Ascendancy Classes Discussion & Opinions

"

Boem wrote:

I think they are using a pattern of

- Soft niche
- Hard niche
- generalist

I have to disagree; I just don't see this as a general pattern.

Let me illustrate by taking your Ranger example:

"

Deadeye = soft niche (ranged/projectile manipulation
raider = hard niche (melee evasion)
pathfinder = generalist (easily accommodates left-over builds)


Generalist's will be the easiest to figure out by the community, since they are very straightforward in application and functionality.
Hard niche will require more character investment to really capitalize on in the end-game i think.
Soft niche falls in the middle of the two, easily exploitable and straightforward.

This looks plausible when you write it like that, but looking at Raider I cannot recognize "melee evasion" as a hard niche.

While it is certainly possible to pick the defensive passives in Raider and end up with a combination of defenses that is more needed in melee than ranged, though useful for every Ranger build, that's only looking at half of the passives.

Consider ranged Rangers. Deadeye is a great choice, but so is a Raider that takes Rapid Assault (increased attack damage, Onslaught), Way of the Poacher (increased attack speed, frenzy charges on kill), and Avatar of Frenzy (better benefits from Frenzy charges, more Frenzy charges).

In fact, such a use of 6 Ascended Skillpoints is very strong for any Ranger build that relies on attacking, regardless of whether it is melee or ranged - that part of the Raider class has little to do with melee evasion and everything to do with increasing attack speed, getting the most out of frenzy charges, and generating frenzy charges without relying on specific active skills or equipment.

You don't get much more "easily exploitable and straightforward" for Ranger than "get a lot more out of your frenzy charges by picking these three Ascended passives", so by that standard Raider should be considered a soft niche... Or perhaps it should be considered a generalist. It is straightforward in application and functionality, being generally useful to every Ranger build that isn't caster or summoner.

So in my eyes, Raider is much more general than Deadeye is and more straightforward to boot. Regardless of skill build, do you want your subclass to provide more defense? Take one half of Raider. Regardless of skill build, do you want your subclass to make the most out of Frenzy charges? Take the other half.

None of the "hard niche" ascendancies are actually hard niche. None of them.

Saboteur does NOT need to use traps. Hierophant does NOT need to use totems. Necromancer does NOT need to summon anything (although Offerings are Minion skills so I'd say at least 1 Minion skill is required).

There's another one but I'm saving that build for myself. ;p

Btw you only get 1 Ascendancy, you cannot split points between 2 of them.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Btw you only get 1 Ascendancy, you cannot split points between 2 of them.

I know. Thanks for notifying me of the typo in the last paragraph that talked about about "Take one half of Deadeye" when I was talking about the two parts of Raider (the passives oriented mostly towards defense within Raider vs. those oriented towards offense) to my attention. It has now been fixed. :)

OP, please stop using exclamation points like they are periods- they are NOT! the same tool in grammar. Each has a purpose, if you don't know what it should be, look them up @ www.dictionary.com.


p.p

CI crit witch bye bye in 2.2?

My crown of eyes crit reave CI witch sure wish she was shadow right about now.

I hate witch's subclasses.

Im salty cuz i dont have much time to play and my only char 95+ is witch lol

Awww damn

"

DDseedFoot wrote:

CI crit witch bye bye in 2.2?

My crown of eyes crit reave CI witch sure wish she was shadow right about now.

I hate witch's subclasses.

Im salty cuz i dont have much time to play and my only char 95+ is witch lol

Awww damn

Leveling a new char with OP leveling uniques is kinda fast :)

I really really like the concept and execution.

I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE SCION ASCENDANCY CLASS!!!

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

None of the "hard niche" ascendancies are actually hard niche. None of them.

Saboteur does NOT need to use traps. Hierophant does NOT need to use totems. Necromancer does NOT need to summon anything (although Offerings are Minion skills so I'd say at least 1 Minion skill is required).

There's another one but I'm saving that build for myself. ;p

Btw you only get 1 Ascendancy, you cannot split points between 2 of them.

I am well aware of this but didn't want to diverge on that point in my earlier post.

While i say they favor "soft/hard niche and generalist" they are every single one of them not "limited" to that concept at all.

But in order to branch them up or find a pattern, you have to somewhat force them into a restriction to make sense of the directions, knowing your forcing them in there for personal reasons.

Peace,

-Boem-

edit : @pi2repselon same goes for you :)

I am aware these are the sub-branches how i divided them up. It's how i interpret the system.

In a sense we can conclude that the system is already solid since by my divisions we both end up choosing different ones as "soft/hard/generalist". Which means a lot of flexibility when it comes to interpreting them.

That's a solid boon to the over-arching attempt of GGG.

"

Boem wrote:

I think they are using a pattern of

- Soft niche
- Hard niche
- generalist

Possible, it can be extrapolated onto other classes too. Mara will probably have a life caster, possibly focused on fire/ignite, which is hard niche for him. Also a Berserker which is a soft niche and Juggernaut would be a generalist.

Also, Witch, Necromancer is hard niche, Elementalist is soft and the last one which will probably be some kind of a hexmaster could be a generalist because of its indirect focus, similar to pathfinder.

Templar has a hard focused Hierophant, generalist Inquisitor and probably a soft focused paladin type.

Makes sense so far, the only one that has me stumped is Duelist, ok, we can probably agree that Champion is a generalist, however it seems he's lacking hard focus. Maybe that's what was wrong with Duelist all this time.

"

raics wrote:

Makes sense so far, the only one that has me stumped is Duelist, ok, we can probably agree that Champion is a generalist, however it seems he's lacking hard focus. Maybe that's what was wrong with Duelist all this time.

His hard niche is obviously looking fabulous in battle.

They really did miss out by not putting "beach boy" as one of the ascendancy routes.

With hard to pass out on notables like "watch me go" which adds another pirouette to leap slam with swords.

Nothing as enticing as getting more style points in combat.



Peace,

-Boem-