Guild Wars 2

I have not made a class idea in a while, so I wanted to chime in with another cool class idea.
Introducing..

~~~~THE REAPER~~~~

—Story—

In the land of Elona, the great nation of Istan and the Order of the Sunspears have been devastated by the lost war against the undead armies of Palawa Joko and the undead Dragonlord in the land. The Sunspears, once holy and mighty, have been scattered and demoralized by the wasteland they once called home. Rytlock Brimstone, lost in the Mist, has discovered the secret passage into the land known as the Crystal Desert and into the Realm of Torment were he was confronted by legions of undead minions of the undead Dragonlord that are at war against the Avatars of Grenth’s undead faction. Being a fearless warrior, Rytlock fought through the Dragonlord’s armies until he was caught off guard and nearly faced death. It was here, that the Avatars of Grenth saw a usefulness in the soldier, and aided him by granting him powers of death magic and frost powered by the souls captured in the Bloodstones placed into his wounds. Rytlock from that point forward became a Reaper, a Soldier of Death and Frost. Wielding the heavy armor of a Soldier, and the Dark Magic of a warlock, he became something fearsome. The Avatars of Grenth aided by the Reaper Rytlock, managed to push the undead army back into the land of Elona. It was here that Rytlock discovered the many scattered human Sunspear soldiers, and convinced them to convert their energies to the power of Grenth to become Reapers like himself while telling them, " the only way to beat death, is by death itself!". From here the Reapers learned to harness the once sacred powers of transformation of the Mystic Dervish, and change into formidable monsters of chaos and death with use of the Energies that they store in Bloodstones.

—Class Mechanics—
*BloodStones- Bloodstones is part of the Reaper class mechanic. Bloodstone is a bar that gets filled by the Reaper when they take damage, deal damage or when they put a condition on foes. Once full, it can be used to transform the Reaper into different monsters. (Note: while in monster form, Sigils that apply to that monster type can affect the Reaper.) Bloodstones deplete over time while in combat. So they need to be constantly filled up in combat.

*Transformation- Reapers have 2 Baseline Transformation Forms, and 2 additional Transformation forms based on weapon choice for a total of 4 different transformations to pick from at any one time.

*Reapers cant switch weapon in combat

—Armor Type—
Soldier = Heavy Armor

—Weapon Type—
*Great Axes
*Great Sword
*Staffs
*Sword
*Axe
*Land Spear
*Shield
*Focus
*Scepter

—Skill Types—
*Hex – Consume some of your Bloodstone to launch powerful magical spells of death
*Zealot Weapons – Summon a weapon of death to replace your current weapon.
*Haunt- similar to shouts but only effect enemies.
*Ritual- Bind a Spirits of the undead in its location to have different affects on the field
*Demon Fang- close ranged attacks.

—Traits—
*Lich – deals with increasing damage
*Binding- increase affect of Rituals and Zealot Weapons
*Dark Mysticism – deals with support
*Intimidation -deals with Defense and control
*Embodiment- increase affect of Transformations

Sounds pretty cool, a death knight concept would be a great addition to GW2 IMO, even if it has been done before in other games. Hopefully Anet will announce something big involving combat changes such as new skills/weapon sets/professions at PAX south 2015 in january.

Love it! Both the Story and the class concept!

It’s this post again :P

Yeah, this idea has been brought up a lot. It’s been given many names: Death Knight, Dread Knight, Dark Knight, Deathly Knight, Dea(you get the idea). Many people seem to like it. I doubt ArenaNet will make it happen because insert any corporate excuse for not doing something that some people like here. There would also be too many balancing issues with the skills the new class will bring.

This sounds very similar to necro, in class mechanics and playstyle.

Olvendred.3027:

This sounds very similar to necro, in class mechanics and playstyle.

more half necro half guardian really. Either way i would buy a character slot to play this. I always wanted a necro that wasnt a necro and a guardian that dealt some legit damage this would fit that emptiness in my roster along with full filling one of the few class positions that isnt already taken with existing classes.

What i want is an archer. Ranger without pet. Or call them scouts

McWolfy.5924:

What i want is an archer. Ranger without pet. Or call them scouts

You think they’re going to make a new class just for that? If they want to have a petless ranger they’ll just add a trait to make that possible.

A Bard class which shoots with rainbows, pink unicorns and blue dolphins would be nice.

Given that TERA’s most recent class addition was called The Reaper, I doubt it’d be called that in GW2.

Other than that, nice idea

Tom Gore.4035:

McWolfy.5924:

What i want is an archer. Ranger without pet. Or call them scouts

You think they’re going to make a new class just for that? If they want to have a petless ranger they’ll just add a trait to make that possible.

I really like the idea to disable your pet. Pet’s can be really anoying and stow doesn’t work when you enter combat…

Reaper is great class in some mmos(pwi,fw,tera,aa etc) would be cool to see it here too.

Seriously, your story bleeds from almost everywhere, it’s just garbage thrown together, I’m glad Anet is not listening to all kinds of “class” recommendations here.

Dondarrion.2748:

Given that TERA’s most recent class addition was called The Reaper, I doubt it’d be called that in GW2.

Other than that, nice idea

They have added now Engineer class in Tera which works pretty much the same as GW2 one, with only one big difference – it’s heavily technologically advanced and flashy.

1) Good that you come up finally with Class Names, that aren X Knight, which would not work with GW2’s Class Naming Scheme, unfortunetely something like Reaper also doesn’t work (makes people always immmediately think on something childish like Grim Reaper and the bad attempt to press some old dervish junk into the game that has no place in this game

2) There exists no undead Dragon Lord in the lore of the game. If you try to come up with a class concept, then stay at least at the existing game lore and don’t come up with some wish thinking just to have some thought out lore for the concept, otherwise the whole concept instantly just crumbles together like a cheap house of card

3) it brings absolutely nothing, if you repeat your concepts like million times, I’ve already told you that, or should I relink my postign here, where I show you how freaking often you’ve made already threads and postings about this???

4) There exists already a Shapeshifting Mechanic in this Game and it belongs to the Norn as a racial ability and partwise to humans, as their old divine Avatars have become partwise also their racial skills (Avatar of Melandru). Putting there in now also a class based shapeshiftign would be too much.
There is no need to add any more shapeshifting into the game.

5) That you want to make Bloodstones part of their gameplay, clearly shows us, that you have absolutely no clues of the game’s lore. You want just to make the mightiest thing in history of Tyria with divine powers that came from Abaddon, which have been split into multiple parts into their source of power?? – yeah clear that Knighthonor!!! About what do you dream at nights???

6) There exist nearly no Sun Spears anymore and those that stil lexist hide themself from palawa Joko and the Mordant Crescent which hunt them to kill the remaining ones too or convince them to join Palawa too and become part of them.
