Age of Conan: Class List

[Sairon]

http://www.ageofconan.com/common/classList/classList.html

Didn't see this posted anywhere else, and it probably deserves its own thread for class discussion.

I find the list is very impressive with some fairly original classes. Remains to see how well they will be fleshed out and how much the differ in playstyle.

[edlavallee]

Meh... pretty standard fare. I had to chuckle at this in the rogue description:

These classes are not the disciplined varriors of the soldier archetype...

Will somebody tell these guys that they need to proofread this shit?

[Venkman]

I'm interested in the game, but the concern I have always had is their archetype system. Even EQ2 abandoned that (earlier this year). You're asking people to "discover" their preference, and even if you have a system in which they can change their mind, they have to do a bit or lot of the same content over again.

This is complicated by the PvP switch at level 20, which while not a universal world-wide rule is arguably one of the main features of AoC. Nobody's going to know what's good or gimped in PvP until a critical mass of players make their real class choice the moment they can get attacked by other players. Doesn't seem right if they want the game to be more than niche.

I've been holding out hope over the course of this year that they'd dump the archetype>sub-choice thing. Ah well. They can always do it a year after launch I guess...

[Velorath]

I'm interested in the game, but the concern I have always had is their archetype system. Even EQ2 abandoned that (earlier this year). You're asking people to "discover" their preference, and even if you have a system in which they can change their mind, they have to do a bit or lot of the same content over again.

This is complicated by the PvP switch at level 20, which while not a universal world-wide rule is arguably one of the main features of AoC. Nobody's going to know what's good or gimped in PvP until a critical mass of players make their real class choice the moment they can get attacked by other players. Doesn't seem right if they want the game to be more than niche.

I've been holding out hope over the course of this year that they'd dump the archetype>sub-choice thing. Ah well. They can always do it a year after launch I guess...

In some respects it has been dumped, or to put it another way it's just not really a problem the way they're doing it.  From what I remember in reading past interviews, once you finish the single player mode (which takes you up to level 20 when you choose your class), you never have to go through it again when you start new characters.  So it sounds to me like with every character after the first you can choose your final class right away.  They also got rid of the later class choice which was supposed to take place at 40 or 60 or something I think.

[Morfiend]

Im pretty sure this was posted like 2 or 3 months ago. But more Conan is a good thing.

I like the Rogue / Necromancer hybred one.

[Signe]

Morph, stop being hopeful.  You know what happens....

[Chenghiz]

In some respects it has been dumped, or to put it another way it's just not really a problem the way they're doing it.  From what I remember in reading past interviews, once you finish the single player mode (which takes you up to level 20 when you choose your class), you never have to go through it again when you start new characters.  So it sounds to me like with every character after the first you can choose your final class right away.  They also got rid of the later class choice which was supposed to take place at 40 or 60 or something I think.

This is correct.

[Morfiend]

Morph, stop being hopeful.  You know what happens....

"Hope is like a bird that senses dawn and carefully starts to sing while it is still dark."

[stray]

If it came down to playing habits in determining my class, I'm gonna end up being a Reaver.

Meh... pretty standard fare.

Not really.

Scion of Set -- Healer with snake forms and poisons. Fucking Thulsa Doom man!

Priest of Mitra -- Healer with AoE repulsion/knockback spells

Liberators/Conquerers -- Plate Warriors with Flags/Morale Buffs

Dark Templar -- Plate Warrior with Life Taps

Halberdier -- AoEing Polearmer

[sinij]

Morph, stop being hopeful.  You know what happens....

Let him pretend the usual won't happen this time.

[edlavallee]

If it came down to playing habits in determining my class, I'm gonna end up being a Reaver.

Meh... pretty standard fare.

Not really.

Scion of Set -- Healer with snake forms and poisons. Fucking Thulsa Doom man!

Priest of Mitra -- Healer with AoE repulsion/knockback spells

Liberators/Conquerers -- Plate Warriors with Flags/Morale Buffs

Dark Templar -- Plate Warrior with Life Taps

Halberdier -- AoEing Polearmer

Scion of Set -- Snake form is just another shapeshifter (been done and is a novelty at best) and the poison attacks is just standard shaman fare. Can you say cave spec'd shaman in DAoC?

Priest of Mitra -- Most of the healers I PUG with are downright repulsive, agreed. Repulsion (turn undead) and knockback... wheee! At least my boring stare at the party heath bars and click one button is now spiced up with the flying Wallendas.

