme, on both Scrapper and Holosmith, which I enjoy playing the most. Scrapper is more about gyros, supportive abilities, and it's kinda focused on electricity/lightning (Hammer). Holosmith is more about the photon forge and doing some flashy heat/fire and, well... Holo abilities. I can't find any place for boring looking kits in there, they simply look and feel outdated to use.