Welcome to the Achaea Forums! Please be sure to read the Forum Rules.

The Next Achaea Class

1678911

Comments

  • TaelTael Posts: 1,197Member @ - Epic Achaean
    A number of cities have made Knighthood work decently well without guilds controlling things.

    It's not a particularly complex thing to do.

    You have a clan that handles granting Knighthood to people (confering the right to bear the title Sir).

    You have the city make a law/rule that only those citizens knighted by the clan can bear the title. Other citizens have their titles changed and possibly face punishment.
    Kakotas
  • AzelayAzelay Posts: 22Member
    I've always rebelled at calling any classes 'Knight'. They are Paladins and Infernals and Runewardens. If there is any collective word I'd use for the chivalry users, it'd be 'warriors', not knights.
    Addama
  • AddamaAddama Posts: 947Member ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean
    edited November 2014
    Except that "warrior" is such a generic term that it can apply to any class except maybe Occultist, Alchemist, Magi, Apostate and Druid.

    E: Forgot about Shaman and Jester.
    ~Kresslack's obsession~
  • AchillesAchilles Los AngelesPosts: 2,460Member @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Klendathu said:
    To be slightly contentious, why should only those chosing a class the skillset Chivalry be the only ones considered to be able to be knights (in the sense of being honourable, not mechanically)? Ashtan had a clan for a while promoting honour and other knightly attributes, and it wasn't a pre-requisite to be one of the knight classes to gain the status of knight.
    It's merely a title that tells a 3rd party you probably ride a mount and use weapons over magic, fangs, bare hands.  Other classes can focus on catchy titles for their respective class.  Havyn, Sorceress of Lady Aurora, Tirac, (Insert Blademaster SwordName) of Sartan, I don't know what the equivalent will be of each class but the fear has always been a Jester or Alchemist running around with a Knight title which would be weird to most.  If you want to bear a knight title, play a knight class.

    Knights should specifically homage to an organization, my preference is to an Order because I think it will be better managed since this is a senior title but if people want to tie it to a city/house program so be it.  
    image
    TaelKakotasAlston
  • AmarillysAmarillys Posts: 797Member @ - Epic Achaean
    Can't... can't we just call them the Chivalrous Classes? I mean... it's built into their skill's name... The same way you can call Sylvans and Magi Elementalists, or Devotionists for Priests and Paladins, hell, Necromancers are Infernals and Apostates. You have a name in the skill that they share, so wouldn't you just call them Forgers or, as stated, the Chivalrous Classes? I mean, soon you can even call them Weapon Masters. Knight really doesn't need to be used, especially since the connotation seems to have drastically changed with the time.



  • AddamaAddama Posts: 947Member ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean
    Knight signifies that they have a common skillset, that's all.
    ~Kresslack's obsession~
    NakariTaelJukilianKlendathu
  • AmarillysAmarillys Posts: 797Member @ - Epic Achaean
    But so would referring to them by their skillset they share in common like we do with every other class that shares a common skillset? (Except Forestals) Don't get me wrong, I don't actually care, but everyone else was saying that they did so I made suggestions.



  • AddamaAddama Posts: 947Member ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean
    Correction: They have two common skillsets.

    You might as well complain that Forestal isn't a good description for Sylvans/Druids/Sentinels because Monks can live in the woods too.
    ~Kresslack's obsession~
  • TaelTael Posts: 1,197Member @ - Epic Achaean
    edited November 2014
    Amarillys said:
    the connotation seems to have drastically changed with the time.
    I think this is what I was trying to get at. It hasn't actually changed much in a very long time, and it didn't even change much then.

    During the days of guilds, you had organisations that controlled access to the knight classes. They technically required members to be "honourable" to some nebulous degree, but tended to be extremely lax about it. Within those guilds, there was a separate thing called "Knighthood" which wasn't a class, it was a (very difficult to earn) status. People who were thus knighted (and consequently people who wanted to be knighted in the future) were held to a much higher standard of honour.

    Even back there, there was knight as in the type of class and knight as in someone who has actually been knighted. And they were held to different standards. There have been these two separate uses of the word from the very beginning.