Liberators/Conquerers -- Uh, paladins, hello? So, now instead of carrying something useful like a SHIELD, I get to carry this ghey assed flag with me? Make it rainbow colored to match my flouncing melee style.

Dark Templar -- EQ's shadowknight, back from the dead. Get it? Back from the... oh never mind.

Halberdier -- All the love of a DAoC armsman, with out the damage potential. C'mon, someone swinging a six foot polearm with two hands isn't going to do a hellalotta damage? Puh-leaze.

[stray]

First off, you said "standard fare". To me, that means the Big 3 (Healer, Mage, Warrior), and the other common variants. Just because a class has been done before in one other game doesn't mean it's standard fare. Give me more examples than "Lame, that was in DAoC!" Fuck man, there's only so many "purely" original fantasy combatants one could invent. That doesn't mean they're all standard fare though.

And besides, a lot of these ideas are from the Conan stories. REH predates fucking Tolkien, let alone EQ or Dark Ages of Camelot.

Priest of Mitra -- Most of the healers I PUG with are downright repulsive, agreed. Repulsion (turn undead) and knockback... wheee! At least my boring stare at the party heath bars and click one button is now spiced up with the flying Wallendas.

It's an entertaining and effective form of crowd control that hasn't been done anywhere except CoH (as far as I know). Be sarcastic all you want, but it does liven up the healing or buffing game a bit (Force Field and Kinetics from CoH come to mind). Stop teh hate. At least the damn engine even allows for knockback. That's more than I can say for most games.

Liberators/Conquerers -- Uh, paladins, hello? So, now instead of carrying something useful like a SHIELD, I get to carry this ghey assed flag with me? Make it rainbow colored to match my flouncing melee style.

I was thinking something more along the lines of standard bearers I've seen in single player rpgs (a recent one would be Titan Quest). And telling just by the general feel of the combat mechanics, something a hell of a lot more dynamic than the shitfest that is the WoW Paladin class. Don't even mention WoW Paladins. From what I can tell, that kind of automated gaming experience isn't even possible in AoC.

Halberdier -- All the love of a DAoC armsman, with out the damage potential. C'mon, someone swinging a six foot polearm with two hands isn't going to do a hellalotta damage? Puh-leaze.

Eh, I have no idea what you're talking about here. You win, I guess.

[Telemediocrity]

Nobody's going to know what's good or gimped in PvP until a critical mass of players make their real class choice the moment they can get attacked by other players. Doesn't seem right if they want the game to be more than niche.

Assuming you have a good dev team, I disagree.  Better to have people playing classes they actually like in PvP, rather than whatever's flavor-of-the-month, because at the end of the day they'll balance things out somewhat.  I highly doubt most people's real preference for PvP is 'whatever's powerful' - they have a certain playstyle they like, and not having a million "OMG CLASS X IS CRAP CLASS Y IS GOD" posts to swim through right out of the gate helps people feel uninhibited about their class choices.

[stray]

Another thing, AO sucked on many levels, but I think Funcom did a great job with their class system (granted, it was sci-fi, so they had more to work with there). If anything, I think they'll execute fantasy class ideas in more interesting ways than what you've seen in EQ or DAoC (this goes without mentioning the combat system itself).

Secondly, if anything deserves to be called "standard fare", it's any game (or any future game) with fucking Dwarves, Elves, and Orcs in it. The Conan world stands out on that basis alone. It's more rooted in Bronze Age culture and myths than it is "high fantasy" or medieval/renaissance styling. Cities, armor, weaponry, etc., are more like something you'd see in Troy than Lord of the Rings. Magic is based around religion and divining than it is wizardry or scholarship. There are no warring races. Just warring civilizations.

[Strazos]

Can we at least wait until beta to start bitching over classes?

I really like the idea of the variety of Rogue kits.

[stray]

Can we at least wait until beta to start bitching over classes?

NO. It's on. Now. The thread title shall not go to waste.

[hal]

I reserve the right to bitch about anything I want. Thank you very much. Having said that I followed the link. And.. If they can implement it theres diversity there. I did say "if"

[edlavallee]

First off, you said "standard fare". To me, that means the Big 3 (Healer, Mage, Warrior), and the other common variants.

So, you have a healer with poison, healer with knockback. Tanks with flags, tanks with polearms. Casters with pets, casters without. When you get right down to it, they all go back to that big three. Add whatever gimmick you want, those three exist for a reason. Even the modern military has those three archetypes -- infantry, artillery and medics.

