|
We all know we aren't going to be deciding the minutiae, abilities or implementation of Crowdforging choices, and instead it will be more like how each Guild is choosing our Hex choices, we have a list of options of what gets programmed first.
This is a clone of a less productive thread with a Bard consensus although it was pointed out the Monk wont be made until pretty far on. That being said we have a choice from 4 Roles to voice priority to.
So what do you think? Barbarian, Bard, Paladin, or Sorcerer?
Goblin Squad Member
|
Considering the nuanced interconnected complexities of programming and art design, the financial considerations of resources in a tough business, and the challenges of being a new start-up product there's only one way to rationally decide what order to institute those classes:
Alphabetically*
*- starting with bard
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the order for 'ease of implementation' would be;
Sorcerer - Most powers (spells) are identical to Wizard.
Paladin (w/o steed) - Most powers are similar to Fighter or Cleric.
Barbarian - Similar to Fighter, but lots of new powers
Bard - Similar to Wizard/Cleric, but lots of new powers
Paladin (w/ steed) - Animal companions will require a lot of work
No strong preference on order of implementation, though I'm more likely to develop Bard & Paladin type abilities than Barbarian or Sorcerer ones.
Pally > Bard > Sorcerer > Barbarian.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We have an entire Settlement, fifth on the Leaderboard, heavily Paladin-focused. If I remember correctly, Freevale has more than its fair share (that's just an expression, folks, not an opinion) of Barbarians, and they're in 14th place right now.
That argues, in my mind, for Paladin and Barbarian to lead in this four-way horse-race.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me that, although it's easy to implement, sorcerer doesn't bring much to the table in terms of diversity. While there will be people lining up to play any of the other three because they are sufficiently unique, that doesn't seem to be the case for sorcerer (unless they significantly change sorcerer's concept to make it more unique from Wizard).
With that being said, and the choice between Bard, Barbarian, and Paladin, I'd have to go with Paladin. Let my buddies in Ozem's Vigil get their holy training rolling sooner rather than later, and give us time to do bards right.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From a purely roleplay perspective, doesn't the fact that the tools for settlement building will take time to develop, point toward most of the early travellers through the fledgling River Nations being outdoorsy types, who don't mind sleeping rough?
We know Druids are going to be a late development, due to the issues of creating a differently-focussed spell list, and animal companion AI.
So Barbarian would seem to be a natural choice for keeping those back-to-nature players happy. Some of the obvious skill paths would be of value to both roles, allowing someone to begin play as a 'barbarian', and branch out once the druidic casting, shapeshifting and animal training became available.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Barbarian!
I will squish the puny head of anyone who says otherwise!
Then Bard because they fill our Taverns with song and write epic tales of our adventures!
Then Barbarian! You can never have too much Barbarian!
Sorcerers cast evil magics that make things burn. Yes to Sorcerers!
Paladins? Huh? What are they good for? Absolutely nothing!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Druid! RAWR! Druid... raw...r?
Pally > Sorc > Bard = Barbarian.
Not sure of the "cost" of each "new" class, but I do remember a few comments from GW around the effort required. I think Ryan quoted the effort required in one of the dev vids which saw barbarians as the least intensive and bards as the highest effort (out of the 4 new classes listed.)
Ranger, druid and monk all required significant effort over and beyond that of the 4 classes in the OP iirc.
I still have high hopes for a magnificent (or any) implementation of the inquisitor and gunslinger (in 3 years time.) In the meantime, I will keep refreshing @decius' twitch stream even though alpha is... not... quite... open... yet.
Yes,i'm looking at you Mr @decius! O_O
- Jascolich
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...but just because the effort is higher, does not mean that it will be implemented later. @Ryan has stated that we can lobby and crowdforge which classes come next, so feel free to wave the flag for the class you REALLY, REALLY, REALLY feel strongly for.
DRUID!
RAWR!
- Jascolich, undeath is a natural state for bones... innit?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1: Bard - Definitely the most important of the bunch. For RP and mechanics purposes.
2: Paladin - Considering the area being crusader road, having paladins traveling the area on their way to/from the Worldwound seems fairly appropriate
3&4: Barbarian/Sorcerer - Barbarian is angry fighter, Sorcerer is natural wizard. Is that a bit of an oversimplification? Sure. But I don't feel either are as important to the game as anything else. I'd rather see Druid/Ranger/Monk before either of these classes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1.Sorcerer - Because it will be easy to build after wizards are done and has no alignment restrictions.
2. Barbarian - Because it will be easy to build after fighters are done and has a light enough alignment restriction every settlement can have them.
3. Bard - Because it will require new animations/audio components for their performances making it one of the hardest of this batch to implement but it has no alignment restrictions. Also people seem to love this class.
4. Paladin - Heaviest alignment restrictions in the game. Should not be implemented until mounted combat is ready because of their mounts. Will require new spells / spell animations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Bard: Bards offer the most distinct role of the four, and therefore those who wish to be bards will suffer the most from their being delayed longer.
2. Barbarian: Barbarians are badass.
3. Paladin: Just because.
4. Sorcerer: Because 4 comes after 3. It's four. It's as many as four ones. And it's terrible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Bard - We need someone to play the lute in our tavern.
2. Barbarian - My chaotic peeps need their token class.
3. Sorcerer - Magic is pretty useful.
9. Paladin - I guess after everything else is added, they can add this one. Can we crowdforge which classes to not add?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would like paladin sooner, but you know what? I don't mind if others can be happy first. This whole thing has been about biding time and will be for years.
I don't mind either, but I have to joke about paladins. It's part of my character package.
* Drink.
* Have Fun.
* Drink.
* Boast.
* Drink.
* Poke Fun At Paladins.
* Drink.