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Mordant_Crescent

7) The rest of the Concept is a clear Concept merge of just Necromancer and Guardian, can’t me more obvious… and isn’t very original and absolutely not original enough to make out of somethign like that a new seperate Class, regardless of how much you wish to have some Shadow Knight-esque Class in this Game.
This would be things, with that the necromancer and the Guardian self should get improved with to get more Character Progression.
—-

So in brief:

I dislike this Concept/Not signed

Shut up and take my money!!!

Zera Allimatti.2541:

It’s this post again :P

Yeah, this idea has been brought up a lot. It’s been given many names: Death Knight, Dread Knight, Dark Knight, Deathly Knight, Dea(you get the idea). Many people seem to like it. I doubt ArenaNet will make it happen because insert any corporate excuse for not doing something that some people like here. There would also be too many balancing issues with the skills the new class will bring.

Yeah bc this game is balanced..lol

Orpheal.8263:

1) Good that you come up finally with Class Names, that aren X Knight, which would not work with GW2’s Class Naming Scheme, unfortunetely something like Reaper also doesn’t work (makes people always immmediately think on something childish like Grim Reaper and the bad attempt to press some old dervish junk into the game that has no place in this game

2) There exists no undead Dragon Lord in the lore of the game. If you try to come up with a class concept, then stay at least at the existing game lore and don’t come up with some wish thinking just to have some thought out lore for the concept, otherwise the whole concept instantly just crumbles together like a cheap house of card

3) it brings absolutely nothing, if you repeat your concepts like million times, I’ve already told you that, or should I relink my postign here, where I show you how freaking often you’ve made already threads and postings about this???

4) There exists already a Shapeshifting Mechanic in this Game and it belongs to the Norn as a racial ability and partwise to humans, as their old divine Avatars have become partwise also their racial skills (Avatar of Melandru). Putting there in now also a class based shapeshiftign would be too much.
There is no need to add any more shapeshifting into the game.

5) That you want to make Bloodstones part of their gameplay, clearly shows us, that you have absolutely no clues of the game’s lore. You want just to make the mightiest thing in history of Tyria with divine powers that came from Abaddon, which have been split into multiple parts into their source of power?? – yeah clear that Knighthonor!!! About what do you dream at nights???

6) There exist nearly no Sun Spears anymore and those that stil lexist hide themself from palawa Joko and the Mordant Crescent which hunt them to kill the remaining ones too or convince them to join Palawa too and become part of them.
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Mordant_Crescent

---

So in brief:

I dislike this Concept/Not signed

Cool you can have a counter opinion. That’s why I posted here for a discussion of the idea to better perfect it.. Now to your points.

1) well I assume the name Reaper is based off the grim reaper, which I don’t find childish by the way since its part of mythology. Also in Guild Wars universe it is connected with the Dervish. That’s why they similar, but still different enough to have their own uniqueness from the dervish counterpart which doesn’t wear heavy armor.

2) there is a Undead Dragon is there not? Also Poko has a army of undead does he not. So I am not understanding this counter argument. Also in GW universe there exist gods of death which historically humans and created draw power from, so I don’t see that as way out the ball park kind of reach at all.

3) I told you before, your further enhancement idea is nice, but it’s not the same as a new class, which is what me and many others want. I don’t want a Necromancer with a great sword. I want a Soldier with Dark Magic. Difference. Your original idea doesn’t give me that with its own unique class mechanics different from a Warrior or Guadian.

4) those shape shifting skills are Racials. I can’t pull up Anet’s statement on Racials right now, but it is said that Racials are suppose to be weaker versions of class skills. So clearly nothing wrong with Racials mimicking Class skills since many of them already do. Norn shapeshift is not the same as a class shapeshift which can be changed by traits. Traits don’t effect Racials. Go back and read Anet statement on Racials please if you don’t believe me.

5) Bloodstones is the mechanic. Lore wise it could be explained as a similar concept of adventures that discover powerful amulets infused with a powerful gem. In this case, the bloodstone fragments from the realm that Abaddon resides in, could be a great explanation for the heroes having the level of attunement with the demons and undead enough to change their form to become one. The Bloodstones was the source of magic after all for the mortals, and not a stretch for it to be used once again by smaller fragments to gain varying magical abilities, since the different transformations may use different varying magic schools. Which again makes a lot of sense.

6) I said that there were few remaining Sunspears after they been scared from the war of the undead. You just repeated what I said so not sure your counter argument here. What I suggested, was that the hero Rytlock from our side of the planet, linked up with a few of the demoralized survivorship the Undead War in Elona, and convinced them to turn over to a new leaf, aka Reapers, and use the new dark power to defend their land from the undead.

I want some more feedback on this idea.
I want to fine turn my idea.

I guess where I’d give suggestions are that I wouldn’t have the story involve rytlock or bloodstones, as well as gods and rytlock, Charr need no gods is one of their sayings.
As for gameplay, mechanic sounds like a combination of warrior and necro, So I think that could use reworking, or maybe have it fill only upon taking damage? Though, that still seems to similar to warrior for me.

Also, coming from gw1, Hexes might mean a different thing to me, they were their own debuff, and lots of them, many having unique properties. I will say, I miss those, and I would like that to come back as a classes mechanic somehow, but I’m not sure how you feel about hexes, or exactly how you would treat hexes.

Now, it having both spirit weapons and transformations, that should limit the number of weapons it can equip, as it would have a ton of skills at it’s disposal if it stayed as is.

I do like haunt and rituals, sounds like banners or ranger spirit type skills that debuff the enemy, i don’t know how that’d be balanced, it could easily be super op. And how would demon fang be unique? how is it unique from warrior physical utility skills. Another thing that was unique in gw1 were skills called touch skills, and only a handful of professions had some, most notably.
http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Touch I would recommend maybe checking that out if you’d like.

and while this suggestion isn’t unique. Personally, I would remove zealot weapons and maybe go with signets.

While I’m a fan of the dark knight concept coming into play, I don’t think this is the way to do it.

/notsigned

We alrdy have a class with a dark theme, Necromancer. You could potentially give necros new traits and weapons which allow these options you would like. I’d much prefer that over a new dark themed class.

Nice try. Won’t happen. We already have the full beat em up plate wearer and the magical plate wearer. We also already have a death themed class.

Any 3rd soldier class that comes along, which will probably be never, will have to be original in theme, mechanics, and style. a “death knight” simply doesn’t fit that bill.

OMNIBUS.2913:

We alrdy have a class with a dark theme, Necromancer. You could potentially give necros new traits and weapons which allow these options you would like. I’d much prefer that over a new dark themed class.