    Once we moved to houses, pretty much the same division remained. The only difference is that the people who weren't knighted and merely played a knight class were a little bit more free in some organisations to not worry about the honour thing. But for the most part, they were already free not to worry about it under guilds if they weren't seeking to actually be knighted. And the whole concept of knighthood (the status, not the class) went on under houses pretty much exactly as it had under guilds, particularly because all of the knight guilds transitioned into houses that were essentially unchanged.

    Now we have a slightly different situation in that the organisations that actually did knighting are mostly gone. A few cities (those lacking knight guilds/houses) had already started using clans to fulfill the same purpose. Nothing stops them from continuing that practice now. But, if anything, the formal status of "knight" that is conferred via being knighted is the meaning of knight that has been lost, not its use as a descriptor for the classes that have Chivalry, which oddly seems to be the one everyone is taking issue with here.

    ...

    To get this thread maybe very slightly back on track, I'm not really sure what they could do for a new class. Essentially every major fantasy archetype is already represented by the existing classes.

    Which actually makes me hope they add a new class even more. The last few classes they've added have been absolutely wonderful in that they fit into the fiction of the world rather than just being an obvious realisation of a missing fantasy archetype. Blademasters are sort of a generic "Oriental Adventures" fantasy archetype and alchemist is a sort of rarer fantasy archetype, but the classes are unmistakably Achaean. Compare, say, Bards, which seem to exist just because the game didn't have bards and a fantasy game ought to have bards. There's nothing wrong with that, but I'd rather see another uniquely Achaean class any day. That we have run out of fantasy archetypes makes me hopeful for any future classes they decide to add, though I'm skeptical that we're going to see a new class any time soon.
    Bade
  • DaslinDaslin The place with the oxygenPosts: 2,492Member @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Can we have non-knight classes be like, Knight Soandso Herpderp, of Ashtan/Mhaldor blah blah blah while only knight classed people get Sir/Lady? It'd still be a "Hey! You're knighted!" but allow the classes that -fit- the whole knighthood thing still have something special that only they get?
  • AerekAerek East Tennessee, USAPosts: 1,818Member @@ - Legendary Achaean
    It's like the difference between "good" and "Good". If you say "knight", I assume you mean a guy with Chivalry, Forging, and a third skill that determines his actual class. If you say Knight with a capital 'K', I assume you're talking about someone who follows the institution of Knighthood. You can nitpick and try to redefine those terms if you like, but they've been Achaean jargon since time immemorial, so good luck.

    I wouldn't call Knighthood dead, either. While it took a hit when it lost the Houses that supported it, it does have the advantage that now only individuals actually interested in the RP of the institution are joining in, instead of being diluted with the players who just wanted to play an Infernal in Mhaldor, a Runewarden in Cyrene, or a Paladin in Shallam, and got automatically shuffled into a Knight house whether they wanted to play one or not. (Which is why every Knight House had stains on its reputation)

    Knighthood's only problem right now is that Cyrene is the only organization that's committed to continuing the tradition. The Council of Knighthood still exists, has a structure setup, and is just waiting for other organizations to decide if they're in or out.
    -- Grounded in but one perspective, what we perceive is an exaggeration of the truth.
    KakotasShirszaeTael
  • AzelayAzelay Posts: 22Member
    In effect, when tradeskills are parted from the relevant classes, it will generate new classes. I expect that those classes will on the whole need redesigning to adapt to having three PvP capable skills. Not to the point of totally rewriting core mechanics, probably, but who knows?
  • AddamaAddama Posts: 947Member ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean
    Azelay said:
    In effect, when tradeskills are parted from the relevant classes, it will generate new classes. I expect that those classes will on the whole need redesigning to adapt to having three PvP capable skills. Not to the point of totally rewriting core mechanics, probably, but who knows?
    Knights are all losing the same skillset and gaining the same skillset, albeit one that specializes in a particular weaponry style.  They will still be knights.
    ~Kresslack's obsession~
  • AzelayAzelay Posts: 22Member
    True, but won't the play be pretty different?
  • AddamaAddama Posts: 947Member ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean
    Oh yeah, definitely different.  I'm looking forward to dual blunt myself.

