Disclaimer: The roles I've specified for each class are those I believe the classes to be best suited for. Any class can fill any role, however some classes I imagine will be better at certain roles than others. Keep in mind as well that this is all speculation on my part.

What class will be your main and why? I'll be playing as a Templar myself, because of it's utillity in group play with the heals and the fact that I can DPS with some of the awesome Spear/Javelin skills.

Eh i think the poll would have been better with just base classes instead of class roles listed by them since All of the classes can essential pick any role theyd like, not limited to just dps and healing and such. With that being said i do plan on playing a templar, leaning towards healing but i want to get a feel for all possibilities.

This poll is meant to reflect the roles (hypothetically) best suited for the above mentioned classes, regardless of armor or weapon choice. While any class fan fill a chosen roll, some classes I believe would be better at certain roles than others.

Ya I can't vote in this poll since you're trying to pick a role for my class.

Perhaps I want to make a sorcerer tank?

But I am going Nightblade with DPS & Buffs/debuffs and no stealth, with a second setup for tanking... What do I choose?

Is it possible/recommended to play a sorcerer without pets? Just asking...

Like I said before, the roles I've specified are those I believe are best suited for the classes. While you could play a tank as a sorcerer, it wouldn't be a role you'd excel in with that class. Classes have advantages in certain roles, like it or not. Tanking as a sorcerer would be the equivilant of trying to DPS with daggers. Do-able, but there are better weapons you could use for a higher DPS yield.

I don't know what the skills will be for any class, though I would imagine there will be options to arrange whatever class skills available towards your prefered play style. So yes, I imagine you could play as a sorcerer without pets and still be effective and viable in your chosen role.

Those class names aren't describing classes too clearly and the abbreviations after them are even harder to understand. Let's just say I'll be smith and hunter/warrior. When on hunt I'll use longbow but in close combat I'll use axe. I have no idea which class that would fall.

Sorc. I enjoy being able to lock down foes with CC as well as being able to melt them from afar with Fireballs. Probably roll some type of tank as my 2nd as I also enjoy tanking in mmo's.

Thanks for the answer!

As for my choice then: I will be a sorcerer, using light or medium armor (probably light) with 2h sword.
I will -if possible- avoid using "Dark Magic" (stuns and such) and "Daedric Magic" (summoning).
My alternative weapon will suprisingly be a restoration staff.

It will be an interesting build, don't know if it will work. But I'll try.

Well then its an extremely odd poll that I'm not interested in answering because I don't see how it has any bearing on how I plan to play.

Not that I am making a sorcerer tank, but yes you absolutely could. You can use summons to help hold aggro. Your summons could hold aggro on some mobs will you hold it on others, effectively holding them for your DPS better than a single Dragon Knight ever could. You could also wear heavy armor and use 1-handed with shield to get the tank skills from those weapon/armor sets. You could also use your knockbacks and CC to prevent any strays from getting to your ranged DPS back there.

Seriously...there may be certain classes that seem to naturally fit a certain role, but the whole point of this open class system is to not lock you in. You are supposed to be able to VIABLY play any role with any class. Did you see the video? A Templar Dual Wielding and using a Bow to do ranged DPS? Why wasn't he a healer?

Because he doesn't have to be!!!

Unlike your poll, the game is not trying to restrict my choices.

This poll could have been made better.

Ah well; I chose Nightblade, even though I wanna be a healing nightblade.

"Viable" is a very vague term.

Sure, you might be able to function as a sorc tank as you describe , but I think it's extremely unlikely that you will be able to out tank a similarly geared and skilled DragonKnight.

I am all for alternate playstyles (I was a ret paladin in WoW way before it was cool, and had a fair amount of success), but the idea that any class can fill any role is a bit silly and I don't think that's how it will end up playing out.

I chose Sorc even though I fully intend on wielding many different weapons and armor types (all of the weapons and armor types to be precise).

Why do you think this, exactly? Do you know more than the rest of us about how the skills will work and function across all classes and lines? I somehow doubt you do.

Having the features built into your class doesn't make you better than someone dedicating to it with the proper setup, regardless of their class. You guys need to break the WoW mentality.

LOL Okay. Listen, I'm not trying to argue with anyone about the open class system. I actually agree with everything you said. However, some classes I believe will have skills that will give them an advantage towards certain styles of play. You could hypothetically play as a sorcerer tank and it could turn out to be a better class choice for a tank than a dragon knight would be. Odds are that probable won't be the case though. Not to say that you can't tank as a sorcerer, you can! You just won't be the best tank around.

It does actually. A none tank class can only pull from the heavy armor and shield skill list to tank, while a class designed for tanking can pull from it's own native list of skills in addition to heavy armor and shield skills. A class with native tank skills simply has more tools to use for that specified role.

What if the Dragon Knight doesn't want to use 1h/shield, or even heavy armor? If they want to combo up all of these things, sure they have more options.

You guys are intent on forcing people into roles more than the actual developers of the game are.

LOL Um.... True, if a dragon knight wanted to dedicate himself to a non tank role, then a socerer who decided to dedicate himself to tanking would be better at it. However, if a dragon knight simularily decided to dedicated himself, he would be a better thak than the sorcerer. This should be obvious to every. You should really learn to just admit it when you're wrong or don't bother commenting further. You're just going to embarrass yourself.

No one is trying to force you into a role. However, the fact is if you want to be the best at a certain role, then you will have to play as a certain class. If you want to be a so-so tank, then by all means go for a socerer or nightblade. No one is stopping you.

Lol, by admitting that a fully dedicated DK tank could have more options, but not necessarily be better, I'm wrong? People saying the only "viable" tanks will be Dragon Knights are wrong.

But thankfully I don't need to argue with you, because I already know.

Where did I say that a dragon knight with more options for tanking 'wouldn't' be better than another class in that post you quoted? I don't mean to insult your ability to read, but... Anyways, I'm not saying that other classes can't be viable tanks, in that they can't adequately fulfill the tank role in a party. I'm simply saying a dragon knight would be better at it.

edit: nevermind, my last input:

More options doesn't automatically mean better.

It doesn't necessarily make you better. We'd have to know exactly what skills the dragon knight will natively have and there would have to be some play tests as well to determine this. However, the odds are it will make you better. If every class has access to the heavy armor and shield skill trees, and the dragon knight has access to an additional set of tanking skills, he could potentially be a more effective tank if he/she decided to take advantage of that additional skill set.