krapmyself.2817:

Nice try. Won’t happen. We already have the full beat em up plate wearer and the magical plate wearer. We also already have a death themed class.

Any 3rd soldier class that comes along, which will probably be never, will have to be original in theme, mechanics, and style. a “death knight” simply doesn’t fit that bill.

Regarding the bold:

We have two elemental themed classes: ranger and elementalist
We have two deception themed classes: thieves and mesmers
We have two non-magical themed classes: warrior and engineer

So why can’t we have two dark themed classes?

Regarding the underlined:
We have three adventurer, we have three scholar, so why can’t we have three soldier? All three scholars are the “magical lightweight” and rangers and thieves are both agile fighters that mix tools and magic, so why can’t there be more than one magical plate wearer?

You’re saying “we can’t have more than one of this very general description for multiple classes!” but we already do, on multiple accounts.

In fact, the only thing we’re lacking multiple of is a dark themed and a light themed profession – but we have a light heavy, so a second guardian makes little sense. A dark heavy, however, can make sense.

A Massive Headache.1879:

Edit NVM my post too long

Thanks for the feedback. Hope you dont mind I added numbers to your reply so I can address them easier.

1) This idea I had was a combo of GW- Warrior(which is the baseline of the Soldier archetype of GW2), the Necromancer of GW1, the Dervish, and Ritualist. But main them is Dervish and Necro, but as a GW2 Soldier. Thats why I wrote the lore in such a way that Rytlock, became one of the major class heroes, because lore wise from living story, he is already lost into the mist, and good speculation that he ventured into the Crystal Desert/Elona, which is the land of the Dervish/The Underworld(which is also where Reapers come from)/Margonite (who also had Dark Dervish). I dont want the class to be Dervish itself, just like Guardians arent Monks themselves, but a evolution of that GW1 class into a soldier. Since classes in GW1 dont focus on weapons, I moved away from Scythes as well, but still kept the Melee experience of that culture to explain the jump to Soldier class. But I wrote them in as first evolving from Dervish/Paragon Holy Warriors of Elona over 200 years into modern day Guardians, and then turning to dark magic and becoming Reapers.
As for the Bloodstones, the reason I wrote that into the lore is because of their origin of magic, as well as their corrupting power from dark powerful beings within the Realm of Torment, mainly Abaddon, but from Grenth as well since the Underworld also is part of the Mist, which is where Rytlock was lost in during the Living Story. For my mechanics idea of a magical dark shapeshifter that can change into different monsters of different kinds, I figured the Bloodstones’ dark past as well as their broad forms of magical schools, fit the class idea since Reapers in their transformations can call upon many different schools of magic depending on the creature they turn into lore wise.

2) Yes you are right. My idea seem a bit too similar now that people pointed that out. But the key difference I wanted from both Warrior/Necro mechanics is that the resource that Reapers use, depletes while in combat unlike those other classes. So it needs to be constantly filled up. Something like a dark soul stealing concept. Which game me a new idea for mechanics. So what about this.
the Mechanics also has a Soul Sacrifice ability, which is used on enemies to generate souls. When 3 souls are generated the Reaper can use his transformations.

3) Well in GW1 they were a condition, but conditions function differently here which is why I cant make a Condition from it. In this case, its just a spell type name. Spells that are dark in theme, and meant to consume some of the bar I original had in place for a secondary resource for the class. That take away some of your Reapers Bloodstone energy, which delay your transformations. So its a sacrifice for added power between transformation cooldowns. Hex spells in GW2 has to be different from conditions. so keep that in mind. Cant have a condition unique to one class.

4) Good point. But with limited weapon options default from the lack of weapon swap, similar to Engineers, it makes up for that by having more skills to use. But unlike the Engineer, the Reaper’s transformations have a cool down and cost, which the Engineer’s kits do not. and the Zealot Weapons have cast time and cooldown as well unlike kits. They more closer to Elementalist’s conjures if anything. So this is there to make up for the limits. 1 weapon set, while the equivalent of engineer’s kits are all cooldown/ need resources to use at all. That adds a new layer of tactics when playing.

5) You are right here. Been level 80 too long on my Ranger. Forgot that Ranger Spirits cant move unless traited. So yeah thats a bit similar. But the main difference here is that these spirits summoned attack nearby enemies instead of simply empowering allies like Ranger spirits. think of this similar to Ritualist’s Binding Ritual spirits skills vs Ranger’s Nature Ritual spirits. Also they ground target by traits. but cant move.

6) Demon Fang is similar to touch skills in GW1, but with their own name here in GW2 being a reaper class skill type. The difference between Demon Fang and Physicals, is that Demon Fang skills, similar to touch skills they are melee range only. But some have cast time, vs other.

7) I believe all classes have signets of some kind. Zealot Weapons act as another way to change up combat for the Reaper which cant use multiple weapons to swap in combat like non engineers can. But I see your point on how it could be OP, so I say perhaps make it so Zealot Weapons also consume Souls to use or have a negative side effect to use along with the cooldown and cast time I already mentioned above.

let me know what your thoughts are on this update

Konig Des Todes.2086:

krapmyself.2817:

Nice try. Won’t happen. We already have the full beat em up plate wearer and the magical plate wearer. We also already have a death themed class.

Any 3rd soldier class that comes along, which will probably be never, will have to be original in theme, mechanics, and style. a “death knight” simply doesn’t fit that bill.

Regarding the bold:

We have two elemental themed classes: ranger and elementalist
We have two deception themed classes: thieves and mesmers
We have two non-magical themed classes: warrior and engineer

So why can’t we have two dark themed classes?

Regarding the underlined:
We have three adventurer, we have three scholar, so why can’t we have three soldier? All three scholars are the “magical lightweight” and rangers and thieves are both agile fighters that mix tools and magic, so why can’t there be more than one magical plate wearer?

You’re saying “we can’t have more than one of this very general description for multiple classes!” but we already do, on multiple accounts.

In fact, the only thing we’re lacking multiple of is a dark themed and a light themed profession – but we have a light heavy, so a second guardian makes little sense. A dark heavy, however, can make sense.

Well, you’re not wrong there. But the class that is being suggested is basically a necromancer in plate, which is what I’m trying to say here.

Taking your example, the Mesmer and Thief, (the two class that have the closest similarity in arbitrary themes) yes they both have this deception as part of their portfolio, but they are executed in very different and unique ways. The Mesmer uses illusions to confuse their foe while the thief stealths to disappear. Both can misdirect, but how they do it is different from both a style and mechanic point of view.

I thought I was being clear but I guess not. I’m personally not opposed to a DARK themed soldier class, but a DEATH themed one won’t work because it’s already being done. And a death themed class is basically what the OP is suggesting. (I mean, even the mechanic is basically the necromancers except it can choose more than one form to take. The OP seems to just really really want a “death Knight” style class.)

