Now there are areas where I feel the concepts can still get hairy, Mainly in things like HP, attack bonus etc... with virtually unlimited class levels, how does one do HP in a way to not allow more or less unlimited HP rates, or insanely high attack bonuses on a wizard/bard etc... and that I have no flippin clue on.
If this is similar to Eve Online, HP will probably be determined entirely by your currently active class features and equipped items, with a few small percentage bonuses from your skills. Attack Bonus probably won't exist.
In other words, I don't think you are going to gain automatic permanent bonuses such as increased HP and Accuracy from gaining levels in this game. That's the thing that balances out the fact that you can never catch up to someone who has been playing for several more years than you... if you spend a few weeks to specialize in a role, he isn't going to be able to be able to do it better than you. He'll have more ability/gear options and maybe a few powerful but specialized 'high level' abilities, but he can't do everything at once.
Goblin Squad Member
|
...no character should be a "God".I wholeheartedly disagree :) I'll point you to Age of Enthronement, with specific attention to: "This age is characterised by the emergence of a number of gods who ascend to divinity through the Test of the Starstone."
I absolutely *do* want to become something very much like a demigod.
As for a 20/20/20/20 Fighter/Cleric/Mage/Rogue being overpowered... relative to what? A 20 Fighter is way, way overpowered compared to a 1 Rogue. So what?
Finally, as for "Interdependence", I truly hope PFO doesn't try to make me "need" you or anyone else. I want to play with the people I want to play with because playing with them is "FUN", not because one has ability A that I need, and another has ability B that I need. There's plenty of room for unique abilities and even unique roles without making those roles required.
This is where I will disagree with you on the quality for having an MMORPG. In general every MMORPG I have played where the challenges are easy enough to solo, 1. Attracts solo only players, 2. Becomes impossible to group in.
Me I play MMORPGs to meet and play with people I haven't met before. If I wanted to solo, or play exclusively with people I already know, there are plenty of non MMORPGs with co-op modes or just single player only to meet that need. When you make the reward larger to solo, and make the game just as easy to do solo as it is with a team, strangers will not ever team with people they don't already know. Runes of magic and perfect world games were like that when I played them. If you tried to group up with anyone, you could pretty much expect somewhere between a polite "no thanks", to a much less polite response.
To me creating a massive server for people to sign on and have everyone soloing, is like calling all of your friends over to play solitaire.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I didn't mean to imply anything about solo vs group. I was more talking about interdependence requirements such as only being allowed to take one crafting profession and needing output from another crafting profession to make my stuff. Some people don't mind having a ton of alts, and are perfectly happy to have one alt for each crafting profession. Other people really want to only play one char. I don't think the latter should be punished.
But since you brought up solo vs group, I am very, very interested in the game not punishing grouping. I remember when EQ was looking for ways to get people to group more and started giving grouping bonuses, where if you had a full group, each char would get +20% xp. But that was +20% of the 1/5 or 1/6 they were getting because the game punished grouping by dividing the mob xp by the number of players. I never understood why they put in that massive penalty, and didn't realize that might have something to do with the lack of grouping.
For my part, I would love to see the game give me 100 xp for killing a level 4 orc regardless of whether I was level 1 or level 20, and regardless of how many people helped me kill it. If the game did that, I *guarantee* you that you would *never* see anyone turn down a group invite.
interdependence requirements
I think you mean bring the player, not the ability.
Personally, I would take this to the extreme that a group of 4 barbarians would be as viable as a group of fighter, cleric, rogue, mage. This could easily be done by giving everyone the utility they need within their archetype.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am in favor of getting capstones for getting to 20 rather than for taking the "narrow path." Having to decide to stick to the archetype or forego the capstone is an interesting choice, I grant you that. But being able to go back to an archetype later for the capstone is also an interesting choice. You are choosing to postpone that capstone even more in exchange for a little diversity. So if the idea is to reward the willingness to delay gratification, the multi-classer actually deserves the reward more than the single-classer.
I understand wanting to pay homage to the RPG, but I find this particular method arbitrary. And if psychology serves me, people will follow the reward. Restricted capstones will incentivize people to single-class, and make multi-classing feel like a punishment, which clashes with the tone of the rest of the game--to play in the sandbox. I think this would lead to single-class players feeling entitled, and multi-class players feeling disenfranchised. (It already has in this thread.)
This is exactly how I see it. Especially the part I bolded.
As for the power level of capstones, there's only four options:
1) It's powerful and/or useful, and provides some mechanical advantage that makes those who don't have it weaker by comparison.
2) It's cool and/or decorative, but provides no mechanical advantage.
3) It provides some interesting ability which could be useful, might save some time, but doesn't actually improve the character.
4) It's none of the above - either it provides a numerical disadvantage if used, or it's annoying after you use it a few times, or the ability it provides isn't actually helpful.
An example of #1 would be anything that helps with combat. It can be slight (+1 damage, when you're already doing 100). Ryan's said it won't be major. But it provides some measurable benefit and everyone who has it will be stronger than those who don't. In this case, anyone who cares about how effective their character is will be forced to ask the question "Is grinding to the capstone worth it?" And the answer to that will change over time, as balance changes. Which will mean that at various times people who did the grind will be hating the fact they did, and at others people who didn't will be.
An example of #2 would be something like "You glow" or "You can do a thematic animation" (like tossing up your weapon and catching it). There are certainly people who this would appeal to, and I think it's probably the safest option (no balance issues, for instance). However, it means people will be trading mechanical benefit now (easier to start a new class/skill than to push through to the higher levels of the existing one) for some cosmetic benefit (much) later. That's not a very appealing tradeoff to the typical gamer, although PFO's population might be different.
An example of #3 would be something like "Summon a NPC vendor to buy your junk while in the field," "Remove the cooldown on your hearthstone (or equivalent)," or "you shed light as if you always had a candle with you (suppressible by turning it off)." These run the risk of being anti-climatic. "I got all the way to 20 and now I can get back to town more often. Whee." I suspect these would be the ones to discourage single-classing the most, although #2 might win depending on the player mix.
An example of #4 would be something like +1 damage when I'm doing 50k, or a somewhat useful skill that puts another more useful one on cooldown, or it makes every NPC nearby do an emote. Obviously, the capstone would never deliberately fall into this category, but it's easy to slip into (and out of) it from one of the other three.
--------------
I'd like to sidetrack for a moment to link to Richard Bartle's article on player types (And the Wikipedia summary). It's old - it's back from the MUD era - but it's still relevant.
