Curse

BahamutKaiser · Nov 27, 2006, 03:30 AM // 03:30

As I was explaining, the true functions detail PvP, PvE is a very different, and less important balance feature, and whether you agree with that or not, the skill balance solely rests on PvP function.

Beyond that, MM, and the use of multiple minions do not tank. AI NPCs in PvE may take the bait, but in real combat (PvP), players will move around them the best they can, unless they forsee some advantage to taking them out. What MMs actually do is provide a barrier of units, which can block an enemies way. The combination of weak easy target choices and blocking may function as a tanking tool in PvE, but obviously, that isn't a real function in PvP, where the game is balanced. Barriers are a powerful tool, but again, precise definition allows us to see what classes actually do, and what is actually missing in the game. The substitution of, and function of certain abilities in PvE do not in some mystical way provide something that is missing.

Again, actual tanking is a concept born out of certain MMOs, and is assumed to all front line and damage absorbing capabilities in many games, but in actual combat your not tanking, your either blocking enemies from passing, or defending allies near you, this is how real combat works, and why I point out this difference. The most legitimate form of tanking would be to stand near your ally and deflect attacks on them or share attacks directed on them, and specifically, that is protecting, the whole idea of tanking revolves around abstract games which involve impractical techniques.

Bringing up a lesser topic which I clearly recognized,

Quote:

Originally Posted by BahamutKaiser

In PvE, Warriors can go in first and the enemy will likely start attacking them instead of passing to attack other units, but in real combat (what I call PvP), players simply bypass the Warrior and take out his support.

and assuming I misunderstand is a falicy on your part, I clearly pointed out that the features available in PvE are insignificant to the greater function of PvP, and because of this very obvious lack of function, such a function which truely "tanks" damage directed on his allies, which actually works in a PvP situation, the situation which actually matters, and also fuctions in PvE as well. A significant difference which leaves a very obvious opportunity for something new if your are accute enough to recognize it.

The facets of NPC AI matter little to the balance of PvP, and elaboration on the finer points of NPC AI does not elude me. The topic here is the function of exsisting classes to the end of finding new features which can distinguish new classes, and that is exactly what I have done. What are you doing?

I will forgive you this time because your part of all people who assume I miss something because I identify everything far more accuratly. And this is the topic of which this post is all about, identifying the exsisting classes, accuratly in order to find the abilities not already in the game. Perhaps if you could identify the functions of each class as well as I do, you would understand why all of my class ideas provide totaly new capabilities and functions for the game, and might not have such a hard time appreciating them for their worth. Perhaps even make some worthy ones of your own. If you could define class abilities the way I do, you would realize why I am deafenningly critical of most class ideas.

rabbitXcore · Nov 27, 2006, 03:34 AM // 03:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by BahamutKaiser

Beyond that, MM, and the use of multiple minions do not tank. AI NPCs in PvE may take the bait, but in real combat (PvP), players will move around them the best they can, unless they forsee some advantage to taking them out. What MMs actually do is provide a barrier of units, which can block an enemies way. The combination of weak easy target choices and blocking make function as a tanking tool in PvE, but obviously, that isn't a real function in PvP, where the game is balanced. Barriers are a powerful tool, but again, precise definition allows us to see what classes actually do, and what is actually missing in the game. The substitution of, and function of certain abilities in PvE do not in some mystical way provide something that is missing.

So do you think it would be more accurate to define classes for PvP and PvE seperatly? Like MM is a great PvE player but is not so good in PvP?

BahamutKaiser · Nov 27, 2006, 04:32 AM // 04:32

A truth, MM is better in PvE and far less useful in PvP. Notice, the whole concept of "the art of tanking" stresses functions in PvE, wile all of those AI factors and and PvE situations simply do not apply to PvP and human strategy.

The manipulation of AI isn't an actual class function, it is a gameplay asset available for a particular (particularly less significant) part of gameplay. In the end, an actual class feature (not AI manipulation), provides a substancial asset to gameplay in PvP and PvE situations.

Notice, when you obscure the function of PvP, you come up with partial results, which do not apply universally. Partial results are unbalanced ones, skills are balanced based on PvP for a reason. In PvP the battle must be fair, in PvE, the battle is obviously not, you are in possetion of far greater tactical ability, and the enemy is usually marked up with higher levels and bonus capabilities, a testament to the imbalance neccessary for a challenging PvE experience.