edit: I would also like to add that if the Thief is played like an assassin, it could qualify as a dark themed class, but that’s being really nit picky.

krapmyself.2817:

Konig Des Todes.2086:

krapmyself.2817:

Nice try. Won’t happen. We already have the full beat em up plate wearer and the magical plate wearer. We also already have a death themed class.

Any 3rd soldier class that comes along, which will probably be never, will have to be original in theme, mechanics, and style. a “death knight” simply doesn’t fit that bill.

Regarding the bold:

We have two elemental themed classes: ranger and elementalist
We have two deception themed classes: thieves and mesmers
We have two non-magical themed classes: warrior and engineer

So why can’t we have two dark themed classes?

Regarding the underlined:
We have three adventurer, we have three scholar, so why can’t we have three soldier? All three scholars are the “magical lightweight” and rangers and thieves are both agile fighters that mix tools and magic, so why can’t there be more than one magical plate wearer?

You’re saying “we can’t have more than one of this very general description for multiple classes!” but we already do, on multiple accounts.

In fact, the only thing we’re lacking multiple of is a dark themed and a light themed profession – but we have a light heavy, so a second guardian makes little sense. A dark heavy, however, can make sense.

Well, you’re not wrong there. But the class that is being suggested is basically a necromancer in plate, which is what I’m trying to say here.

Taking your example, the Mesmer and Thief, (the two class that have the closest similarity in arbitrary themes) yes they both have this deception as part of their portfolio, but they are executed in very different and unique ways. The Mesmer uses illusions to confuse their foe while the thief stealths to disappear. Both can misdirect, but how they do it is different from both a style and mechanic point of view.

I thought I was being clear but I guess not. I’m personally not opposed to a DARK themed soldier class, but a DEATH themed one won’t work because it’s already being done. And a death themed class is basically what the OP is suggesting. (I mean, even the mechanic is basically the necromancers except it can choose more than one form to take. The OP seems to just really really want a “death Knight” style class.)

edit: I would also like to add that if the Thief is played like an assassin, it could qualify as a dark themed class, but that’s being really nit picky.

But the class isnt just about death.
It gets its powers from Bloodstones and can change into demons as well as undead. so it isnt just undead themed. Its dark. Its more of a dark plated Dervish if anything.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

OMNIBUS.2913:

We alrdy have a class with a dark theme, Necromancer. You could potentially give necros new traits and weapons which allow these options you would like. I’d much prefer that over a new dark themed class.

krapmyself.2817:

Nice try. Won’t happen. We already have the full beat em up plate wearer and the magical plate wearer. We also already have a death themed class.

Any 3rd soldier class that comes along, which will probably be never, will have to be original in theme, mechanics, and style. a “death knight” simply doesn’t fit that bill.

Regarding the bold:

We have two elemental themed classes: ranger and elementalist
We have two deception themed classes: thieves and mesmers
We have two non-magical themed classes: warrior and engineer

So why can’t we have two dark themed classes?

Regarding the underlined:
We have three adventurer, we have three scholar, so why can’t we have three soldier? All three scholars are the “magical lightweight” and rangers and thieves are both agile fighters that mix tools and magic, so why can’t there be more than one magical plate wearer?

You’re saying “we can’t have more than one of this very general description for multiple classes!” but we already do, on multiple accounts.

In fact, the only thing we’re lacking multiple of is a dark themed and a light themed profession – but we have a light heavy, so a second guardian makes little sense. A dark heavy, however, can make sense.

Well my main concern is necromancer is the least favored class for pve usefulness. I’d rather build on a class thats alrdy behind than introduce another dark themed class. People would just opt for the new class and just brush necro aside.(cant speak for everyone here but thats what i see happening). And like i said they can incorperate knighthonors ideas onto necro alrdy. If it proves useful it will encourage more necromancer play. The only difference is they will still wear light armor. Marjory and Trahearne use greatsword, give necro that instead.

Also, your theme comparisons are kinda vague. Ranger is a pet and survival class imo, not an elemental themed class. Rangers may have spirits but its a small aspect and they are mostly used for their buffs(pve wise anyway). Warrior is the fighter class while engi is the technology/alchemist type class. Theif and mesmer i could see your point on deception. Although I feel like theif is less deception and more like hiding for the oppurtune moment to strike. While mesmer straight up tries to confuse you with clones and small stealths.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

We have two elemental themed classes: ranger and elementalist
We have two deception themed classes: thieves and mesmers
We have two non-magical themed classes: warrior and engineer

Elementalist is the only elemental themed class. Ranger is a nature themed class, it just so happens that certain elements are a part of nature.

Deception isn’t a theme. Thieves are more a shadow themed class while Mesmer is an illusion themed class.

Non-magical isn’t a theme, it’s a motif. Theme is an overall idea (the theme of a ‘warrior’ or ‘barbarian’ is repeated over many games) while a motif is an attribute or symbol that supports a theme (most of those ‘barbarian’ themes are supported by the contrast of being a force that does not/cannot use magic compared to other casting classes in their respective games).

Konig Des Todes.2086:

So why can’t we have two dark themed classes?

Regarding the underlined:
We have three adventurer, we have three scholar, so why can’t we have three soldier? All three scholars are the “magical lightweight” and rangers and thieves are both agile fighters that mix tools and magic, so why can’t there be more than one magical plate wearer?

You’re saying “we can’t have more than one of this very general description for multiple classes!” but we already do, on multiple accounts.

In fact, the only thing we’re lacking multiple of is a dark themed and a light themed profession – but we have a light heavy, so a second guardian makes little sense. A dark heavy, however, can make sense.

I don’t think posters are opposed to another heavy armor class, but just repeated themes. Death, in the case of necromancer, is certainly covered and no other profession uses it. Darkness as a theme is also covered. The concept of dark isn’t the same as it is in other games, though. Thief is the shadow/darkness class and shadow magic is defined in the game world by the way Thief functions.

This game isn’t quite like a Superhero MMO, where you can define how powers work on a character basis. Power and magic are given hard definitions by the devs and the professions they create. You’re right in that that doesn’t mean themes can’t repeat, but if the devs made the conscious choice not to repeat themes then that is also their choice.

Knighthonor.4061:

But the class isnt just about death.
It gets its powers from Bloodstones and can change into demons as well as undead. so it isnt just undead themed. Its dark. Its more of a dark plated Dervish if anything.

Then why not just make the class theme Demons? Who else has that theme currently? The class can be about summoning demons, controlling them, binding them, slaying them, etc. Just skew the theme to keep that idea and explore the different aspects of it. You might even have to rework some mechanics to do the theme justice but isn’t this kind of forum post more fun when you incorporate feedback from others?