The very brief summary is that every gamer falls somewhere in between four categories: Spades (How does the world work? Can I see everything?), Diamonds (How powerful can I get? Or how much treasure/points/rare items can I accumulate? Can I get everything?), Clubs (How can I mess up other players?), and Hearts (How can I interact with other players?). Every player is a mix of all four types, and generally shifts between them to some extent, but most people consistently lean towards one (or two) of the four.
Based on this, having a capstone at all plays to diamonds, and option #1 also plays to clubs, #2 also plays to hearts, #3 also plays to spades (maybe), and #4 just plays to those who want to say they did it (diamonds alone).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
interdependence requirementsI think you mean bring the player, not the ability.
Personally, I would take this to the extreme that a group of 4 barbarians would be as viable as a group of fighter, cleric, rogue, mage. This could easily be done by giving everyone the utility they need within their archetype.
This I can fully back. I honestly would love to break from the trinity system, eliminate the 3 tanks and 1 healer available, so 2 tanks are out of luck in finding a party until more healers sign on etc... I wouldn't mind a 4 players are present, lets roll! type of scenario.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
interdependence requirementsI think you mean bring the player, not the ability.
Personally, I would take this to the extreme that a group of 4 barbarians would be as viable as a group of fighter, cleric, rogue, mage. This could easily be done by giving everyone the utility they need within their archetype.
That is exactly what I'm talking about. A group of 4 Barbarians should be viable. Maybe not necessarily *as* viable, but viable. I just don't want it to be a foregone conclusion that we *can't* do it even with 8 Barbarians because we're missing a Mage slow.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...no character should be a "God".I wholeheartedly disagree :) I'll point you to Age of Enthronement, with specific attention to: "This age is characterised by the emergence of a number of gods who ascend to divinity through the Test of the Starstone."
I absolutely *do* want to become something very much like a demigod.
As for a 20/20/20/20 Fighter/Cleric/Mage/Rogue being overpowered... relative to what? A 20 Fighter is way, way overpowered compared to a 1 Rogue. So what?
Finally, as for "Interdependence", I truly hope PFO doesn't try to make me "need" you or anyone else. I want to play with the people I want to play with because playing with them is "FUN", not because one has ability A that I need, and another has ability B that I need. There's plenty of room for unique abilities and even unique roles without making those roles required.
I think that you and I are interested in playing very different games. I'm not sure what PF has to say about it specificaly (though I remember hearing something about them suggesting a hardcap at level 20) but I do remember reading in the DM's guide in D&D and similar suggestions in many similar RPG systems....that once a character reached Max Level...if they wanted to advance/ascend beyond that they were essentialy removed from play and became an NPC. At the very least, they suggested the ruleset wasn't really designed to handle that level play.
Note also that in a tabletop campaign...where you maybe have 5-8 players if everyone wants to play at that level...the GM can kind of fudge it...and start having the players adventuring around the planes and dealing with other "Gods" as adventure content... very different situation from an MMO where you've got 20,000 "Gods" running around...along with Level 1 players just starting the game.
Also, I'll quote directly from the blog article
"Also, Pathfinder Online is going to focus primarily on the kinds of classic adventure content that the tabletop game features at moderate levels—exploring dangerous areas and confronting monsters and villains that are scary and dangerous, but not challenging cosmic horrors or universe-destroyers."
It doesn't really look like Ryan wants PFO to turn into a "Deities & Demigods" campaign....but I think that's exactly what he's going to get if he allows for 20/20/20/20 Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Rogue.
P.S. No offense....you and I are just fundementaly interested in different types of games. Nothing wrong with that... and I'd have no problem if PFO was intended to be a "Deities & Demigods" or "Super-Heroes" style game.... I'd just wish them luck and move on to something more to my taste. However, everything that I've read tells me explicitly that they aren't looking to make that style game.... but I see the implication of these mechanics leading directly to that style game. That's when I feel compelled to speak up.
When a designer says "I want to build X style game"...it's not my place to tell him he should/shouldn't.
When a designer says "I want to build X style game....and I'm going to impliment Y mechanic in it." If I see Y mechanic contradicting what he's explicitedly stated as the style of game he says he wants to make.... as far as I'm concerned, I'm doing the designer a disservice if I don't try to raise that point to his attention.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
P.S. No offense....you and I are just fundementaly interested in different types of games.
None taken, and I apologize if my excitement over the game in general leads to impolitic statements. I'm trying to win friends here, not alienate people :)
And it's the last part of that quote that I really think is the most important thing: Namely, that the game really needs to support a variety of play styles. That's why I generally speak out against things people propose that are intended to limit what people can do in order to try and funnel them into certain types of behavior. The wondrous thing about TRPGs in the first place was the open-ended nature of it. I want PFO to give me as much of that feeling as possible.
I don't want to be funneled into grouping because that's the only way to get anything done. I want to group because a) there's *NO* penalty to it, and b) I enjoy the company of the people I'm grouping with.
I don't want to *have to* make 6 characters if I want to explore all 6 crafting professions. *cough* SWTOR *cough*
As in life, there is a tendency for people to try to micromanage other people's choices because they know what's best for them. I believe in freedom, and I want to be free in-game as well.
Chief Technical Officer
|
Just a thought or two on the capstone issue. If the assumption that it will take 2.5 years to reach "level 20" in a single class is accurate, what percentage of players is this expected to be? 20%? 10%? 2%?
I will point out one thing many folks are missing: When you choose skills to train, remember that there are non-archetype skills available for training as well. When Ryan says "I'd like to see the first 20th-level characters emerge around two-and-a-half-years after launch," I assume that those first 20th-level characters will be people who dedicated their training *entirely* to archetype skills, and that people who include non-archetype skills in their training will actually take longer than that. I suspect that many of those skills will be appealing enough that many people will choose to train them, so the number of people who train only their chosen archetype skills for 2.5 years will be relatively low.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
P.S. No offense....you and I are just fundementaly interested in different types of games.None taken, and I apologize if my excitement over the game in general leads to impolitic statements. I'm trying to win friends here, not alienate people :)
And it's the last part of that quote that I really think is the most important thing: Namely, that the game really needs to support a variety of play styles. That's why I generally speak out against things people propose that are intended to limit what people can do in order to try and funnel them into certain types of behavior. The wondrous thing about TRPGs in the first place was the open-ended nature of it. I want PFO to give me as much of that feeling as possible.
I don't want to be funneled into grouping because that's the only way to get anything done. I want to group because a) there's *NO* penalty to it, and b) I enjoy the company of the people I'm grouping with.
I don't want to *have to* make 6 characters if I want to explore all 6 crafting professions. *cough* SWTOR *cough*
As in life, there is a tendency for people to try to micromanage other people's choices because they know what's best for them. I believe in freedom, and I want to be free in-game as well.