    I disagree that "new" classes will be created, more like deficiencies in classes that exist but are difficult to address will be addressed when their trade skills are removed.  Maybe I'm being optimistic, but for instance, Shaman changes are supposed to be quite nice.
    ~Kresslack's obsession~
  • SenaSena Posts: 3,936Member @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Azelay said:
    True, but won't the play be pretty different?
    It will, but changes on a similar scale have happened before (to bards, occultists, priests, etc.), I wouldn't consider those changes to have created "new classes".
  • AsmodronAsmodron Posts: 2,566Member @@ - Legendary Achaean
    The next Achaean class shall be pirates. This is guaranteed.
    Bluef
  • AmarillysAmarillys Posts: 797Member @ - Epic Achaean
    It's not hard to imagine that the classes losing a skillset and gaining a new one can be considered 'new classes' to a degree. I mean, take metamorphosis from druid and give it elementalism and you get Sylvan, and entirely separate class. They won't be new in name, but they will be new in effect. 



  • AddamaAddama Posts: 947Member ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean
    Amarillys said:
    It's not hard to imagine that the classes losing a skillset and gaining a new one can be considered 'new classes' to a degree. I mean, take metamorphosis from druid and give it elementalism and you get Sylvan, and entirely separate class. They won't be new in name, but they will be new in effect. 
    Only if you consider a car with a new paint job a "new car" or a pair of shoes with new laces "new shoes."

    Also, yeah, if Druids and Sylvans traded their skills then Druids would be Sylvans.  Thanks for pointing that out.
    ~Kresslack's obsession~
  • AmarillysAmarillys Posts: 797Member @ - Epic Achaean
    Addama said:
    Amarillys said:
    It's not hard to imagine that the classes losing a skillset and gaining a new one can be considered 'new classes' to a degree. I mean, take metamorphosis from druid and give it elementalism and you get Sylvan, and entirely separate class. They won't be new in name, but they will be new in effect. 
    Only if you consider a car with a new paint job a "new car" or a pair of shoes with new laces "new shoes."

    Also, yeah, if Druids and Sylvans traded their skills then Druids would be Sylvans.  Thanks for pointing that out.
    Wheaton's Law. Look it up. Thanks ^_^

    A new paint job would be a tweak to the flavour or the name while keeping all the same functions. This is more like changing out the entire engine block or re-soling the shoe. It keeps the idea of what it is, but has a pretty major change. Is it new? Not really. Is it not new? Not really. One can look at it both ways. 

    If Runewardens and Jesters traded their skills then Runewardens would be Jesters O.O Clearly you missed what I was pointing out.



  • TharvisTharvis The Land of Beer and Chocolate!Posts: 3,107Member @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Amarillys said:
    Addama said:
    Amarillys said:
    It's not hard to imagine that the classes losing a skillset and gaining a new one can be considered 'new classes' to a degree. I mean, take metamorphosis from druid and give it elementalism and you get Sylvan, and entirely separate class. They won't be new in name, but they will be new in effect. 
    Only if you consider a car with a new paint job a "new car" or a pair of shoes with new laces "new shoes."

    Also, yeah, if Druids and Sylvans traded their skills then Druids would be Sylvans.  Thanks for pointing that out.
    Wheaton's Law. Look it up. Thanks ^_^

    A new paint job would be a tweak to the flavour or the name while keeping all the same functions. This is more like changing out the entire engine block or re-soling the shoe. It keeps the idea of what it is, but has a pretty major change. Is it new? Not really. Is it not new? Not really. One can look at it both ways. 

    If Runewardens and Jesters traded their skills then Runewardens would be Jesters O.O Clearly you missed what I was pointing out.
    or Plato's story of the dancing shadows.
    Aurora says, "Tharvis, why are you always breaking things?!"
    Artemis says, "You are so high maintenance, Tharvis, gosh."
    Tecton says, "It's still your fault, Tharvis."

    Bluef
  • AmarillysAmarillys Posts: 797Member @ - Epic Achaean
    I like Wheaton's Law. It's succinct.



  • SenaSena Posts: 3,936Member @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited November 2014
    Amarillys said:
    It's not hard to imagine that the classes losing a skillset and gaining a new one can be considered 'new classes' to a degree. I mean, take metamorphosis from druid and give it elementalism and you get Sylvan, and entirely separate class. They won't be new in name, but they will be new in effect. 
    It's essentially no different than all the other changes that happen every classlead season though. Losing one skill and gaining another doesn't fundamentally change a class. It doesn't even necessarily indicate the scale of the changes.