Leo G.4501:

Konig Des Todes.2086:

We have two elemental themed classes: ranger and elementalist
We have two deception themed classes: thieves and mesmers
We have two non-magical themed classes: warrior and engineer

Elementalist is the only elemental themed class. Ranger is a nature themed class, it just so happens that certain elements are a part of nature.

Deception isn’t a theme. Thieves are more a shadow themed class while Mesmer is an illusion themed class.

Non-magical isn’t a theme, it’s a motif. Theme is an overall idea (the theme of a ‘warrior’ or ‘barbarian’ is repeated over many games) while a motif is an attribute or symbol that supports a theme (most of those ‘barbarian’ themes are supported by the contrast of being a force that does not/cannot use magic compared to other casting classes in their respective games).

Konig Des Todes.2086:

So why can’t we have two dark themed classes?

Regarding the underlined:
We have three adventurer, we have three scholar, so why can’t we have three soldier? All three scholars are the “magical lightweight” and rangers and thieves are both agile fighters that mix tools and magic, so why can’t there be more than one magical plate wearer?

You’re saying “we can’t have more than one of this very general description for multiple classes!” but we already do, on multiple accounts.

In fact, the only thing we’re lacking multiple of is a dark themed and a light themed profession – but we have a light heavy, so a second guardian makes little sense. A dark heavy, however, can make sense.

I don’t think posters are opposed to another heavy armor class, but just repeated themes. Death, in the case of necromancer, is certainly covered and no other profession uses it. Darkness as a theme is also covered. The concept of dark isn’t the same as it is in other games, though. Thief is the shadow/darkness class and shadow magic is defined in the game world by the way Thief functions.

This game isn’t quite like a Superhero MMO, where you can define how powers work on a character basis. Power and magic are given hard definitions by the devs and the professions they create. You’re right in that that doesn’t mean themes can’t repeat, but if the devs made the conscious choice not to repeat themes then that is also their choice.

Knighthonor.4061:

But the class isnt just about death.
It gets its powers from Bloodstones and can change into demons as well as undead. so it isnt just undead themed. Its dark. Its more of a dark plated Dervish if anything.

Then why not just make the class theme Demons? Who else has that theme currently? The class can be about summoning demons, controlling them, binding them, slaying them, etc. Just skew the theme to keep that idea and explore the different aspects of it. You might even have to rework some mechanics to do the theme justice but isn’t this kind of forum post more fun when you incorporate feedback from others?

Well for starters, the Reapers in GW1 (which is where I go the concept from) are Demonic Dervish, as well as undead magic users.
Just like my suggestion implies, they use both demonic transformation as well as powers of the undead.
That’s exactly what I suggested. You claim demonic transformation is too similar to Necro, but then in the same breath say demonic summoner is okay and not too similar to Necro. That makes little since. Reapers would be a more Melee oriented class with demonic transformations. Necros are nothing like them besides the dark underworld/realm of Torment theme. My idea is a cross between the Original GW Warrior, Dervish, Ritualist, and with Hexs from Necro as the name of a spell type. Nothing else is similar. Necros focus on undead. They have elite skills for transformation into undead. Reapers change into multiple creatures, and it’s part of their main mechanic not an elite skill like warrior/ Necros in gw2..

Shame there isn’t a -1 button

I really like the mechanic behind taking power from the bloodstones. I would like to see some self inflicting class, like a berserker of some sort. I’m not saying that I would like a pure berseker, because that would be to much like warriors (Frenzy…). But instead of what necros do (prey on the dead) they consume a little piece of them self…I don’t know really, but I think that would be cool.

Mishee.5719:

I really like the mechanic behind taking power from the bloodstones. I would like to see some self inflicting class, like a berserker of some sort. I’m not saying that I would like a pure berseker, because that would be to much like warriors (Frenzy…). But instead of what necros do (prey on the dead) they consume a little piece of them self…I don’t know really, but I think that would be cool.

I like that. What if Bloodstones consumed Boons (again another reference to Dervish) to lengthen and strengthen the Monster forms when transformed?

That could be an interesting tactic as well as an added weakness when fighting. Counter Reapers by boon removing,
And play Reaper by stacking Boons as best as can to use transformations for bigger effects.

I like this idea.

Knighthonor.4061:

Mishee.5719:

I really like the mechanic behind taking power from the bloodstones. I would like to see some self inflicting class, like a berserker of some sort. I’m not saying that I would like a pure berseker, because that would be to much like warriors (Frenzy…). But instead of what necros do (prey on the dead) they consume a little piece of them self…I don’t know really, but I think that would be cool.

I like that. What if Bloodstones consumed Boons (again another reference to Dervish) to lengthen and strengthen the Monster forms when transformed?

That could be an interesting tactic as well as an added weakness when fighting. Counter Reapers by boon removing,
And play Reaper by stacking Boons as best as can to use transformations for bigger effects.

I like this idea.

Like taking boons from allies, or the more condition they have the more dmg they do. F1-4 can litterly be sacrifice your off-hand/main weapon to do a special Aoe or something.

krapmyself.2817:

Well, you’re not wrong there. But the class that is being suggested is basically a necromancer in plate, which is what I’m trying to say here.

I don’t disagree with that, hence my first post: I’d like to see a dark soldier class, but not in this form.

The argument used in those two posts I quoted, however, were attacking in the wrong direction. “Visual theme” doesn’t really matter in such general concepts.

krapmyself.2817:

I thought I was being clear but I guess not. I’m personally not opposed to a DARK themed soldier class, but a DEATH themed one won’t work because it’s already being done. And a death themed class is basically what the OP is suggesting. (I mean, even the mechanic is basically the necromancers except it can choose more than one form to take. The OP seems to just really really want a “death Knight” style class.)

And this I must again disagree.

To be clear, I am using “dark” in the semi-lore terminology of the classes. All magical classes can be divided into the “four schools of magic” or the four damage types back in GW1; and in GW2, it’s just the four damage types’ names, but now it’s four magical energy types. You had light, dark, chaos, and the unnamed ‘elemental’ – light (Preservation) was monks, paragons, and now guardians; dark (Aggression) was necromancer; chaos (Denial) was mesmer, assassins, and now thieves; ‘elemental’ (Destruction) was elementalists, dervish, now ranger as well.

The “dark energy”, or Aggression school of magic, focuses on conditions and deathly things in both games (also hindrance provoked through movement in GW1). So I’m not sure a “death” profession would be stepping on Necromancer’s toes. After all: Mesmers can teleport like thieves; Mesmers can stealth like thieves – it’s just that thieves do it better. In GW1, the overlap was in debilitating hexes – but mesmers did it better (because they were OP on assassins at first thus nerfed into oblivion) – of course, stealthing didn’t exist in GW1.