With this in mind, your new ability ideas much be balanced and developed around PvP, usefulness in PvE is an afterthought.

As for the topic described, by recognizing that Warrior involves a survival factor, and not an "actual tanking factor", you can devise a new ability for a new class which has actual SKILLS to defend an allie.

For example, a defense class which provides a chance to block attacks or intercept attacks and damage directed on an allie. With this, a new function is born, the ability to significantly reduce damage to any, and more importantly, key allies by using new skills which block attacks on adjacent allies, or receive damage in an allies stead.

If you think about this, it is an incredibly powerful and unique ability. There are many ways to attack, many ways to defend, and many ways to support or debilitate. Basicly all abilities fall into those facets, save for mobility. But this class would be the only one geared toward staying near an allie, and grouping allies together in order to provide maximum (because of the strategical cost), maximum defensive support advantages.

Obviously, this includes a built in counter, this class provides great defense for allies, be it on the front line or back line, but with the clustering of allies, will become vulnerable to group attack damage. This is not just a good new feature to add to the game, it is almost an neccessary one. Many attacks in the game punish groups for staying close together, making it a liability, very few skills offer an advantage for such a technique. With a skill like this, support and defense of an allie will broaden to a new horizon, and group damaging or effecting spells will increase in value as a counter to such a strategy.

This works well in PvP or PvE, unlike AI manipulation. In PvP the defender class will actually bodyguard one or more important/soft allies in his party. This primary function would be the survival of his allies, his secondary function would be dealing melee damage to foes who advance on him. In PvE, it is even easier. The defender class would simply attack the enemy, and prioritize enemies attacking softer allies. With this he would join whoever is attacking on the front line providing defensive advantages to front line members as well as providing more blocking. If the enemies breach the line or try to break for softer allies, the defender class simply joins the casters and offers defensive bonuses to them wile attacking. A true tanking class which overcomes the use of AI manipulation with actual tanking SKILLS.

I have basicly given you a class idea, unfortunatly, it isn't one I am interested in writing on, even though the idea is very unique and exemplary. I personally focus my class creation ideas on identities I actually want to play in the game, the honest truth is, with my talent, I could take any identity and twist a new feature out of it to make it a unique class, my goal is to make one out of an identity I want to play. Although...... I think I will stress this new feature in my next samurai revision, a good dual draw feature.

If you do want to develope a defender class (that is just a description) based on this concept, feel free. I would further suggest that defense stance abilites be available in a secondary attribute, offering various evasive boosts to oneself and/or just allies adjacent to you, and that the primary attribute offer added adrenaline whenever you block an attack for an allie or yourself. Blocking being key, as so much evasion is offered with almost all support abilities, and skills which involve block counters specifically do not get the proper opportunity they deserve. Stances which block instead of evade.

Giddeanx · Nov 27, 2006, 04:50 AM // 04:50

I am right on board with you Bahamut. We need a sort of true tank.
I might have an example of what you are speaking about as true tanking.
Familiar

He actually forms a bond with the caster and acts as a sort of battery.

I am working on a Warden, (Just looked it up on wiki. I intended no Warcraft reference as this characters powers will be firmly physical.) who is a sort of midevil law enforcement. Crowd control mostly.

rabbitXcore · Nov 27, 2006, 04:55 AM // 04:55

LINK IS MISSING...which makes me sad because i was really hoping to see if you and Bahamut were actually on the page that i think you are on..if so i agree with you both completly though i personally would rather stay at the back and do heavy support.

actionjack · Nov 27, 2006, 06:14 AM // 06:14

I think its a fair statement to make to say that the core 6 proff of GW has pretty much cover all of the basic function of a RPG game. Even the expansion classes mostly just take those functions, and do them a bit differntly.

In that regard, I think there are 3 functions that is still not well cover by the game.

- Is already been in the disscussion, that of a AI/Mob Manipulater (especially with the changed AI). One that could draw enemy "hates" better, and possibley control them for short duration.

- A Mass Teleporter. One that can open gates on places, allowing teamate to move around better.

- Stealth, which could better ambush or do the "steatlhy job". Could also be a good counter balance to the crwod controler.

Those 3 are not as easy to make, and hard to get to right balance as oppose to the more typical "hitter and defender". But I still think having those functional class could bing many interesting play into PvE and PvP.

They also has been suggested befoe in several CC's by many people. I won't name the link, but should look it up for considerations.