Agreed I prefer the carrot to the stick. I think that is the issue with other games is grouping in itself inherently has too many sticks. Loot is split, XP is split, time to organize party, risk of someone else mistake causing your death, risk of a ninja looter etc...
Very few games can close all of those sticks, without just plain throwing a tree trunk at solo-ing certain areas and making it imposible to complete without a party. I know by mentioning this game I'm about to draw the hordes of people who dislike the game, but DDO is one of the few games that mitigated almost all of those flaws. It had a built in party finding tool that actually worked and could often fill up a party to something in seconds. The XP reward for completing an instance is equal whether you did it alone or did it with a full team, loot spawned separate for each person, so in fact you had better odds (if someone opted to give you something from their share) of getting the object you wanted in a group than by yourself.
Now PFO sounds like it already avoids the XP pitfall (considering XP is a time and not actions thing). I suppose the biggest thing that will effect it will be loot, now I don't think that seperate spawning loot for each player is in the spirit of the sandbox, or pathfinder for that matter, but things I could see to assist it would be, 1. Enemies being in packs, if 70% of your time is looking for creature, and 30% is finding and killing it, than a party is not going to be a big help. If the enemy takes a good amount of work to kill, and it isn't extremely hard to find the next one to help the others in the group get their item, a party is very helpful, especially if you throw in bonus damage for flanking, and have a good amount of class abilities that are complementary. Sneak attack/backstab for rogues, hold person + coupe de grace etc...
The enemies don't have to be impossible or even hard to kill without a team, but you can make it more efficient.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't really look like Ryan wants PFO to turn into a "Deities & Demigods" campaign....but I think that's exactly what he's going to get if he allows for 20/20/20/20 Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Rogue.
Remember, the whole goal here is to *level* the playing field. The character you describe won't be a better wizard than a character who's *just* Wizard 20, but he *will* have more options to choose from at any given time. The advantage "older" characters have is not power, it's flexibility.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It doesn't really look like Ryan wants PFO to turn into a "Deities & Demigods" campaign....but I think that's exactly what he's going to get if he allows for 20/20/20/20 Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Rogue.Remember, the whole goal here is to *level* the playing field. The character you describe won't be a better wizard than a character who's *just* Wizard 20, but he *will* have more options to choose from at any given time. The advantage "older" characters have is not power, it's flexibility.
I can see that on the abilities there, any chance you can give us any hints on things like HP, armor/weapons across classes etc..? Traditionally in MMO's wizards etc... had drastically lower armor and HP, While I can see skills as something that can only be used a bit at a time, making HP differences go away seems to be something that will be a bit of a challenge, and by that does that also imply that those stop going up at some point? Possibly HP is it's own skill, rather then a bonus for getting to a certain point in any archetype?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not sure if PFO will end up anything like this, but I personally don't have the slightest problem with a system where if Level 10 is 100% combat-effective, then Level 1 is still 80% effective, and Level 20 is only 120% effective.
That kind of thing makes new players instantly valuable in groups.
Remember, the whole goal here is to *level* the playing field. The character you describe won't be a better wizard than a character who's *just* Wizard 20, but he *will* have more options to choose from at any given time. The advantage "older" characters have is not power, it's flexibility.
But how much better will a level 20 Wizard be than a level 10 Wizard? That's something that will be quite a gap for "older" characters - does it also translate to flexability rather than power?
Obviously, its not either/or, and there's a curve involved. But what is the shape of that curve? If the design goal is "leveling the playing field", then I'm assuming it's not too steep.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
interdependence requirementsI think you mean bring the player, not the ability.
Personally, I would take this to the extreme that a group of 4 barbarians would be as viable as a group of fighter, cleric, rogue, mage. This could easily be done by giving everyone the utility they need within their archetype.
Then whats the point of being a Fighter or Cleric or Rogue or Mage instead of being a Barbarian....?
Under that scenario...why bother having classes at all?
I think if you are going to bother to make characters DIFFERENT then those difference have to COUNT for something?
I mean what's the design consequence of choosing to play a Fighter or Barbarian or Rogue, etc...if all those characters perform equivalent to each other in all situations?
You have choice, but no consequence attached to that choice.....might as well be no choice at all.
For me, Barbarian should be strong in situation X, weak in situation Y... interdependance is provided by team members working together to minimize thier weaknesses as a group and accentuate thier strengths.
IMO, there are some things that a group of 4 Barbarians working together should be just god-awfull at doing....other things that they should be very strong at doing.
The smart players... this is where strategy comes into gameplay decisions..... should look to manipulate situations into conditions that thier group is well setup to handle and avoid those that they are ill-suited to handle.
So...
Group #1 "Hey we've got no-one with any Ranged Attack abilities... better not put ourselves in a situation where we need to take down any flying creatures...they'll be able to retreat from us at will and we can't do anything about it"
Group #2 "Hey we've got all Ranged Attackers and no one that's good in melee.... rather then stand in the middle of this path the enemies are coming down... let's climb up that steep slope over there and try to pick them off as they pass... if they try to get to us, they've got a long climb and we can pick them off as they come...if we stand here in the path, they'll be on top of us after the first volley."
Eliminate the differences between Group #1 & #2 and you eliminate the functional element of them choosing a strategy appropriate to thier abilities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My question is this: Besides the capstone, what does leveling a certain archetype grant you that you can't get anywhere else?
Spells is one obvious answer and is probably the most exclusive thing granted by training in those archetypes. However, shouldn't it be possible to become a better fighter even if you aren't a Fighter? Is stealth only the domain of Rogues? Is unarmed combat nonviable unless you're a monk? I wonder if the choice of committing yourself to a single archetype path is as limiting as it might seem. Archetype paths may have more options as to what they can do with the skills they've trained, but I don't have the impression that you can't learn and develop those skills unless you're progressing in that archetype path. Spells are the real kicker here, how does one gain access to those?
Also, if I'm understanding right, you gain "levels/merit badges" by training the requisite skills, accomplishing certain goals, and then accepting the progression title/reward. Couldn't you then, in theory, qualify for ten levels of the Rogue archetype and then never officially take them while you are working on and accepting Fighter levels?
I'm worried about how capstones will be balanced as well, too desirable vs. frivolous, but I'm getting the impression that the system is flexible enough that those who want to get capstones but still have a character with a wide skill set can do so without too much hassle.