That’s how you focus on making a new dark profession: find a minor aspect of the Necromancer that could be interesting as a profession’s focus, and make them do it better, and expand in a new direction that holds onto the attacking theme of the necromancer.

krapmyself.2817:

edit: I would also like to add that if the Thief is played like an assassin, it could qualify as a dark themed class, but that’s being really nit picky.

Not really. While the thief and assassin both utilize shadows, with a heavy preference in it from assassins (this preference changed from shadow to stealth), it isn’t the same as the necromancer’s field of ‘dark’. As I mentioned above, I refer to the lore classification which is defined by damage type and battle theme of the profession(s) of the same ‘theme’.

Light is a support-first-damage-second and anti-death theme; chaos is a prevention of enemy action (directly or indirectly) theme; dark is a hindrance on action and death theme; elemental is more visual, utilizing the elements somehow (with each element having their own benefit).

Knighthonor.4061:

But the class isnt just about death.
It gets its powers from Bloodstones and can change into demons as well as undead. so it isnt just undead themed. Its dark. Its more of a dark plated Dervish if anything.

And that’s your problem.

The Bloodstones are a huge part of lore that cannot be utilized by just a single profession – it wouldn’t really make sense.

And turning into demons and undead? You don’t simply transform into such things. Margonites were turned into demons – but it was permanent and made them sterile. Undead requires to die, and like Margonites being turned into demons was permanent. Your class profession makes no sense in lore.

All you want is a transformation into something kitten. Go use tonics.

OMNIBUS.2913:

Well my main concern is necromancer is the least favored class for pve usefulness. I’d rather build on a class thats alrdy behind than introduce another dark themed class. People would just opt for the new class and just brush necro aside.(cant speak for everyone here but thats what i see happening). And like i said they can incorperate knighthonors ideas onto necro alrdy. If it proves useful it will encourage more necromancer play. The only difference is they will still wear light armor. Marjory and Trahearne use greatsword, give necro that instead.

The necromancer’s fallpoint in PvE typically falls to the over-reliance on conditions and the caps that have been put on them. To better the necromancer profession, fixing the issue of condition caps and condition effectiveness is what’s needed. In large numbers, a profession that just simply adds more conditions will become pointless because all professions can give conditions – and in large numbers, even with just the least conditioning profession can max out the caps.

OMNIBUS.2913:

Also, your theme comparisons are kinda vague.

So were yours, and that was my point.

If you’re going to discredit the idea of a “dark soldier” profession just because we already have a dark profession, or because we already have two other soldier classes – which is what you and krapmyself (how is that account name not banned?) were doing, effectively – then that fails because we have more than that for other, equally general, profession themes.

Leo G.4501:

Elementalist is the only elemental themed class. Ranger is a nature themed class, it just so happens that certain elements are a part of nature.

Deception isn’t a theme. Thieves are more a shadow themed class while Mesmer is an illusion themed class.

You’re speaking in more specifics than the posts I was responding to – and in turn, the post of mine you’re quoting.

However, while elementalists are fully elemental in theme, the ranger does have elements in their theme – Lightning Reflexes, Flame Trap, Frost Trap, and Muddy Terrain are just one set of skills that utilize all four elements. While the elemental theme in ranger is lighter, this is no different than thieves holding the same theme concept as mesmers.

Mesmers are illusions, yes, and thieves use shadows, indeed. However, both utilize the general concept of deception – hiding in shadows, tricking foes with illusions, etc. – as their base theme. Just like how in GW1, Monks and Paragon shared the same holy theme.

Leo G.4501:

Non-magical isn’t a theme, it’s a motif. Theme is an overall idea (the theme of a ‘warrior’ or ‘barbarian’ is repeated over many games) while a motif is an attribute or symbol that supports a theme (most of those ‘barbarian’ themes are supported by the contrast of being a force that does not/cannot use magic compared to other casting classes in their respective games).

Again, you’re being more specific than the posts I was referring to – and in turn my own post that was using their argument against them. In the grand generalities that they were speaking, then “non-magical” would be as much of a theme as “dark” is.

Leo G.4501:

I don’t think posters are opposed to another heavy armor class, but just repeated themes. Death, in the case of necromancer, is certainly covered and no other profession uses it. Darkness as a theme is also covered. The concept of dark isn’t the same as it is in other games, though. Thief is the shadow/darkness class and shadow magic is defined in the game world by the way Thief functions.

Thieves are hardly “dark” as a class, technically speaking. Shadows for thieves is just a visual medium – like blue light for guardian or purple butterflies for mesmer.

But why is “darkness as a theme” unavailable to be used twice? We saw the same themes used multiple times in both games!

Knighthonor.4061:

Well for starters, the Reapers in GW1 (which is where I go the concept from) are Demonic Dervish, as well as undead magic users.
Just like my suggestion implies, they use both demonic transformation as well as powers of the undead.

They were not dervishes nor demonic… they were ghosts – phantoms specifically – that were necromancers.

lrn2lore

With all this spirit bonding to weapons, it’s leading be to believe that it will probably just be a heavy armored ritualist. it could be all the stuff you mentioned, but anet would most likely call it Rytlock practicing ritualism.

Knighthonor.4061:

That’s exactly what I suggested. You claim demonic transformation is too similar to Necro, but then in the same breath say demonic summoner is okay and not too similar to Necro. That makes little since.

Well I didn’t really claim anything. I just stated that instead of using ‘death’ as a theme, why not use the more unique theme of demons? Whether it is too similar or not isn’t my arguing point as I stated themes can be repeated but it all depends how.

Reapers would be a more Melee oriented class with demonic transformations. Necros are nothing like them besides the dark underworld/realm of Torment theme. My idea is a cross between the Original GW Warrior, Dervish, Ritualist, and with Hexs from Necro as the name of a spell type. Nothing else is similar. Necros focus on undead. They have elite skills for transformation into undead. Reapers change into multiple creatures, and it’s part of their main mechanic not an elite skill like warrior/ Necros in gw2..

Quite honestly, I skimmed over the story part of your OP as when it started mentioning Rytlock and Grenth in close interaction, I just signed it off as “meh, it’ll get changed in post”. I focused more on the mechanics of the suggestion which aren’t very well described. The class will transform, but into what? The transformations require bloodstone energy to work but what will these forms do? The mechanics of the bloodstones themselves aren’t very defined either but more discussions has since been made about various avenues of diversifying their use.

Also, “Shouts but they affect enemies”? Like On My Mark or Fear Me? I mean, your description doesn’t yield a clear idea of a unique suggestion and, personally, some of the ideas feel more copy-paste than they should. I mean Zealot Weapons are exactly like Conjures, Haunts are Shouts, Rituals are like Turrets, I’d assume Demon Fangs are like Physical Utilities…Not trying to say everything has to be unique but it just feels like there’s just a lot of copying, at least from the short description you give.