Priest of Findeladlara most definitely.
If I have an alt, I will probably go Expert and concentrate on crafting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm curious given the game's focus and the limited PvE dungeon content, what roll does the Bard actually play?
Accuse my lack of knowledge of pathfinder sorcerers, but do they summon and control "pets"? Wouldn't that put them in the same queue as Druids and Rangers?
Barbarians are likely the easiest to implement. Most likely followed by Paladins. So my thought on the order:
1. Barbarian
2 - 3 Bard or Paladin
4. Sorcerer
5. Necromancer
6 - 7. Druid or Ranger
8. Monk
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm curious given the game's focus and the limited PvE dungeon content, what roll does the Bard actually play?
In many cases Bards play a 'support' role... buffing, debuffing, and crowd control are all major bardic abilities in Pathfinder TT. Those work just as well for PvP as they do in PvE.
Accuse my lack of knowledge of pathfinder sorcerers, but do they summon and control "pets"? Wouldn't that put them in the same queue as Druids and Rangers?
Pathfinder (and v3.5) Sorcerers essentially have all the same spells as Wizards (there are a handful of exceptions). The primary difference is that Wizards have a large number of spells written down in a book and each day they can choose to memorize a few of them to cast, while Sorcerers innately know a few spells that they are able to spontaneously cast several times per day.
Pathfinder TT Sorcerers and Wizards (and Clerics) CAN summon and control various 'pets' with the right spells, but I assume those spells just won't be added to the game until pets in general are ready. Otherwise, Wizards and Clerics would also be "in the same queue as Druids and Rangers".
Barbarians are likely the easiest to implement.
Per the above, I'd have to go with Sorcerers being the easiest by far. Sorcerers get a handful of 'bloodline' powers, just as Wizards have a few 'school' powers, but I doubt those will be included day 1. That'd leave the difference between Wizard and Sorcerer just the 'implement' they use and some details on how many different spells they can cast and how often they can do so. Sorcerers should logically have fewer spells than Wizards, but be able to cast them more frequently.
1. Barbarian
2 - 3 Bard or Paladin
4. Sorcerer
5. Necromancer
6 - 7. Druid or Ranger
8. Monk
There is no core 'Necromancer' class in Pathfinder TT... rather that would likely be a Wizard who specializes in necromancy spells (once those are added). Ranger and Paladin shouldn't be significantly more difficult than Barbarian or Bard if they don't get their animal companions... otherwise they would go along with Druids.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm very curious to see what GW does with Sorcerers. The tabletop mechanic of permanently limiting a sorc's spell selection to spells taken at level up and one change per two levels doesn't seem to fit with the character flexibility design philosophy we've seen from the team.
On the other hand, the tradeoff which makes the wizard better in the tabletop environment- where the sorcerer's power in his chosen strengths doesn't offset the wizard's unbounded versatility- strongly favors the sorcerer in an MMO where the variety of challenges you're likely to confront are much narrower and more predictable than in a tabletop campaign.
It'll be a challenge to make the two roles interestingly different without making one strictly better than the other.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
An all paladin group would be interesting. It looks like GW will be making that role a challenging choice. I can understand why it is not as popular as others. Bad DMing and bad RP around the "Good" part and the Lawful have made it seem much more "inflexible" (or maybe "typecast" is better) than I feel it can be played as.
It sometimes seems like a choice that is more popular for more old school gamers, but that is opinion without any statistics. :)
It was my first TT character in a real organized group for Basic D&D playing "Keep on The Borderlands". Good times that are hard to recapture now. :)
Vote paladin, but only if it won't make you SAD.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In order of ease (and thus likelyhood of implementation):
Barbarian Fairly easy. A couple unique skills, related to rage, taking hits, and fast movement. Otherwise similar to the fighter.
Very few new animations or mechanics required, as rage is almost a SFX/aura applied overtop a creature.
Paladin Clerical skills and fighter skills paired with some unique hybrid skills. Trickier as the smiting and laying on hands requires more coding and animations. But still fairly easy.
This is almost a prestige class.
Both the barbarian and pally work nicely as easy to implement expansion classes, so I can see them coming quickly, possibly along with a non-pet ranger.
Bard Rogue, fighter, and wizard skills will already be in the game, so there just needs to be music.
Like the paladin, this is almost a prestige class.
I can see the bard being prioritized ahead of classes like the druid or monk because of the lesser technical requirements. It's also a social class, so it'd be an interesting class to mechanically try and work into the game as an excuse to find ways of adding bard-esque skills (and spells) to the mix.
Sorcerer Hard, because there likely won't be many alternate forms of spellcasting, and without those sorcerers are just reflavoured wizards. And the idea of bloodline powers that you train as skills is... weird. The sorcerer doesn't fit the game and doesn't stand out enough from the wizard to warrant inclusion at this time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...made it seem much more "inflexible"...
I've met a few people who find Galadedrid Damodred to be their perfect archetype for a Paladin, but I find him overly rigid, predictable in a bad way--especially for a military leader--and not someone I'd care to adventure with :-).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Each one has new mechanics that would need to be built, so I think choosing on what you want to play rather than the difficulty in coding them is absolutely the way to choose. Of course, this is assuming this is one of the choices they give us, they may already have a plan, like how they stated Druid and Rangers get done last.
Since I'm playing a Fighter, I don't have a dog in this fight, but if I choose classes in the order I would like to engage in PvP with them:
Barbarian > Paladin > Sorcerer > Bard
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see much point in choosing based on which is the most likely to be chosen. It's like rooting for the Yankees just because they'll probably win. Goblinworks will already be taking difficulty of implementation into account—and, no offense, but it'll be more accurate than the speculation here—so I think we should give them the view of what we actually want. :P