Though personally I'm far more interested in the possibilities of crafting/exploration/logistics/economics in the game. Can't wait to hear about that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It doesn't really look like Ryan wants PFO to turn into a "Deities & Demigods" campaign....but I think that's exactly what he's going to get if he allows for 20/20/20/20 Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Rogue.Remember, the whole goal here is to *level* the playing field. The character you describe won't be a better wizard than a character who's *just* Wizard 20, but he *will* have more options to choose from at any given time. The advantage "older" characters have is not power, it's flexibility.
The very VERSATILITY is a SIGNIFICANT bump in power....and that's even assuming there are no ADDITIVE effects to the various powers (i.e I Bless myself, and Strengthen Myself and Hasten Myself and the turn myself INVISABLE and then use my Fighters Mighty Blow Ability and my Barbarians Power Attack and my Paladins Smite Evil Ability to smack the enemy into Oblivion...and I do ALL of these at the SAME TIME...because I've got all these Abilities from my multiple classes).
If you look at the games that actualy do the "Wider not Deeper" model with flexability being balanced and not overpowered....they all have pretty much one thing in common... You can only have a certain subset of your abilities available to you at ANY ONE TIME.
In FPS style games...like WWII Online... you switch Kits...which essentialy means respawning...
In games like GuildWars or the Upcoming Secret World...you can only slot X number of abilities at ANY ONE TIME.
In games like EvE the abilities that you have are ONLY relevant to the SHIP YOU ARE FLYING at the time.
All those sorts of games have some sort of control mechanism in place so that you only have access to a LIMITED SUBSET of your abilities at any given time.
If PFO doesn't have a similar mechanism in place, I can pretty much assure you...you will end up with players running around with "God-like" abilities.... it won't just be flexability...it will be a major difference in raw power as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A level 10 character should always be vastly weaker than a level 20 character, otherwise why bother levelling in the first place?
It's the same in the pen and paper game, there are opponents that a level 20 can take on that a level 10 shouldn't be able to.
A level 10 should be weaker yes, but vastly I have to disagree. If you are meaning exponentially so much stronger that 30 level 10's cannot take down a level 20, I say it absolutely should not, that would pretty much be a death blow for the entire pvp portion of the game. Strong enough that 2-3 level 10s are even matched against 1 level 20, absolutely.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I mean what's the design consequence of choosing to play a Fighter or Barbarian or Rogue, etc...if all those characters perform equivalent to each other in all situations?
I don't think that's a very fair reading of what I or anyone else said.
I'm just saying it's bad if I *have to* have class X in my group in order to beat boss Y. It's perfectly fine if it's easier that way.
If the capstone ability is a meaningful ability (even if it's just one identical ability that's reskinned across classes, like you suggest)...
Actually, that wasn't what I was suggesting, but it's clear to me now that I wasn't really speaking to your point. For the record, I was talking about a single class having a handful of abilities available that were mathematically equivalent with respect to theory crafting, and which the player would then choose from entirely to suit his mood or the RP opportunities available.
A level 10 character should always be vastly weaker than a level 20 character, otherwise why bother levelling in the first place?
Personally, I subscribe to the "Life's a Journey, not a Destination" school of thought. The reason to level in the first place is because it's a natural side-effect of playing the game. Hopefully, I'll be playing the game because it's fun.
That said, I don't expect the Level 20 to only be marginally more effective than the Level 10. I'm just saying that choice wouldn't bother me much. I hope something is done to make it fun for new players and experienced players to play together without requiring the higher level player to either handicap his character or roll another character entirely.
If you look at the games that actualy do the "Wider not Deeper" model with flexability being balanced and not overpowered....they all have pretty much one thing in common... You can only have a certain subset of your abilities available to you at ANY ONE TIME.
This is exactly what I hope PFO avoids. I despise the Talent Tree system of WoW and SWTOR and Rift, etc. That kind of thing is only necessary when you're trying to balance "fair" PvP matches. I don't imagine PFO will see a lot of 5v5 matches, or 3v3, etc.
In PFO, I truly hope it just doesn't matter if one player is significantly more powerful than another because sheer numbers will always be able to overcome any deficit in skills. I want to be able to continually improve my character. I don't want to hit a wall just because someone else is worried that I'll be more powerful than they are.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A level 10 should be weaker yes, but vastly I have to disagree. If you are meaning exponentially so much stronger that 30 level 10's cannot take down a level 20, I say it absolutely should not, that would pretty much be a death blow for the entire pvp portion of the game. Strong enough that 2-3 level 10s are even matched against 1 level 20, absolutely.A level 10 character should always be vastly weaker than a level 20 character, otherwise why bother levelling in the first place?
It's the same in the pen and paper game, there are opponents that a level 20 can take on that a level 10 shouldn't be able to.
My dad is absolutely convinced, and I'm not convinced he's wrong, that 3 Level 5's should be equivalent to 1 Level 15.
@Ryan: If capstones are going to be "cool" factors more than anything else, I guess I don't have much of a problem with this setup.
The enemies don't have to be impossible or even hard to kill without a team, but you can make it more efficient.
I agree. In EQ I could solo certain areas, but doing so required 1-2 minutes to kill a mob, plus downtime. This makes grouping desireable. WoW makes grouping undesireable outside of dungeons, because things die too quickly. Duoing often means you each get to hit the mob once, and a third person is dead weight.
@GrumpyMel: The point of choosing different classes would be dramatically different playstyles, only. Class X would not be necessary.
Examples:
4 fighters could tank/bodyguard their way through a dungeon;
4 clerics could smash/heal their way through;
4 rogues could dodge/distract/sneak attack through;
4 mages could control/blast through.
Any combination of the above or other classes would spontaneously develop their own group tactics.
Your point about melee/ranged is well taken, but ranged tends toward the OP side just by virtue of being ranged. I don't think they need to be done the favor of being required for anything. And you forgot about RAGE-LANCE-POUNCE :)
Your point about versatility = power is understandable, but I don't think it necessarily has to work out that way. A character's dps will probably not be affected by versatility, nor will their healing or tanking capabilities. Versatility won't increase their action economy either--they will still be able to perform only one action at a time. They may have many more tools available, but as you say, there will have to be exclusivity between many of them. Having both a druid's entangle and a wizard's black tentacles might sound powerful, but in the end you're going to use one or the other. Having a fighter's mitigation and a cleric's heals sounds powerful, but when you pause to heal yourself, the cleric can dps instead of heal you. It's a wash to the group. I imagine it will play out like hybridized vs. specialized playstyles rather than an arms race.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I'm assuming that like most MMO's Pathfinder Online will allow an account to have multiple characters. If this is the case, will I be able to set all of my characters to train skills? In effect I could have say 4 characters that I devote to earning class skill trees and in 7.5 years have all 11 of the core classes represented as level 20 characters with capstone abilities.