Giddeanx · Nov 27, 2006, 01:24 PM // 13:24

I fixed the link. Familiar

Crom The Pale · Nov 27, 2006, 05:43 PM // 17:43

Before you all rush out and make a new tank class please read the thread - Paragons: Nerf Time!.

Tanking in the sence of reducing or preventing damage to allies already exists. Building a new proffesion to do only that would be like making a monk with no smiting or protect skills, it would be unbalance in every aspect.

I believe actionjack is correct in his breakdown the only question I would put to him is can you build an entire class out of those gaps or would adding skills to current classes fill the void?

Ranger = stealth
Mesmer = mob manipulation
Elementalist = telporter

In the end while its nice to see new classes for there looks/weapons/skills they dont really bring anything unique to GW, just a different way of doing what can already be done.

Giddeanx · Nov 27, 2006, 08:57 PM // 20:57

Quote:

In the end while its nice to see new classes for there looks/weapons/skills they dont really bring anything unique to GW, just a different way of doing what can already be done.

K everybody pack up and go home there is nothing to do here. Back to your caves.

I could rehash that all the new classes take one or two new ideas and then have some overlaping skills.

Ritualist
Original Ideas: Interactive Spirit Rasing, Weapon Spells
Overlaps: Monk, Elementalist, Necro

Assassin
Original Ideas: Chained Attacks, Teleporting
Overlaps: Ranger, Warrior

Paragon
Original Ideas: Chants
Overlaps: Ranger, Warrior, Monk

Dervish
Original Ideas: Forms, Multiple Target Melee
Overlaps: Warrior, Elementalist

Any person posting here can find one or two original ideas we dont see and run with it. If there is a little overlap, so be it I would love to see it. The concept may just be a viable class, who am I to overgeneralize or try to prognosticate.

As far as actionjack's list goes I believe that someone could make a stealthy, mobcontroller that had a little overlap on mesmer and assassin. However I don't like teleporting others it seems to me to be like a cardinal sin.

Thou shall not effect the geographical posistion of any creature unless you are in control of that creature (yourself, charmies).

If you're talking self teleportation we have that in ♠s.

BTW Crom are you speaking of the familiar or just generalizing.

First of all familiar and the warden already exsisted before this post I am not rushing anywhere but to find where it went.

Secondly, familiar is more of a spellcaster protector where it truely tanks (takes damage in the stead of another) instead of buffs, and the warden is an unfinished tank, crowd controller.

Thirdly, I feel that every class I create has some sort of original idea. If it overlaps a little with other classes c'est la vie.

Sidebar:

To be honest if the classes had no smilarity with the exsisiting classes it would be hard for us to settle into the class. We as humans live to make connections. Even in random pattern we see figures. The first thing your brain does when it sees something new it tries to connnect it to something familiar, and if that connection cannot be formed it ignores it or treats it as dangerous or wrong. The original classes all contain a little familiarity in order for us to go from one to another without much fuss. The newer classes contain a little more overlap so that we the player (now set in our ways) can make new connections easier.

K I'm done with this psycho stuff.

actionjack · Nov 27, 2006, 09:36 PM // 21:36

In reply...

I would want to see a whole new class build around each of those functions, as it would better fit in than trying to stick it into the exisiting (thought stealth was the the orginal Ranger primary). Of couse that does not mean the class would function entirely on that function (more like one attribute line), but those are the 3 I feel are not cover yet by the existing GW class (but those archtype has appear in several differnt games befoe)

Now, converting it to the "GW Standard" is the tricky part. Of couse, here at the CC fourm, thats what your creative mind can be put to use.

So to Giddeanx, I don't think making a team-teleporter is any wrong or would break the game, and would add on to the game play and strategy... of couse, HOW such thing to be done in GW is the question.

Also keep in mind that almost every class has overlap functions (like all class has some type of healing, damage, interupte, and so on), but each would be use and played differntly. I made a little blur about the 3 elements of what to consider for CC... which I feel might be a good read.... (but forgot where I post it...hmmm)

Well, do feel free to point to what other Function that as not been cover by GW.

Giddeanx · Nov 27, 2006, 09:59 PM // 21:59

I am in agreement with you action in almost all reguards. You can take either of your purposes, find an identity, and create a frame work that supports them both.
I was just throwing out a down and dirty example.

I think we are also sympatico on overlap as well, as you see in the side bar overlap happens. I just listed the newest classes for example, kind of giving creators a little break. You are also right the overlap is there but each class does play differently.