But funny that, even shared utility types can be interesting if the users have enough differences to capitalize on those utilities in unique fashions. Like Shouts, Warrior’s shouts have more subtle effects often leaning toward offense, Guardian’s shouts are more magical and the effects are more supportive and Ranger’s shouts are pet oriented. So what would make your class’ shout unique besides it having a unique name (might as well just call them Shouts, IMO, unless they do something different…then you could use them with runes). You could give your Reaper Mantras, for example, and form some unique feature from said mantras to make them far different from their Mesmer counterpart, like as a ‘charge’ one can use to sacrifice boons or condition-on-foes for various effects.

What I’m trying to say is, it’s not so much the copy-paste being a bad thing, it’s that you don’t describe enough to give the impression it’s not just copy-paste.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

Leo G.4501:

Elementalist is the only elemental themed class. Ranger is a nature themed class, it just so happens that certain elements are a part of nature.

Deception isn’t a theme. Thieves are more a shadow themed class while Mesmer is an illusion themed class.

You’re speaking in more specifics than the posts I was responding to – and in turn, the post of mine you’re quoting.

However, while elementalists are fully elemental in theme, the ranger does have elements in their theme – Lightning Reflexes, Flame Trap, Frost Trap, and Muddy Terrain are just one set of skills that utilize all four elements. While the elemental theme in ranger is lighter, this is no different than thieves holding the same theme concept as mesmers.

Mesmers are illusions, yes, and thieves use shadows, indeed. However, both utilize the general concept of deception – hiding in shadows, tricking foes with illusions, etc. – as their base theme. Just like how in GW1, Monks and Paragon shared the same holy theme.

Leo G.4501:

Non-magical isn’t a theme, it’s a motif. Theme is an overall idea (the theme of a ‘warrior’ or ‘barbarian’ is repeated over many games) while a motif is an attribute or symbol that supports a theme (most of those ‘barbarian’ themes are supported by the contrast of being a force that does not/cannot use magic compared to other casting classes in their respective games).

Again, you’re being more specific than the posts I was referring to – and in turn my own post that was using their argument against them. In the grand generalities that they were speaking, then “non-magical” would be as much of a theme as “dark” is.

If your goal was to identify those you’re responding to as vague, then it’s probably good to indicate.

But regarding elementalist/ranger, it’s not that Ranger has elements in their theme, it’s just that elements are at play as a motif of their nature theme. Elemental isn’t their theme, it’s nature; wilderness, environment, animals, plants, as well as the spirits of nature (which manifest as elements) are all motifs within their nature theme. Elementalist are element theme with magic/arcane, spell casting/conjuration, and other magicy stuff as motifs. It’s kind of odd since, elemental is usually used as a motif but the contrast Elementalist creates with the other classes takes a motif and dials it up to max, making it their theme.

As far as deception, I don’t think that is a theme or motif. Anyone can deceive others and although it’s used often in story that they use their skills to deceive, others too do the same without and in combat, they aren’t the only ones capable of that.

Speaking of the parallels of Monk and Paragon, I didn’t play GW1 myself. But from their descriptions, only Monk seems holy. The motif they seem to share is ‘religious’ and ‘good’. One seems to be literally praying for the gods’ grace in battle while the other graces their presence in battle granted to them by the gods. They sounds the same, but if you define them, it’s totally different.

Konig Des Todes.2086:

Leo G.4501:

I don’t think posters are opposed to another heavy armor class, but just repeated themes. Death, in the case of necromancer, is certainly covered and no other profession uses it. Darkness as a theme is also covered. The concept of dark isn’t the same as it is in other games, though. Thief is the shadow/darkness class and shadow magic is defined in the game world by the way Thief functions.

Thieves are hardly “dark” as a class, technically speaking. Shadows for thieves is just a visual medium – like blue light for guardian or purple butterflies for mesmer.

But why is “darkness as a theme” unavailable to be used twice? We saw the same themes used multiple times in both games!

I suppose I bring it up because ‘darkness’ theme hasn’t been defined. Darkness itself really is only a medium and feels that the game has defined it as such. Are we defining darkness as something other than ‘the dark’? When it comes to the theme itself, people tend to associate death with it despite not being intrinsically linked. If not death, then probably evil or sin. As someone who hasn’t played GW1, GW2 seems to have defined dark as that which shrouds and moves unseen so it’s no mystery why thieves adopted it. If darkness was something else then what exactly?

Konig Des Todes.2086:

They were not dervishes nor demonic… they were ghosts – phantoms specifically – that were necromancers.

lrn2lore

Curious, where do “demons” fit in the grande scheme of Tyria?

Yes, I’m sure what this game desperately needs is yet another heavy class to tip the scales even more in PvE and WvW…

Konig Des Todes.2086:

OMNIBUS.2913:

Well my main concern is necromancer is the least favored class for pve usefulness. I’d rather build on a class thats alrdy behind than introduce another dark themed class. People would just opt for the new class and just brush necro aside.(cant speak for everyone here but thats what i see happening). And like i said they can incorperate knighthonors ideas onto necro alrdy. If it proves useful it will encourage more necromancer play. The only difference is they will still wear light armor. Marjory and Trahearne use greatsword, give necro that instead.

The necromancer’s fallpoint in PvE typically falls to the over-reliance on conditions and the caps that have been put on them. To better the necromancer profession, fixing the issue of condition caps and condition effectiveness is what’s needed. In large numbers, a profession that just simply adds more conditions will become pointless because all professions can give conditions – and in large numbers, even with just the least conditioning profession can max out the caps.

OMNIBUS.2913:

Also, your theme comparisons are kinda vague.

So were yours, and that was my point.

If you’re going to discredit the idea of a “dark soldier” profession just because we already have a dark profession, or because we already have two other soldier classes – which is what you and krapmyself (how is that account name not banned?) were doing, effectively – then that fails because we have more than that for other, equally general, profession themes.

Necro has more than just condi cap issues. Any necro with a brain(assuming they want more efficient runs) would run power in dungeons anyway becuz of the cap, and the fact that everything dies before your condis start dealing serious damage. Which gives necro an alternative from conditions. The main issue is they dont have any worthwhile group utility.

You cant get much more vague than “non-magical” as a theme. There is clearly more to both warrior and engi. So using non-magical as a defence for multiple themes doesnt really fly with me :] .While I dont elaborate every little detail about them, classifying them as a technology type and fighter class is more accurate.