I do understand that the skills will not be the only factor in achieving a class merit badge, but I could see people maxing out the system to get as many 20th level characters as possible. I could see this turning into a hurry up and wait system where you check the list of things you need to accomplish to get your next badge before you shelf a character to take care of the rest of the things on your list. In one respect you would constantly be playing 4 classes, but you would still be at the mercy of which one is "ready" for you to play.
I do like the idea of the system working in this way, I just think that 20th level characters will still be more common than expected.
One question that I had is if you will be able to switch to a previously "capstoned" class while you are leveling up your newest "capstone" class without losing your ability to achieve the second capstone?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So "possibly" a single CR 20 character would be comparable to 16 CR 12 characters.
It looks a bit inflated numbers wise but in no way the multiple dozens that other games come out with. Also this is an example where the 16 "can" take the 1
Are they (the devs) likely to take these values as gospel.. Hell No!
Is it likely that while making PFO the game based on PFRPG they are going to take some inspiration from source and run with it.. Yeah..
Yeah I'm still hoping that it is far less than that. You are right that other games do significantly more than that, but that is why those other games also are intended to tier off all battles. In WoW you don't ever have to see a level 60 character fighting in the level 85 battleground matches, and that is fine for WoW
In WoW it dosn't matter 50 level 70's are helpless to do anything to influence a battle when a cities NPCs are all being massacred, because they just wait 5 minutes and the NPCs reappear. Being completely helpless to assist in a fight that when the city falls, everything you spent the last 6 months working for will be forever taken from you on the other hand... not so small of a deal.
I'd say nimhoms numbers would be much fairer, 2 level 10's is comparable to a level 20, a level 15 is only half a person weaker then a level 20 etc... Having 3 level 20's consistently and easily beat 50 level 10's, does not sound like much fun for the level 10 (which ball-parking is someone who has been playing for close to a YEAR). Should not feel and be that insignificant and helpless when everything he's been working for is being destroyed in front of him.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am glad you are going with an EVE style XP progression. I do have some suggestions however.
- Please include a skill queue, even if its only the 24h queue that EVE has.
- Please make SOME benefit to actually playing the game when it comes to advancement. I suggest a sort of reverse WOW style rest bonus where playing gives you a small xp rate gain. Or you could give us a small rate gain for doing the type of activities we are currently training.
- Please do not make a game where each classes has a single "correct" build. Please make it a game with no perfect answer.
EDIT: I might also say that PLEASE do not make it so that you train up things like DEX and WIS... because since these are tied to gaining training points people will train these as quickly as possible... and lets face it... thats boring. EVE removed that for a reason.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lets consider some of the implications here of being able to Max abilities in multiple classes...I really don't think you guys are thinking this all the way through in detail.
Lets say one of a fighters abilities is getting a +2 to hit/+2 damage when using his favorate weapon. Doesn't sound all that unreasonable in isolation right?
But wait...that fighter is now a Ranger too...and has access to a favorate enemy ability that also has +2/+2. So now we're upto +4/+4...still not bad....
But wait... our Fighter/Ranger is also a Paladin and is using his Smite Evil ability which gives him +1 to hit and x2 damage. So now we're upto +5/(+4 x 2)
But wait... our Fighter/Ranger/Paladin is also a rogue and has x3 damage using backstab when attacking from behind. So now we're upto +5/(+4 x 6).
But you say..."Well yes...but you know you have to sneak up behind your opponent in order to pull that backstab off...and that could be tough to pull off!". But our character is also a Wizard...and can cast Bulls Strength (an additional +2/+2), Invisability and Silence on himself whenever he wants to sneak. So now our character is +7/(+6 x 6) AND he has absolutely no ability to be seen or heard whenever he wants to use Stealth.
But you say... "Well yes...but if he's a Wizard at least he's either walking around in robes and thus easy to hit or suffering huge spell failure whenever he tries to caste!" But wait...our character is also a Barbarian...and you know special thing is being able to use thier strength bonus as a reduction to thier AC since they are big beefy frontline fighters that aren't supposed to like armor.
So now our character has the same AC as a guy in full plate but has 0 spell failure and 0 penalty to action/movement based skills, has perfect stealth (invisability and silence) and has +7 to hit and a minimum of +36 on damage.... and your trying to tell me he isn't VASTLY more powerfull then our +2/+2 fighter just more versatile?
That's using just 1 or 2 abilities from just 6 classes in the game...and probably not neccesarly even thier most powerfull ones... and our character can do ALL this by HIMSELF whenever he wants...without even having to worry about coordinating with anyone else to achieve it.
Please tell me I'm not the only one that see's a problem here?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Question regarding skill training: will we be able to queue our skill training, or be able to change skill progression outside of game (via website or mobile app)?
I remember wanting either of those options when I played EVE years ago (I don't know if they ever implemented either one in recent years).
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
It doesn't really look like Ryan wants PFO to turn into a "Deities & Demigods" campaign....but I think that's exactly what he's going to get if he allows for 20/20/20/20 Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Rogue.Remember, the whole goal here is to *level* the playing field. The character you describe won't be a better wizard than a character who's *just* Wizard 20, but he *will* have more options to choose from at any given time. The advantage "older" characters have is not power, it's flexibility.
If the only advantage a Fighter20/Paladin20 has is the ability to choose between the Fighter20 powerset and the Paladin20 powerset, is a Fighter10/Paladin10 limited to choosing between those two powersets, or is there any synergy at all? What about a Fighter15/Paladin15? Ftr19/Pal19? Would a Ftr20/wiz1 have to choose between martial badassery and arcane piddling, with no middle ground?
Proposal: *Versatility over power*
Characters may select up to C abilities granted by their earned merit badges. Selecting some abilities may require selecting prerequisite abilities, and some abilities may be mutually exclusive (Heavy armor and evasion) Changing these selections may only be done in limited circumstances, or may have a time or resource cost. If all/enough/the top merit badges from a single archetype are selected and active, then the capstone ability is active or unlocked. This would replace "Capstone abilities can be permanently forfeited." or any mechanic with that effect.
This way, a fighter10/paladin10 is better at what he does, not just more versatile. A fighter15/paladin15 would be versatile from fighter5/paladin15 to fighter15/paladin5, while the 20/20 would be versatile in any ratio. If any of them crossed to wizard, their fighter or paladin abilities would slowly stop being expressed as they expressed their wizard abilities.
