Grimrock

Sol_HSA wrote:

Alpha Stryke wrote:No I don't want the Paladin to be a better fighter. I wat a Paladin type class, except I don't want a heal/buff bot that many games make Paladins out to be. I want a unique class that wears armor, uses sword/hammers and uses Holy type abilities/skills/spells.

So, you want a cleric.

Sounds pretty much the same. However I think he would say clerics are even more heal/buff bots. (Note in every game I have played personally paladins stink at healing making it an minor extra) What he wants is a purely offensive powerhouse focused solely on physical combat. My problem? This would just make another fighter but with a "holy" theme. See use swords/hammers, fighter. Wears armor, fighter. But add holy stuff.

I think given the ranger is a fighter/mage cross, we may end up with a rogue/ mage cross or something

Thinking about in other terms the three base classes cover all the bases (combat, range, magic use) whats missing is a support class. Of course the mages have been changed up so maybe they will end up with support abilities.

Although I'll be happy with whatever comes.

Sol_HSA wrote:

Alpha Stryke wrote:No I don't want the Paladin to be a better fighter. I wat a Paladin type class, except I don't want a heal/buff bot that many games make Paladins out to be. I want a unique class that wears armor, uses sword/hammers and uses Holy type abilities/skills/spells.

So, you want a cleric.

No, I clearly said no heal/buff bot.

Whatever the new class, I await it eagerly. I just hope it's not a rogue or healer/cleric equivalent, as rogues can easily be made using assassination/dodge/dagger skills

How about a paladin's opposite? A necromant that can sacrifice his own (and his friends) health and energy to spawn skeletons, ghouls and other minions. In recent post AH mentioned that monsters in LoG2 will be able to work in groups. Minions would serve not only as a extra pair of blades, but as great decoys as well. Could be very useful for more advanced strategies. A mage practicing demonic rituals could be nice as well if undead folk is not your thing. You'd willfully lose health and energy to gain advantage in combat. AH mentioned that the AI in LoG2 got huge boost, so having monsters that are allied with the party is at least plausible. For extra quirk, the necromant could be plagued with nightmares, so the sleep doesn't restore his health.

I always thought about LoG1 heroes as a bit dark and shadowy fellas, petty thieves, troublemakers and mages with hidden agendas. They got convicted for something, right? I don't think a noble paladin with I'm-saintier-than-you attitude would be a good fit here.

thomson wrote:How about a paladin's opposite? A necromant that can sacrifice his own (and his friends) health and energy to spawn skeletons, ghouls and other minions.

Now we are talking!

Alpha Stryke wrote:

Sol_HSA wrote:

Alpha Stryke wrote:No I don't want the Paladin to be a better fighter. I wat a Paladin type class, except I don't want a heal/buff bot that many games make Paladins out to be. I want a unique class that wears armor, uses sword/hammers and uses Holy type abilities/skills/spells.

So, you want a cleric.

No, I clearly said no heal/buff bot.

Whatever the new class, I await it eagerly. I just hope it's not a rogue or healer/cleric equivalent, as rogues can easily be made using assassination/dodge/dagger skills

Traditional cleric has two switches, heal and support, or BLAST EVERYTHING WITH HOLY JUDGEMENT.

The problem is, that the existing classes, rogue, mage and fighter are kinda the "holy trinity" of rpg classes. No matter what the new class is, it is either a variation from one of these or some sort of mixture of them.

• Monk -> Mage with a spice of Fighter (unarmed/staff combat)
  Knight -> Armor-specialist Fighter
  Paladin -> Holy Fighter (Fighter with a spice of Mage)
  Thief -> Kinda the same job as Rogue has

So they should propably specialize the existing classes a little bit more, so that there is more room for a new class. Of course, I might be wrong, but I hope you understand my fears; I don't want to see another fighter, mage or rogue with a little bit different spice.

My proposition would be a huntsman, an expert in bows, spears and traps. Of course the bows should be taken away from rogue then...
But I trust in AH's judgement and decisions.

Fighter, Rogue, and Mage cover the three classic RPG classes. Any other class that I can think of, would be a hybrid of those, like the Ranger class, which was sort of already in Grimrock 1 - at least within the confines of the Grimrock 1 skill sets. I'd like to see the ranger in Grimrock 2 and also one or two other hybrid counterparts for it. For example, Warrior Mage to cover air/ice/spellcraft magic and maybe daggers/dodge/thrown, and perhaps a cleric or priest type character to cover maces/unarmed/staff defense (back in the middle ages some warrior priests used maces instead of swords so as not to spill blood), missiles-thrown combined but with blunt ammo only (rocks,sling), and fire/spellcraft (to burn witches), plus some bonues to alchemy/potions brewed by them. And maybe healing instead of fire if that type of magic will be in Grimrock 2.