Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About PropheticPlatypus

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

435 profile views
  1. Ahh, I played a LOT of LOL including Sheen Gangplank I get where you're coming from, but I think they're two different issues. Gangplank/sheen interaction was more of a subtle, possibly unintended powerful interaction. Dryad Druids are going to have twice the number of Dryad-boosted healing orbs as a Dryad Cleric. Which class benefits more seems pretty obvious. Of course that's assuming the two abilities which grant healing orbs would be on separate CDs, which I would. If they were on the same CD, then you're right, it would be suboptimal for druid. But my main point is that I don't think either case is good for build diversity. It seems like the main point of disciplines is that they provide viable diversification/specialization for all the classes available. Having a discipline that says "Open to all but intended for Druids" seems to go against that intent. But judging from the responses, I guess I'm alone in that mindset.
  2. It would be cool to work with the Friar discipline. I think there was a DAOC Friar class that was a healer/warrior hybrid using a quarter staff. Also could be a Templar/Cleric Weapon discipline.
  3. I agree that Elken Druid needs to happen. Outside of that, it seems like Druids should be able to grab Blade Mastery discipline to go with their Scimitar Discipline.
  4. I agreed that perfect balance wasn't the goal. I think that meaningful questions when choosing optimal disciplines is good for build diversity. Dryad is available to all classes, yet giving specific Druid benefits makes it an obviously sub-par choice for other classes. The way it seems now, clerics and druids who want to specialize in healing/support don't have that meaningful decision. Dryad seems optimal over Naiad/Pixie for Druids, and Naiad/Pixie seems optimal over Dryad for Clerics. Removing the Druid portion from Dryad seems like it would increase the number of meaningful options for players.
  5. No, your first post did not mention disciplines which favor one class over another. All disciplines allow classes to specialize--that obvious and not the point I'm making. Edit: I apologize if my point was unclear. I am ONLY discussing specific disciplines which seem to help individual classes over others. I do not see how THAT one decision helps diversity. Instead, it seems to pigeonhole people into optimal builds. It seems like the conversation keeps freewheeling away from that point.
  6. Yes, perfect equality is not the end goal. I never said it was. But obviously a rough balance is. Whether or not there are more disciples to come is irrelevant. And you didn't address my question. How does making some disciplines unequivocally empower one class over another, in performing the same role, help build diversity?
  7. With all due respect, I don't think you're getting my point. I 100% AGREE that if a druid wants to specialize in healing, then they should. My point is when comparing two healing support classes, Cleric & Druid for instance. Both want to specialize in healing. Dryad clearly gives more to Druid than Cleric, even though it is available to cleric. Thus, Naiad or Pixie are a superior choices for that cleric. I don't see how the decision to give Druids more benefit from Dryad helps build diversity. Why not make Pixie, Naiad and Dryad give increased support abilities in distinct ways, but make them all more or less equally appealing to both Druid and Cleric?
  8. Oh, I totally get that some builds will be stronger than others. In a perfect world, builds would be near-perfectly balanced with others in their respective roles. That's not possible, but it's an admirable goal. And some people will go for flavor over pure power, which is their prerogative. My only point is that making some disciplines overwhelmingly superior for some classes seems to actively go against that goal.
  9. Hi all! First off, I want to say that I think the changes to races/classes/disciplines sounds amazing. I'm super on board with almost everything that was presented. This really seems like the kind of build diversity MMOs need. HOWEVER, I'm worried that the disciplines that are available to all, yet have perks to specific classes, are going to harm that build diversity. I hope this discussion doesn't get moved to a class specific forum. I'm going to use the Druid as an example, because I'm most familiar with that class, but this is really about the system as a whole. Naiad seems like a great option for druids (or any class) that wants to boost their healing output! If that's your playstyle, go for it. But Dryad? It helps everyone heal, but it gives druids an even bigger boost than anyone else. If they're otherwise tuned to be about equally helpful, it seems dryads will get significantly more out of this than other classes, and will take it disproportionately. If Naiad, Pixie and Dryad all give buffs to healing/support ability, why go out of your way to make some more appealing for specific classes? (On a related note, if druids can go the route of melee weapon focus with Scimitar Mastery, why not let them grab Blade Mastery?) Thanks for the discussion!
  10. So this is pretty interesting. Taking Master of Scimitars removes the entire Life Tray? That's half the druid's base abilities. They instead passively generate healing orbs in combat, but it still seems like that's a tremendous reduction to the druid's support abilities. Scimitars sound neat, but I'm not sure it sounds like it's a good trade-off. Another question. They gain an Off-Hand Weapon Slot, and the ability to equip bucklers. So does that mean they then have to choose between Scimitar/Shield and Scimitar/Scimitar?
  • Create New...