Dear Community, I was hoping you would join me in the unfruitful and probably unpopular discussion of: “Is one summoner mastery per class really necessary?”
Unfruitful maybe because a summoner mastery per class has already been implemented (except mage), so this is really just about discussing for discussion’s sake.
While I admire the adherence so far to having one melee, one range and one summoner oriented mastery, I wanted to ask if this is really necessary to have, in particular, so many summoner masteries. While I understand that many players enjoy minion builds, I really enjoy shapeshifting, yet I don’t expect every class to have a shapeshifting themed mastery.
So I’m interested in what you think. Would you be disappointed if runemaster does not end up supporting minion builds?
To be more contradicting in my argumentation, I do hope that warlock encourages more melee acolyte builds.
I see the Runemaster with one only summon, very close psychically to him. Very close to how I see the Falconer. I don’t see the Runemaster like the Necromancer, or even the Beastmaster.
I don’t really see Runemaster or Falconer being true summoner/minion masteries tbh. In the same way, I wouldn’t call Forgeguard a true minion mastery. They might have one or two skills, but it’s not their entire identity like with Necromancer, which is the only pure summoner mastery in my mind. Things like Beast Master, Shaman, Druid, Forgeguard are all flexible/multi-purpose and support both minion and non-minion builds.
But even more important it seems to me that EHG creates and maintains usable class identities for the Runemaster, the Falconer and Warlock.
→ By the way, I strongly assume that here and there is also something “minion-like”.
Summoners have never been my top played class in any ARPG, but I always have a couple characters dedicated to summoning to keep things fresh throughout my many, many alts. Necro skeletons and in-the-fray wolf Beastmaster being the top 2 I utilize in Last Epoch.
While I prefer less summoning styles in general, I feel like EHG has done a good job of making them optional for most classes. I’m hoping the Runemaster doesn’t have multiple summons or a summon-focused theme personally. One thing I pray is never implemented is a required summon or companion/mercenary for the hero outside of their class capabilities. I literally played D2 gimped without a merc for years. The merc wasn’t (technically) an option and that is poor design in my opinion.
While I never play Diablo, this reminds me a lot of Mavel Heroes, but they did implement such a system SO WELL.
It was called “Team-Ups” and those were realtively weak side-kicks, but you had 3 options:
Passive/Temporary Active/Permanent
Passive gave you different bonuses and granted access to certain triggered things.
Temporary Active Summoned the Team-Up for 30 seconds, with a 200% dmg boost
Permanent was permanent, but did 1/3 of the dmg of the Temporary Active Option
All Team-Ups (and there were a TON to choose from, like 40+) had their own skill tree and equipment, where you could slightly specialize them.
I partially agree.
If we take a mage, then summoning elementals is a fairly classic skill for a mage.
But on the other hand, I would like to see more archetypes that I rarely see in other games. Or their implementation, which you will not find in other games.
Therefore, I would like to have a more unique gaming experience.
I never played Marvel Heroes, but that sounds like a good way to implement it since just getting a passive bonus wouldn’t force you to have someone running around with you.
Come to think of it, I played D3 without the follower system as well and just accepted my fate as having a little less power.