The flag wavers, gonna have to see that in action, but I don't have much hope for it. Call me a cynic for sure, but I have been through too many disappointments to hold my breath for long.

And, I am not young enough to cry "Lame!". I was just pointing out that they don't necessarily qualify to be called "original". Can you even get original these days? At some point, all the songs have been sung. Although, it might be worth noting that I liked DAoC's class variety the best so far.

[Sairon]

The classes are way more original than the line up I've seen in MMOs for the last couple of years. Look at Defiler as well, cloth wearing melee class that seems to drain essence from kills, which is then used for granting "unnatural powers". Herald of Xotli also sounds fairly original from the description, melee mage which summon weapons and turns into demon form. The Lich seems to be somewhere along the same lines but with undead powers instead of demonic, not what I would call your normal fantasy Lich.

So far there's very limited information on how the classes really are though. There's no information about the thieving abilities of the Master Thief for example, which would be a little strange if left out entirely.

If the combat is as twitchy as described in the FAQ ( http://www.ageofconan.com/conan/en/faq.html ), then even the classes we've all played before hopefully will feel renewed.

EDIT: Just found this one  http://www.conan.ch/conanonline/interview_quotes.htm. Fuck, I'm geting drawn into the hype machine, there's some really intresting shit in there  .

[Venkman]

In some respects it has been dumped, or to put it another way it's just not really a problem the way they're doing it.  From what I remember in reading past interviews, once you finish the single player mode (which takes you up to level 20 when you choose your class), you never have to go through it again when you start new characters.  So it sounds to me like with every character after the first you can choose your final class right away.  They also got rid of the later class choice which was supposed to take place at 40 or 60 or something I think.

This is correct.

Awesome. Assuming playing to 20 is not like playing to DAoC 50 (time/boredom-wise), this'll be a great thing.

Otherwise, I agree with this thread. These are inventive class combinations. I am concerned with the number of classes though, same problem I had with DAoC. I did think DAoC had too many classes as well, mostly because of the arbitrary assignment of abilities to individual classes forcing the same specialization that always happens. WoW's 9 classes (8+1 faction and 9 flatout shortly) are a better approach. Even the most perceptually-gimped class can still be relevant and fun.

But, also like DAoC (was a Smite Cleric), I'm leaning towards a Priest archetype in AoC, like Scourge of Derketo here. Based purely on description. I don't mind occasionally healing, but I want big damage. Or maybe a Mage>Lich.

[stray]

Just because DAoC fucked up balance so bad doesn't mean we should settle for generic archetypes like the ones Blizzard did. IMO, DAoC colors too many people's perceptions on the subject of "class balancing". There are several games that have done, certainly not a perfect job, but a better job than Mythic has, when it comes to class implementation and balancing (Shadowbane and CoH come to mind, as far as Diku-ish games go). I think Dark Ages' balancing problems (both real and imagined) were more due to Realm segregation, not the variety of things offered.

[Venkman]

It's not a question of balance, because I agree with you underlining "imagined" there (imbalance is assumed based on losses). It's about whether a Class matters at all.

For MMORPGs, I basically feel there's an inverse proportion between Class Relevance and Class Quantity. The more classes there are, the better the chance that a few of them are not going to be worth playing by enough people for the developers to support them. Yes, I'm thinking specifically of SWG here, though EQ and DAoC do apply as well.

It's not like AoC is offering some fundamentally ground-breaking new set up features for players. This is typical RPG stuff with some interesting twists most won't have seen before because they ignored (or don't know about) titles with under 500k players. But I feel they're making a mistake by arbitrarily separating these abilities across a more-than-needed number of classes. Why does on class need to do Fire-based AOEs and another Weather-based for example? Forced grouping? And while both offer Healing, which is better? Or is their version of Healing enough to supplement the lack of a dedicated Healer if one is available?

All of this is, of course, based purely on reading that site. I want to be wrong. I want 20+ classes to be relevant and interesting enough that all of them are played by the same percentage of players. But if history is a guide, it'll first be the PvPers that decide which specific classes matter, followed by the min/maxxers and then followed by everyone else who doesn't have time to read through terabytes of corrections-against-perceptions posts, thus relegating whatever-number-of-interesting classes to the curious... who are never the majority percentage of plaeyrs.