C should not be able to be improved by any means, and should be at least sufficient to express any one class. Not all abilities need have the same cost; feather fall should be worth less than horrid wilting, and supreme cleave has a different marginal value than improved evasion. (Related: The 'expression' cost of each ability might vary with the ability score of the character, or each ability score might contribute a different pool; agile characters can have more agility-related abilities active, while strong characters can have more strength-related abilities active.)
Regarding the 2.5 year number: Is that actual-time (can't mathematically get it any faster), is that actual-time (everybody gets it at about this time), is that actual-time (based on an estimate of play per week), or is that play time (22,000 hours logged in and playing)? Can I get there faster or slower by playing far more or less than you expect? Are you expecting to manually tweak the speed of advancement in order to reach the level distribution that you want?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Ryan: If capstones are going to be "cool" factors more than anything else, I guess I don't have much of a problem with this setup.
The enemies don't have to be impossible or even hard to kill without a team, but you can make it more efficient.I agree. In EQ I could solo certain areas, but doing so required 1-2 minutes to kill a mob, plus downtime. This makes grouping desireable. WoW makes grouping undesireable outside of dungeons, because things die too quickly. Duoing often means you each get to hit the mob once, and a third person is dead weight.
@GrumpyMel: The point of choosing different classes would be dramatically different playstyles, only. Class X would not be necessary.
Examples:
4 fighters could tank/bodyguard their way through a dungeon;
4 clerics could smash/heal their way through;
4 rogues could dodge/distract/sneak attack through;
4 mages could control/blast through.Any combination of the above or other classes would spontaneously develop their own group tactics.
Your point about melee/ranged is well taken, but ranged tends toward the OP side just by virtue of being ranged. I don't think they need to be done the favor of being required for anything. And you forgot about RAGE-LANCE-POUNCE :)
Your point about versatility = power is understandable, but I don't think it necessarily has to work out that way. A character's dps will probably not be affected by versatility, nor will their healing or tanking capabilities. Versatility won't increase their action economy either--they will still be able to perform only one action at a time. They may have many more tools available, but as you say, there will have to be exclusivity between many of them. Having both a druid's entangle and a wizard's black tentacles might sound powerful, but in the end you're going to use one or the other. Having a fighter's mitigation and a cleric's heals sounds powerful, but when you pause to heal yourself, the cleric can dps instead of heal you. It's a wash...
Hudax, the point I was trying to make is that each class should have it's strength's and weaknesses...things it handles well and things it doesn't handle particularly well. A party full of Wizards SHOULDN'T have a particulary easy time plugging through an encounter with creatures that have high magic resistance....nor should a party full of Fighters have an easy time rolling through an encounter with creatures that our highly resistant to physical attacks.
Now I'm not talking about the typical WOW style themepark scripted dungeon where you need exactly one of X and one of Y, etc.... I honestly don't want or expect PFO to do that...and it'll probably be less abount dungeon crawling PVE then PvP anyway...
But I AM talking about each character having strengths and weaknesses...and not really being able to deal optimaly with all situations... that starts to disappear when you combine the strengths of multiple classes into one character.
So if you ask me whether 4 fighters should be able to barrel through a dungeon by themselves....my answer would be maybe if they were smart/lucky enough to pick the right dungeon...but if they rolled into the wrong one....they really should have a tough time.
For my part, I would love to see the game give me 100 xp for killing a level 4 orc regardless of whether I was level 1 or level 20, and regardless of how many people helped me kill it. If the game did that, I *guarantee* you that you would *never* see anyone turn down a group invite.
It took me a moment to turn off my 'Intarwebs' mode and realize you were being sincere, and that differing experiences make for very different vantage points, so please take no offense in the explanation I give for why the concept of divided XP vis a vis grouping bonuses is something of a sticking point for me.
In some of the earlier MMOs that I played, one of the recurring sources of annoyance was that in fighting an enemy, you gained full XP only if you did the work yourself. This made sense in that the areas where one might be hunting prey were geared towards there being sufficient enemies about at any given time that an individual could safely take on by themselves, but amassed might make for difficulties. Thus, there was a 1:1 ratio of kill to XP, assuming solo activity. The problem that came of this was not only classes that were not balanced necessarily in such directions, but people being people would get greedy, and would proceed to kill other peoples' targeted foes for purposes of 'pushing' the respawn rate, as well as get experience at reduced risk to self and supply. The mechanics of the game were designed to make 'kill-stealing' a less profitable venture by reducing the amount of EXP gained by the number of people attacking. As such, to get an equivalency of experience by working as a team, one had to go take on enemies that were substantially more difficult, but also had better loot payoff and a more enjoyable challenge aspect.
The problem arose in human nature again, where some people would exploit the abilities of classes with AoE abilities and suitable evasive and obstructive tactics to lord over areas that were far beneath their capabilities, purely to farm XP at no risk by making up for quality with vast quantities of enemies providing a steady trickle of XP and volumes of cheap loot that still cumulatively sold for profitable amounts. The conceit of punishing kill-stealers made for the base assumption of the division of XP, as opposed to working from the assumption that cumulative effort on an equivalent challenge would get better results and correspondingly better payoff.
What next comes to mind is a phenomenon that I'm sure many are too familiar with - leeching. Some would treat it more as its homonym, leaching, as in the XP gathered by one character is leached into the party, but more often it's someone using a character designed for purposes of exploiting a particular enemy or area with a character capable of easily soloing a location in excess of most others' capabilities, while others are parked in safe locations to absorb a portion of the XP without putting any effort in themselves. In Ragnarok Online, it was used to make numerous non-combat-viable crafting builds work by gaining XP through others' efforts; in World of Warcraft it's how people try to get free loot through the LFR system or in Battlegrounds by AFKing.
There's certainly a vast amount of middle ground between Full-XP-division-by-party-members and equal-XP-regardless-of-effort, because in all honesty I think that collaboration should be rewarded as much as feats of solo strength, but in different ways. Some might say that the additional distribution of workload, and corresponding reduction in expenditures for materials to survive encounters, is a reward unto itself. I could see that argument, but I could also see where synergized feats and the whole Aid Another and Flanking bonuses would come into play as well, and clever applications of teamwork should not be rewarded with a surfeit of experience.
I would work it as a function of percentage incremental reduction, rather than outright division - 2 people working together might both get 90% of the value of EXP gained solo-kills, instead of half of the creatures XP apiece. 3 people would gain 80% instead of a 3-way split, and so on and so forth. The decrease would only be to indicate the reduction in difficulty (for certain values of reduction, of course, some things might just not be viable as solo endeavors), but the savings on healing supplies and other consumable resources might offset that, being able to overall be effective for longer durations and with a corresponding likelihood of gaining more net experience over the partied time than had they worked alone.