    For example, you can make huge changes without losing/gaining a skill. Without losing/gaining a single ability even, at least in name. Occultists were massively changed not long ago, domination was completely redesigned, the way the class fights was completely different, they had several entirely new mechanics/afflictions that didn't exist before. They only gained a single ability though (instill), and didn't lose any. And they were still, obviously, occultists in every sense (not just in name), I've never heard anyone suggest that they could be considered a new class to any degree.

    Similarly, a class could get a new skill in place of an old one with only minor changes.
  • AmarillysAmarillys Posts: 797Member @ - Epic Achaean
    I'm not saying they are new classes, just that someone could consider them to be such and Druids to Sylvans is a pretty good example of why, in my opinion. I also understand why plenty of people do not think they are a new class. 



  • AchimrstAchimrst NaturePosts: 3,608Member @@ - Legendary Achaean
    WTF are we fighting about and which side should I be on?
    Bluef
  • AmarillysAmarillys Posts: 797Member @ - Epic Achaean
    Not fighting at all. A snarky comment was made by someone, but that's in the past. We're discussing separate opinions on whether the skillset changes to the old classes constitute the ability to call them new classes. The majority opinion is no. I side with the no opinion, but I did point out it would not be entirely inaccurate to say they could.



  • BluefBluef DelosPosts: 2,176Member @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited November 2014
    It really depends on what the new skills are, in my opinion. For example, if shaman get a new skill that reflects more of a necromatic/witchdoctor feel to it, then I'd probably vote yes for it being a "new" class. The reason being that shaman have always been neutral and not allied to any particular 'influence' in the game beyond the spirits (and not tied to any particular group or type of spirits at that). The same would apply to any class whose basic nature is changed by the inclusion of a new skillset that requires an alteration in the persona of the characters who are its practitioners. 


  • DarktalonDarktalon RomePosts: 178Member ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    Saralynne said:
    I'm not sure if classes like these have been suggested yet, as I didn't read through the whole thread. I first started MUDs back in '96, when I had to use AOL to get online, and in that game, there was a few classes I really just loved.  One was the Empath working with Life magic, which through touching you, and their magic, they could transfer wounds from you to them, cure poisons, diseases, all by taking your pain, and magically curing their own bodies. The nature of their magic actually forbade them from ever entering conflict, because if they harmed a living thing it would damage their ability to connect with others' lifeforce, and they gained skills and xp through practicing their arts. Not sure if such a class would be useful in Achaea, with all the insta-cures with minerals and herbs, and the elixirs/tonics and so on, but I really loved it. 

    Reminds me of a race from the game Dragon's Gate. Little fairy like people called Secians, could take damage from others and heal it, but if they hurt anyone, it hurt them, so they bonded with dragons for protection.
  • KaijinKaijin Posts: 29Member ✭✭ - Stalwart
    Delphinus said:
    An archer class would underscore some of the weirdness of Achaean PvE. I doubt you'd be allowed to bash from a room away.

    Stuff Achaea hasn't done:
    ---
    chronomancers
    artificers/tinkerers
    astronomers/astrologers
    pirates
    mounted cavalry
    shield-bearers
    mounted bear cavalry
    berserkers
    rogues that actually use daggers
    chaos knights
    spirititualists that aren't shamans or priests
    dragon riders/cultists
    spearmen/lancers
    sickle/scythe-wielders
    lightweavers
    heavy sword users
    pastamancers


    To add to this list gunslingers (imagine someone wielding medieval muskets with black powder, the possibility of jamming, etc pirates should have a pistol with  1 bullet), witches, psionics (I would really like this one with telekinesis, esp, etc), I believe @Sarapis suggested barbarians.  Not sure if there is anything else I am forgetting.

  • KaijinKaijin Posts: 29Member ✭✭ - Stalwart
    Oh and something based on mesoamerican lore like a macuahuitl wielder (this is what aztecs used to chop the heads off horses of spanish riders bearing down on them in battle) or werejaguars from mayan culture or something
    KlendathuBlujixapug
Sign In to Comment.