I just disagree with a team teleporter. I don't want to be that warrior who was one hit away for killing a mob and pop now I am somewhere else because some other player thought it was a good idea. I would kind of feel as if I were on a leash.
But it could work if a dialogue box appeared asking if you wanted to teleport,
but it still just feels wrong, sorry.

actionjack · Nov 27, 2006, 10:21 PM // 22:21

Well.. for teleporting.. I am thinking more along the lines of Gates and Portal.. where you make a Gate or Portal on the field (entering and exit), and have to enter in and out of it to teleport. Poping other is an idea, and good for defense (the Lich has that skill), but self-teleporting has been done by the Assassin already. Also imagin such thin in a GvG...

But how to balance and "GW" it, will leave that to the public. As well as what other attribute to go with it. I have by own idea (Sage), but don't think will put that down on paper anytime too soon yet...

Giddeanx · Nov 28, 2006, 01:43 AM // 01:43

Portals and gates I could go with.

I think crowd control is lacking

back line defense

and what about a class that has a multiple ranged attack (cone style)

draxynnic · Nov 28, 2006, 12:22 PM // 12:22

You know, I've been thinking of making a thread like this for a few months now, but never had the inspiration to do it - essentially, instead of developing a single concept, taking the broad view and looking over the existing classes for the gaps that can be filled by a new one. Without even necassarily developing a concept for a gap that is identified - if a gap is identified that the devs haven't seen themselves, they can probably take it and run with it well enough once they've seen it

.

One thing I've noticed is that the new professions seem to be based around something that an existing class dabbles in. For instance, where the Warrior dabbles a bit in shouts the Paragon turns it into a specialty, and the Ritualist takes the Ranger's ability to call spirits and expands on it. PBAOEs are something that pretty much all of the older classes can do, but none of which are really suited to turn it into their primary means of combat, while even the Assassin could be seen as an extension of the rarely-seen-except-for-mission-exploits Necromancer teleporting.

So what I'd probably suggest is dividing the concepts associated with the existing classes into primary and secondary concepts. Primary concepts are the things that you would bring a member of the class into a PUG for - Ranger traps and interruptions, Elementalist nuking, and so on - that you probably wouldn't be looking to make a new class out (do we really need a trap-focussed class when we already have trapping Rangers, for instance?). Secondary concepts are the things that can be brought to help out, but are rarely the focus of the class - things like Ranger spirits* and Warrior shouts - that could be expanded to form a new class.

Going into the realms of wild speculation, I'd define the Dervish's forms as being in the second category. Yes, it is a significant part of their identity, but when you think about it, their shapechanging ability is rather limited - unless you've just capped a form, you only have two forms you can be in in a given expedition - the avatar of your chosen deity, and your soft squishy human form. Meanwhile they've gone from having no ability to change your looks at all apart from changing armour to having a class with a limited shapechanging, some spots in PvE where you disguise yourself to infiltrate the enemy, and even a creature that can change profession. Could this lead to a dedicated shapechanger appearing in a later chapter?

*Yes, I know there have been party builds involving one or more Rangers whose job is simply to spam spirits, but usually Ranger spirits are just taken as one or two slots of a Ranger build focussed on doing something else.

EDIT: I think the lack of cone effects is probably an engine thing. Should they be introduced, I'd expect to see them introduced as new skills for an existing class (the Elementalist in particular) rather than as the focus for a new class.

anima1991 · Nov 28, 2006, 12:45 PM // 12:45

Instead of making a warrior have a skill that makes people attack them like in certain games (provoke in a certain game :P) they can make a skill that gives a good defensive boost to allies (should be higher than Watch yourself and Stand your ground), but reduces the warrior's defence, which in turn would make the others want to attack you

Giddeanx · Nov 28, 2006, 01:19 PM // 13:19

I tried to solve the whole tanking problem with the Familiar build by making it a sort of battery taking a percentage of the bonded spellcasters damage away from them and applying it to yourself.

Like you said there are some things in different games that are not present in Guild Wars. Holds, knockback, and non character based area of effect spells for an example. I don't know if I would want them implemented, but there is still some open ground.

Crom The Pale · Nov 28, 2006, 02:11 PM // 14:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giddeanx

K everybody pack up and go home there is nothing to do here. Back to your caves.

My intention was not to say we cant make new classes. I designed on myself called Slayer.