[edlavallee]

Just because DAoC fucked up balance so bad doesn't mean we should settle for generic archetypes like the ones Blizzard did. IMO, DAoC colors too many people's perceptions on the subject of "class balancing". There are several games that have done, certainly not a perfect job, but a better job than Mythic has, when it comes to class implementation and balancing (Shadowbane and CoH come to mind, as far as Diku-ish games go). I think Dark Ages' balancing problems (both real and imagined) were more due to Realm segregation, not the variety of things offered.

I won't argue for or against the "DAoC fucked up my world" comment. Who cares? It's not a matter of how many classes you have, how you segment the abilities or how balanced they may be in the rock/paper/scissor equation. It's the fact that it all goes back to the trinity mentioned at the beginning. Most players will want to increase their efficiency, find the straightest path, and reduce any risk in order to achieve their goals. This has meant and will mean that people will gravitate toward those classes that provide them the greatest potential to beat the game mechanic with the least amount of variation. For that to happen you need healing to mitigate damage, a DPS class to deal damage and a tank to soak up the damage. Is there anything I missed? And, if you are playing along at home, that means some kind of warrior class, some kind of priest class and some kind of mage. What you call them, how they achieve their role, and what abilities they use are just window dressing.

[stray]

It's not a question of balance, because I agree with you underlining "imagined" there (imbalance is assumed based on losses). It's about whether a Class matters at all.

OK, I'll agree with that then. In a games with a lot of classes, there's bound to be at least 3 or 4 largely unplayed/worthless ones. Some ideas are probably better off being consolidated/merged with another class.

I suppose I could even point out some worthless ideas in a game whose class system I did like:

Shadowbane

Rangers and Huntresses were largely unplayed, and mostly outshined by Bards, Scouts, and even Druids to an extent. Furies weren't played much -- Channelers and Wizards were better, and Furies really only had one unique skill in their favor -- Group Flight -- Which was rarely used. Finally, Thieves should have been dropped. They had one thing that set them apart from Assassins -- "Thieving" -- and that could have probably been put in the Assassin skillset.

One could make an argument that Crusaders and Prelates should have been one class. The same goes for Templars and Confessors. So now, 4 classes become 2 extremely flexible ones.

I don't know much about the expansion classes (Necromancer, Doomsayer, Sentinel, and Nightstalker), but lets just throw them out anyways.

Finally, there were about 50 Runes in the game (or close to it). Half of which could be very useful and class defining, and the other half entirely worthless (Wererat anyone?).

So, even if all of these things were thrown out, there's still like 12 unique Classes, 20-25 Runes, and a skill system that blows away WoW's talent system (a lot of Talent trees are worthless anyhow, due to gear, general viability, or "raiding" priority concerns......While SB Warriors alone could be built in at least a dozen unique and powerful ways). This all goes without mentioning tweakable stats (unlike WoW's automated Str/Stam/Agi/Int distribution).

Lastly, it's not like WoW is very balanced either. Those guys are so fucking lazy they decided to just make "Horde Paladins" instead of actually fixing things. Classes get pigeonholed, entire Talent trees considered worthless --- Balance Druids or Survival Hunters, for example, are virtually non-existent. Ret or Caster Pallys are a joke. "Anyone who can heal, WILL heal -- Even that Shaman who does more fucking burst damage than anyone else).

[Telemediocrity]

Can we physically dodge projectiles?  If so, that changes my perception of how some of these classes might play.

[Righ]

Bullet time. Broken record.

[Venkman]

Lastly, it's not like WoW is very balanced either. Those guys are so fucking lazy they decided to just make "Horde Paladins" instead of actually fixing things. Classes get pigeonholed, entire Talent trees considered worthless --- Balance Druids or Survival Hunters, for example, are virtually non-existent. Ret or Caster Pallys are a joke. "Anyone who can heal, WILL heal -- Even that Shaman who does more fucking burst damage than anyone else).

On that I totally agree (and thanks for the insights into SB. I only played it a few months a few years into the game, and while I loved it, it taught me just how much I can invest into an MMORPG... not as much as SB required). It's not a paragon on balance nor Talent relevance. I just like that it forces players to make fewer "affect the rest of my life" choices. Even if a Talent template proves useless, at least that can be remapped without having to redo 1-60.

Can we physically dodge projectiles?  If so, that changes my perception of how some of these classes might play.

