This is a deeply unconventional understanding of “classes," imo. A class resides within the character; it’s frankly odd to apply it only to their equipment, overlaid on what sounds like an utterly generic / versatile / “classless” character. Edit: this reflects my understanding better than I described it! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_class That doesn’t sound like what’s happening here.
Just to recap: You fully understand that you can wear a wizard hat and shoot firebolts from your magic staff but unless you're locked into that playstyle and the word "WIZARD" appears on your character page then this game is "utterly generic" because it has no classes? Truly one of the lamest arguments I've seen in all my years at TA.
I’ve only played a short bit of this but so far it reminds me of a lesser version of the MONOLISK beta. Is it even worth my time to keep going- that is, is it really any different down the line? Play style certainly seems the same.
Comeon guys, the equipments DO define the class! Like in general, Spellcaster class = using wand and staff. Archer class = using Xbox and bow. N so on...how hard is this?
I will add this. You have Axe, Staff and sword and depending on what you have will reflect how your character will attack. This will go towards how you load out your character, with spell combos and gear after all no point having gear that reflects having sword if using a staff in your hand.