What I was trying to say is that we should not be so critical about it being 100% unique. A new class will have to bring something new and interesting to GW, but it will also have to overlap. Any new class must have more than just one single purpose or it will be far to boring to play and simple to counter.

I am also saying that finding the hole to fill in GW is a lot more compicated than pointing a finger and saying there is no real tank. We need to concider both what the primary function of all classes are as well as how they are used. I think that finding the gap in how people want to use the profesions is more important than the gap based on what the profesions were originaly built for.

For example the hole my class was built to fill was a player that could sit between the melee classes and the long range casters/rangers. The idea was to be a second line of defence/offence. When designing the class I had to take into account that it would need multiple builds and be able to play multiple roles beyond its primary purpose. I even had to concider how well it would mesh with a secondary profesion from the existing lot of 10. My idea was far from perfect and certainly not the most unique. But I believe it was something that could be interesting to play and might evolve beyond my intentions and find its own unique role to play in GW.

The game designers have to take all of these things into account as well as the flexability of the game engine and the overall balance of the class in both pve and pvp, so we should as well.

lyra_song · Nov 28, 2006, 02:15 PM // 14:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giddeanx

Like you said there are some things in different games that are not present in Guild Wars. Holds, knockback, and non character based area of effect spells for an example. I don't know if I would want them implemented, but there is still some open ground.

Actually i thought about that already :P

Quote:

Originally Posted by lyra_song

Takedowns: Takedowns are physical blows that involve control of movement or cause damage. There are 2 kinds of takedowns: Throws and Locks. Throws can be vary from forcing an enemy back 100 feet, to pulling an ally back 100 feet behind aggro lines. They can also be short throws designed to inflict damage. Locks are built in snares. They can cripple or slow down a target while causing degenarative damage.

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...php?t=10022924

Like most of my cc's, didnt get much feedback so i dumped the idea.

Giddeanx · Nov 28, 2006, 02:43 PM // 14:43

Crom, Just like always, another disagreement ended by finding out you agreed in the first place. Plain miscommunication (two way street no blame ment). It was the exact reason I posted the classes guildwars added and thier overlap, to show even though there is a some overlap they have and original idea as a base, a different playing style, and a solid collection of skill that support the original idea.

You are correct as well that popular uses of classes and derivitaves should be considered as well.
If you look at what each class does and what it is capable.

All,However there is a point that overlap becomes too much. Treat overlap like salt. A little sweetens the pie, too much ruins it.

Lyra, City of Heroes uses those skills in normal play. They could be implemented just as you say 100 feet or so, I had originaly thought about it target adjacent foe to a closest nearby point to the foe. Or the closest point in the area of the foe. (Over walls and cliffs?).

BahamutKaiser · Nov 28, 2006, 07:31 PM // 19:31

Theres nothing broken about a class that revolves around defense, just as Monk revolves around support, even he has been granted a powerful offensive support capability, and likewise, a class which stresses defense will have at least one offensive attribute, if not 2. It only takes one or 2 attributes and a new group of skills to provide those defensive capabilities, and making the blind assumption that that is all it will do because the entire idea is not detailed here is ignorant.

There is no miscommunication with Crom, he has a very small perspective and missunderstands.

As for mass teleportation, that is a form of mobility. Teleportation is the ultimate speed of mobility, and being able to mass teleport is truely overpowered and broken IMO. And also disfunctional. The only thing I percieve mass teleporting is all of your Ritualist spirits to a new location, teleporting around your allies is unwelcome. As always, any skill that takes control of your ally, or even your enemy in such extreme cases, is unwelcome in this game, this is a one unit control game, and your one unit is all your controling.

Now making gates isn't as bad, but being able to bridge all of your units any significant amount of distance is an extreme, let me repeat EXTREME capability. There are group mobility skills in Warrior and Paragon attributes, with Charge, and more than one Paragon skill, you can increase the movement of an entire party, teleporting an entire party is just broken. Likewise, there are paragon and elementist skills which allow you to increase the speed of select members, granting them a movement bonus is fine. But even at a 1 minute recast, 25 energy, exhaustion, 10 second cast time, Elite, and every other cost in the game, bridging an entire party across any significant distance is overpowered. There are certain maps with teleporters which make different parts of the area closer, but being able to make your own is overpowered. The only way this could be balanced is if your portals were available to anyone, even ememies, in which case all your really doing is creating new paths for anyone to travel quickly, but even then, under the control of a player, it is still to powerful. It can be done, I can think of some great ways to do it, but too powerful, way.