By your standards guardian, ele, mes, and necro are also are themed the same. As “magical”! 0_0

Konig Des Todes.2086:

Knighthonor.4061:

Well for starters, the Reapers in GW1 (which is where I go the concept from) are Demonic Dervish, as well as undead magic users.
Just like my suggestion implies, they use both demonic transformation as well as powers of the undead.

They were not dervishes nor demonic… they were ghosts – phantoms specifically – that were necromancers.

lrn2lore

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Margonite_Reaper
No learn your lore. They were demons in Gw1 and functioned as equivalents of the Dervish playable class.
Reapers were Dark themed Dervish. Greth’s reapers were Necromancers ghost. Which is why I said my idea for Reaper class deals with both Demonic and Undead in transformation.
As to your other statement about transforming into Undead, I am sorry but Necromancers also can change into creatures of undeath. So I don’t see how that is a reach lore wise for a living to turn into an avatar of undead.

By the way, the Margonite humans background lore are the model for the demonic theme of the the Reaper class in the OP. Abaddon was able to transform those humans into Demons to use his power. That’s the theme of the Shapeshifting element of Reapers.
The Bloodstones are sources of great power but they were shattered and scattered across the world. Abaddon is locked away, and it’s not a reach for Abaddon to exchange powers of Bloodstones to mortals, since he did it once before, before he was locked away by the other gods.
Lorewise I explained it that the survivors of Elona who are already dealing with the Undead on a massive Orr like scale for 200 years, who were once Holy Warriors (Dervish and Paragon and Monk and Guardians) have forsaken the Holy Path for a darker more powerful source of magic offered to them from dark gods to be used in exchange for hunting down souls of the living and returning the corrupt undead to their final rest in the realm of Underworld. I had Rytlock lead that cause since he is a powerful warrior that was lost in the Mist which is where he could come Into contact with Greth and Abaddon which are connected to the land of the Crystal Desert.

Nothing I said was a reach Lorewise. If it was, I asked that you explain. Nothing here you said make my lore a far reach to happen.

Or they could just buff up necromancers a little bit. As a necro main I would be pretty frustrated if they spent resources making a whole new class instead of addressing the broken or weak aspects of necros.

My suggestion:

• Heavy armour
• Dervish’s martial arts, scythe weapon and Paragon’s spear, among others
• Ritualist form of magic theme

Basically a spirit warrior with an elonian fighting style, and we have the third heavy class.

Thought id post this. Its the description of the necromancer on guildwars2.com and the wiki.
“Necromancers are masters of the dark arts. They summon the dead to fight for them, channel blood energy and rend their enemies’ souls. Necromancers draw on life force and use it to strengthen or heal themselves and others. As a scholar profession, necromancers wear light armor.”

Sound familiar? differences i see are heavy vs light. Necros can transform, have dark and frost as followers of grenth alrdy, and a second bar that allows them to transform just sounds very similar to death shroud. It even builds in combat but is more linked to specific skills and traits.

OMNIBUS.2913:

Thought id post this. Its the description of the necromancer on guildwars2.com and the wiki.
“Necromancers are masters of the dark arts. They summon the dead to fight for them, channel blood energy and rend their enemies’ souls. Necromancers draw on life force and use it to strengthen or heal themselves and others. As a scholar profession, necromancers wear light armor.”

Sound familiar? differences i see are heavy vs light. Necros can transform, have dark and frost as followers of grenth alrdy, and a second bar that allows them to transform just sounds very similar to death shroud. It even builds in combat but is more linked to specific skills and traits.

Key difference is that Reapers are Melee bringing on Melee of Dervish but evolved over 200 years. Yes it has transformations but so does many other classes. What makes Death Shroud different from Reaper Forms like suggested above is that you consume all your boons to enhance your form. Also your forms act as your secondary weapon since you wouldn’t have a secondary weapon unlike Necromancers. I was vague on what you can transform into because I leave that for artist imagination on the dark monsters models that could be used. But sure, I can show some ideas for some.
Also want to add, that Reapers’ bloodstone mechanics consume boons when using a bloodstone, and the bloodstone depletes over time unlike Necro, and need constant supply. So the Reaper is always building up souls to fuel a bloodstone while timing boons for full effect. That’s where the tactical part of playing the class comes in.

Knighthonor.4061:

OMNIBUS.2913:

Thought id post this. Its the description of the necromancer on guildwars2.com and the wiki.
“Necromancers are masters of the dark arts. They summon the dead to fight for them, channel blood energy and rend their enemies’ souls. Necromancers draw on life force and use it to strengthen or heal themselves and others. As a scholar profession, necromancers wear light armor.”

Sound familiar? differences i see are heavy vs light. Necros can transform, have dark and frost as followers of grenth alrdy, and a second bar that allows them to transform just sounds very similar to death shroud. It even builds in combat but is more linked to specific skills and traits.

Key difference is that Reapers are Melee bringing on Melee of Dervish but evolved over 200 years. Yes it has transformations but so does many other classes. What makes Death Shroud different from Reaper Forms like suggested above is that you consume all your boons to enhance your form. Also your forms act as your secondary weapon since you wouldn’t have a secondary weapon unlike Necromancers. I was vague on what you can transform into because I leave that for artist imagination on the dark monsters models that could be used. But sure, I can show some ideas for some.
Also want to add, that Reapers’ bloodstone mechanics consume boons when using a bloodstone, and the bloodstone depletes over time unlike Necro, and need constant supply. So the Reaper is always building up souls to fuel a bloodstone while timing boons for full effect. That’s where the tactical part of playing the class comes in.

If the key difference is melee then just give necro more melee options. Which could include many of your ideas on the skills. win/win

Despite the all the good and bad points made by both yay and nay sayers, I still feel the idea of this class is just a push for a “death knight”.

Simply, if a new soldier is released, it would have to be an original idea in terms of existing class themes and mechanics.

Ah yes… Reapers. V(-_-)V

Knighthonor.4061:

Also your forms act as your secondary weapon since you wouldn’t have a secondary weapon unlike Necromancers.

Oh, there’s a flaw.

So is this bloodstone mechanic taking into account that it’d have the most unique skills available at once? Currently, the highest ranking profession in this currently is elemental with 4 unique sets of skills (fire, air, water and earth) while your profession will have the base weapon skills + 4 sets of skills for each form? I’m guessing you did take that into consideration but I can’t tell since not much about the forms is explained.

Knighthonor.4061:

I was vague on what you can transform into because I leave that for artist imagination on the dark monsters models that could be used. But sure, I can show some ideas for some.

I think you can still give an idea of the forms (you don’t have to write a backstory/bestiary for every demon form) and what you’d imagine they do. Consider Elementalist, their sets of skills tend to be of a specific range per weapon which is a limiting factor to help balance them. You can describe such a feature without listing out every skill of a weapon.