But that's just my opinion, man, or something. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The problem arose in human nature again, where some people would exploit the abilities of classes with AoE abilities and suitable evasive and obstructive tactics to lord over areas that were far beneath their capabilities, purely to farm XP at no risk by...
Well IMO there's an easy solution to the leaching issue. a simple detection of if you did something, in a game with traditional hate, you would say if the character did something that generated hate in the durration of time between the first and last hit. IE did he cast a heal or buff spell on someone who is damaging or being damaged by the target, or did he cast a attack/debuff/cc on the enemy durring the fight. If yes grant XP, if no grant none. Yes it is technically exploitable via someone popping 1 shot in. Though actually come to think of it in this game leaching is irrelevant. XP is gained over time, badges are basically gained from specific achievements... I think we'd all agree that badges should share in a party at full (IE a kill 30 X's badge, when the party kills 30, everyone gets credit).
Well there are possible limitations, what if certain equipment was a factor. Much like a ship encumberance and weapons can be a factor. what if you could say have 1-2 weapons in quick draw locations (IE on your belt etc... but then the rest of your equipment had to be in your backpack where it takes a minute or 2 to sort through and retrieve and armor takes time to don, and then abilities were tied to weapons or armor, say backstab only worked with daggers, sneaking cannot be done in armor heavyer then light, a wizard must hold his spellbook to cast and armor arcane spell...One thing I have to point out. Eve online was designed so that even ships that had relatively low skill requirements had uses. This is mostly because different ships had different 'roles' for example, right now when I'm flying my little destroyers or frigates around in a party where everyone else had battleships. However, I was still able to be useful. Why? Larger ships have trouble shooting down ships that are significantly faster and smaller, so they had me fighting down drones and frigates for them.
Basically, in eve, even if you have tons of skills you're still going to be limited by the ship you're flying. There is no 'best' ship in the game because no ship can do everything. The larger and more powerful ships do take years to gain access to, but they would have trouble shooting down a swarm of smaller ships.
The thing that throws me off about pathfinder online is that you basically have access to all of the 'roles' at the start, so no matter what you pick you will be trying to use a role that an older character would also be using. Will someone who has spent 1 month on his rogue be of any use to someone who has spent 2 years on his rogue? In eve you don't have that kind of situation. You have to spend years in eve to even get access to the biggest ship, and then that ship will still want a fleet of smaller ships to protect it.
It is going to be interesting seeing how all this works out.
Two good posts here, I think you're onto the way to solve the potential problem of time-based progression in Pathfinder Online.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Well IMO there's an easy solution to the leaching issue. a simple detection of if you did something, in a game with traditional hate, you would say if the character did something that generated hate in the durration of time between the first and last hit. IE did he cast a heal or buff spell on someone who is damaging or being damaged by the target, or did he cast a attack/debuff/cc on the enemy durring the fight. If yes grant XP, if no grant none. Yes it is technically exploitable via someone popping 1 shot in. Though actually come to think of it in this game leaching is irrelevant. XP is gained over time, badges are basically gained from specific achievements... I think we'd all agree that badges should share in a party at full (IE a kill 30 X's badge, when the party kills 30, everyone gets credit).
The problem arose in human nature again, where some people would exploit the abilities of classes with AoE abilities and suitable evasive and obstructive tactics to lord over areas that were far beneath their capabilities, purely to farm XP at no risk by...
A different solution would be to make the badges less discrete: "Do 1,000,000 damage to undead creatures using a one-handed melee weapon." or "Fully explore the depths of the Stuart Mines."
Hudax, the point I was trying to make is that each class should have it's strength's and weaknesses...things it handles well and things it doesn't handle particularly well. A party full of Wizards SHOULDN'T have a particulary easy time plugging through an encounter with creatures that have high magic resistance....nor should a party full of Fighters have an easy time rolling through an encounter with creatures that our highly resistant to physical attacks.
Now I'm not talking about the typical WOW style themepark scripted dungeon where you need exactly one of X and one of Y, etc.... I honestly don't want or expect PFO to do that...and it'll probably be less abount dungeon crawling PVE then PvP anyway...
But I AM talking about each character having strengths and weaknesses...and not really being able to deal optimaly with all situations... that starts to disappear when you combine the strengths of multiple classes into one character.
So if you ask me whether 4 fighters should be able to barrel through a dungeon by themselves....my answer would be maybe if they were smart/lucky enough to pick the right dungeon...but if they rolled into the wrong one....they really should have a tough time.
I see where you're coming from now.
I think there are three solutions:
1) Design the archetpyes as well-rounded builds from the start, having their own unique weaknesses but also cooldown abilities to mitigate those weaknesses that are in keeping with the flavor of the class. This is my preference.
2) Design the skill system so that some of the tactical skills everyone needs to shore up archetype weaknesses would be general skills instead of archetype skills. If there are enough options to choose from, this could be interesting, but otherwise has the potential to lead to cookie-cutter builds.
3) Design multiclassing so you can only have one archetype active at a time. As the most restrictive option, this is the least desireable to me.
I think the group of 4 fighters should have a bit more coordination to do than a traditional group, but I think they should have the tools they need to get the job done, whatever the job might be. If there is a high magic damage dealing high physical damage resistant dungeon, then yes they should have a tough time. But I don't find whole dungeons of such things to be very compelling challenges (bring the 4 mages and win). I think those things should be occasional stumbling blocks, rather than par for the course.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hudax, the point I was trying to make is that each class should have it's strength's and weaknesses...things it handles well and things it doesn't handle particularly well. A party full of Wizards SHOULDN'T have a particulary easy time plugging through an encounter with creatures that have high magic resistance....nor should a party full of Fighters have an easy time rolling through an encounter with creatures that our highly resistant to physical attacks.
Now I'm not talking about the typical WOW style themepark scripted dungeon where you need exactly one of X and one of Y, etc.... I honestly don't want or expect PFO to do that...and it'll probably be less abount dungeon crawling PVE then PvP anyway...
But I AM talking about each character having strengths and weaknesses...and not really being able to deal optimaly with all situations... that starts to disappear when you combine the strengths of multiple classes into one character.
So if you ask me whether 4 fighters should be able to barrel through a dungeon by themselves....my answer would be maybe if they were smart/lucky enough to pick the right dungeon...but if they rolled into the wrong one....they really should have a tough time.
I see where you're coming from now.
I think there are three solutions:
1) Design the archetpyes as well-rounded builds from the start, having their own unique weaknesses but also cooldown abilities to mitigate those weaknesses that are in keeping with the flavor of the class. This is my preference.