As for Stealth, it already belongs on Assassin. If any class ever needed to get into or out of battle unseen to avoid damage, it is Assassin, and placing it on another class would never serve justice to Assassin. Beyond that, Stealth is a very unstable addition to a game, it can be done in many ways, but all of them have imbalance situations, or arn't effective enough to merit use. If you make someone totaly untargetable and unseen, than it is way overpowered, most skills which simply make you untargetable are Elites themselves, and if your only unseen, but can be targeted, than your really not hidden well enough to make a major impact, it will only count as a temporary surprise. Teleports already add the element of surprise, they allow you to close distance on an enemy quickly enough to throw the enemy for a loop, and expecially when they do not know which allie you are advancing on, it is hard to prepare for their assault when you don't have time to boost a particular allie as he closes on them. Sadly, most of these advancing teleports are even frequent enough to make normal use out of, so this advantage is another one hit wonder. If stealth is added to the game, Assassin should get just as many stealth skills as whatever other class gets them, IMO, the only way to make invisibility useful is if you turned invisible the moment you teleported to an enemy, leaving no visible trace of your location and forcing the enemy to search around for a target.

As I said before, the functions of every class can be broken down into offensive damage, defensive techniques, offensive support, defensive support and mobility. Everything falls into those catagories. For offensive damage there are attacks, spells, degen. Defense covers evasion, blocking, regen and healing. Offensive support includes interrupts, sabatoge, stripping, weakening, and attack boosting. Defensive support includes damage reduction, evasion, removal, healing and regen on teammates. Mobility includes running and teleporting either to or from enemies, or at all.

AI manipulation isn't a legitimate skill function because it should never be applied to an enemy, you use skills to cause incentives or disinsentives to enemies on their attacks, spells, or possition, but actually forcing them to make a move isn't accpetable. And skills which only apply to AI are not universal to other characters, so they arn't acceptable skills. AI manipulation, or even player maniplulation should never go beyond strategy, tactics and suppression.

Now if Stealth was added to the game, it would basicly count as a new function, but it would be so minor that it wouldn't make a significant impact. Just because enemies are invisible doesn't mean you cannot attack them, and if you cannot attack them, than that is an extremely broken defensive advantage, that is all there is too a stealth idea. Forms of steath which involve reducing agro circles of NPCs do not apply to players, and is part of AI manipulation, something that isn't functional.

The catagory of every function may fall within certain types, but that doesn't make them the same, different cost, different activation triggers, different application, different possitioning, different limitations. There are a vasad of factors which can be altered to make new skills which provide simular or same effects, in very different ways.

For instance, using attacks or spells which deal damage in a straight line, it is just another form of damage, but it works differently. It deals damage on more than one foe, but it doesn't deal damage to a loose group, it does damage in a line. Likewise, the defense and preperation against such an attack is different, if your avoiding line attacks than you dont stand in a freaking line, you spread out and stay seperate simular to group attack spells, but you can fight strafe eachother as long as the enemy isn't attacking from the side with a line attack, thus the gameplay changes for that kind of attack.

There is an old saying, "there is more than one way to skin a cat". You may assume that because the cat is skinned that it produces the same result, but that is just a lack of perspective, the cat could have been skinned alive, greusomely, it could have been bleed to keep the fur in good condition, it could have been done in strips to produce different lengths of fur, it could have been done as a whole to make one large piece, it could have been done quickly just to remove the fur so you can reach the meat, and I'm sure there are more ways if you really think about it (if you want to). Different ways produce different results, there is a difference if you recognize it.

It is no different than paragons defensive skills compared to Monks, most of monk skills provide evasion and damage reduction by an amount, paragons defense skills stress more damage reduction by a percent and armor. Monks skills are more singular for keeping one allie alive, Paragons skills are more plural, to keep a group alive. Both are dealing with the defensive support role, both in different ways, both influencing gameplay in different ways.

The more you distinguish each class, the more differences you will find, and the more distinguished the skills are, the more opportunities you will recognize between those functions, or in slight alterations and applications, and counters to a new kind of skill. The more accurate your observations are, the more original ideas you will come up with, it is as simple as that. Anyone who cannot come up with new functions and concepts, or imagines that every function is just a repeat of another simply lacks the perspective to distinguish the very legitimate and significant differences each capability has to offer.