There could have been some changes since E3, but if I recall correct, yes, you can dodge. AoC is not the typical lock-target/throw-dice approach of EQ-through-WoW. It's not Planetside hyrbid-FPS either, but it's somewhere in between. Aiming is realtime and mouse/skill based. Again, this is months-old memory going here but I do remember dodging something manually.

[Nebu]

There could have been some changes since E3, but if I recall correct, yes, you can dodge. AoC is not the typical lock-target/throw-dice approach of EQ-through-WoW. It's not Planetside hyrbid-FPS either, but it's somewhere in between. Aiming is realtime and mouse/skill based. Again, this is months-old memory going here but I do remember dodging something manually.

I'm not sure how they could even begin to pull this off in a mmog.  With lag being such a universal constant in large scale battles, particularly in games where graphic glitz is par for the course, it seems the addition of player skill will equate to a means of using player lag to your advantage.  I see plenty of this in DAoC and wonder how lag would influence hit and dodge rates in a game of any scale.  It works in fps because you can limit the players present in any encounter.  As the encounters scale, this must become very difficult to control.

[Venkman]

How many large-scale MMOG encounters do we truly see though. PS is one obvious example, and it sorta worked there pretty well. SB was another, but that was fast-action RPG really, and, well, not the best performing game tech wise. But aside from these, you generally don't have 40 on 40 mass encounters Braveheart-style. It's pockets of fights here and there, localized events.

Not saying AoC is going to, or not, pull it off. Just saying the parameters for success don't absolutely need to assume huge battles.

[Nebu]

How many large-scale MMOG encounters do we truly see though. PS is one obvious example, and it sorta worked there pretty well. SB was another, but that was fast-action RPG really, and, well, not the best performing game tech wise. But aside from these, you generally don't have 40 on 40 mass encounters Braveheart-style. It's pockets of fights here and there, localized events.

Not saying AoC is going to, or not, pull it off. Just saying the parameters for success don't absolutely need to assume huge battles.

I guess I'm used to DAoC where it's not uncommon to see 80-100 vs 80-100 on a keep seige.  With all the spell effects and such, it can turn into Dark Age of Powerpoint on even the best of machines.  Granted, the game is almost 5 years old, but adding elements of twitch during those battles would leave a lot of room for cheese.  I hope that this title can pull it off... I'd be very surprised if they could. 

[Jayce]

To be honest I have never understood the attraction of large battles.  It's always a lagfest and it's never about skill of any kinds - rather, it's about whether you get unlucky enough to be targetted by 15 people at once.

I can understand the general attraction of epic battles, but you'd think that there exists some way of breaking them into manageable chunks under the overall strategic leadership of one more more players.

[Telemediocrity]

Keep the twitch skill, and then just design the game so that it's rare to have a battle larger than 20vs20.

For instance, have people fighting in constrained areas (castles, dungeons, etc.) and then make sure collision detection is in at launch; at some point, a larger force means that your guys will be bunched up and unable to move/dodge from attacks.

[Nebu]

1. Games that target larger audiences have the potential to make larger amounts of money.

2. Most people suck at or don't like PvP. 

3. Reconcile 1 & 2.

I'm sorry, but for most people PvP is like driving... everyone thinks that they're good at it.  The truth is, in pvp games the average player will lose an encounter far more than they will win it.  FPS games get around this by allowing players to get back into the action fast enough that losing doesn't sting (and they don't notice that they're losing so much).  It's my opinion from 4+ years of DAoC that large scale battles give the mediocre player a better chance of success in PvP.  This is the attraction of large scale battles to many (whether they realize it or not). 

To say that these battles take "no skill" is incorrect.  They take a different type of skill.  Small scale skirmishes are more about fast reflexes and quick thinking.  Large scale battles are about long-term strategy and attrition.  I think the gaming community has classically placed far more emphasis on the former than the latter and has lost an appreciation for the strategic element. 

I've stuck with DAoC because I can find small scale, group scale, and large scale battles any given night within the same game world.  Limiting the focus of pvp really has the affect of generating a niche game.  I couldn't imagine playing GW for 4 years for example.  Having only the option of small scale pvp gets boring very quickly and lacks any type of world-feel to it.  Of course these are personal tastes, but that's what a lot of this is about.

[Calantus]

As an australian I have to say twitch in MMOGs, with servers located in the USA of course, has no appeal for me whatsoever.

[WindupAtheist]

1. Games that target larger audiences have the potential to make larger amounts of money.

2. Most people suck at or don't like PvP. 

3. Reconcile 1 & 2.

I think someone already did that.