2) Design the skill system so that some of the tactical skills everyone needs to shore up archetype weaknesses would be general skills instead of archetype skills. If there are enough options to choose from, this could be interesting, but otherwise has the potential to lead to cookie-cutter builds.
3) Design multiclassing so you can only have one archetype active at a time. As the most restrictive option, this is the least desireable to me.
I think the group of 4 fighters should...
I prefer a 4th option. Allow a character only 20 levels of "Adventuring" advancement (crafting advancement could be on a different quota or open). Let the player choose whether they wanted to be very strong in 1 particular area (Specialized) or very diverse and more rounded in thier abilities (Generalized).
Thus it becomes upto the player to create a character that suits thier play style. Does the person want to be absolutely the best in a narrow area of discipline i.e. the "Goto Guy" for a specific task...but vulnerable and dependant upon others for other types of challenges.... or do they want to generalize and branch into other areas, making them more independant and self-reliant and able to function in a wider variety of roles. It's a trade-off, with each course having it's positives and negatives... there is no one best choice.
This works perfectly in table-top RPG systems. In those systems the specialists TRY to steer themselves towards scenarios and situations that fit into their area of expertiese.... but the world is NOT perfectly predictable... you don't know what you are going to run into out in the middle of the wild...and there is no time to call a "time-out" in the middle of combat and run back to town to get the right specialist.... that's where the generalist comes into his own...having someone that is adaptable and can fill multiple roles is a huge benefit when you can't perfectly predict what you're going to need... the utility infielder is hugely beneficial.
This dynamic tends to fall apart in your standard PvE Themepark... because everything is scripted...every area of the wilderness, every challenge in every dungeon is perfectly well known and perfectly predictable. In that scenerio, the generalist tends to get screwed...because there is no need to be adaptable, you know EXACTLY what specialists are optimal for any given dungeon/task... so you can get them.
If PFO was designed as your standard scripted Themepark... I'd probably agree with your preference. But it's not...as far as I can tell...it's an ENTIRELY different type of game.... it's mostly about PvP and factions... which means conflict is largely unpredictable...because it is other human beings and not scripted mobs that are your main opponents.... so the generalists come back into importance again. Furthermore it seems to be mostly designed around GROUP play (the whole faction thing)...not SOLO play...so it's perfectly acceptable, perhaps even desirable for characters to NOT be able to handle certain situations on thier own, unless the players really made the character build choices (and sacrificed some of the strength of the specialist build for versatility) in order to do that.
It also leads to greater strategy in the faction vs faction aspect of the game.... If you are at war with a rival guild...the Knights of Nee... and you know they are almost all fighters or melee types...you can play that to your advantage when plotting operations against them by trying to setup situations that fighters don't do well in. On the Knights of Nee side, if they realize that about themselves, they better do something to try to compensate...perhaps strike an alliance with a heavy magical guild...or hire some mercenaries, etc.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
A fifth option: Have every power which grants a benefit also grant a drawback.
Simplified:
The default character is mediocre at everything; He can gain a more powerful melee attack, but becomes more vulnerable to magic; a better ranged weapon attack grants melee vulnerability; more powerful spellcasting grants ranged weapon vulnerability. Gaining resistance to either magic or either class of weapons results in a slower rate of attacks (magic and weapon)
You can become nigh-invulnerable, at the cost of being completely irrelevant. Or you can become the glass cannon, doing tons of damage, but easily broken.
This can be done fairly easily within a limited-abilities system; instead of a direct cost, using plate armor would have the opportunity cost of not being able to have as many other abilities. Weapon focus comes at the expense of dodge, for example.
|
interdependence requirementsI think you mean bring the player, not the ability.
Personally, I would take this to the extreme that a group of 4 barbarians would be as viable as a group of fighter, cleric, rogue, mage. This could easily be done by giving everyone the utility they need within their archetype.
I would like to see this, at least, to a degree.
A selection of rage powers that allow a barbarian to fast heal while raging, or a fast-access version of wholeness of body for monks, or a 'skill trick' that a party of rogues could pick up to make their Heal skill as much more effective for them as their Disable Device skill is, could allow one to play a four man Barbarian, Monk or Rogue group, without having to save a spot for a cleric.
Would adding minor capstones help characters who are multi-classing not feeling as "gimped?"
For example, a straight level 20 cleric may get 1 minor capstone and a major stone, while a lv5 ranger / lv5 druid/lv5 fighter /lv20 cleric can get 4 minor capstones. Having versatility & more capstones as advantage, however it is not as focused as the straight lv.20 cleric.
About epic & jack of all trade master of everything character, would customization like Eidolon evolution pool work? For example, your character starts as a a ranger and levels up as a lv20 ranger/lv20 druid/lv 20 fighter, however instead of having all abilities at the same time, you'll need to customize the character once she surpasses lv20 (in places such as inn or before rest).
She may retain all her first level 20 abilities & HP & spells (as a ranger), and is given an amount of evolution pool points after becoming epic level, which gives the player choice to spend the points to choose abilities from the druid/fighter level which she gains after lv.20.
Instead of having the ability of doing everything with an extreme high level multiclass character, a character's first 20 levels is still her "major class", while the evolution pool allows some further customization (for a limited level).
Or simply by taking an epic character's first 20 levels as base class, while have a limited number (such as 10) flexible levels that she can choose. It would allow customization, sort of encourages multi-classing at first 20 levels (for example, a cleric 10/ wizard 10 character with customization gains the benefit that she can be either a cleric 20 / wizard 10 or a cleric 10/wizard 20; a cleric 20 can only be a cleric 20/ wizard 10), gives reasons for epic characters to gain new class levels for more customization, and refrains characters to be godlike. Just my 2 cents. :)
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Okay, I’d like some clarification on this Capstone idea. I’m going to present 4 scenarios as I understand them and hopefully Ryan will respond and let me/us know which are correct.All your scenarios are correct. All of them are multiclassed characters.
Okay I officially rage quit and flip the table with that answer. I declare PFO DOA if it ever gets finished.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I prefer a 4th option. Allow a character only 20 levels of "Adventuring" advancement (crafting advancement could be on a different quota or open). Let the player choose whether they wanted to be very strong in 1 particular area (Specialized) or very diverse and more rounded in thier abilities (Generalized).
Thus it becomes upto the player to create a character that suits thier play style. Does the person want to be absolutely the best in a narrow area of discipline i.e. the "Goto Guy" for a specific task...but vulnerable and dependant upon others for other types of challenges.... or do they want to generalize and branch into other areas, making them more independant and self-reliant and able to function in a wider variety of roles. It's a trade-off, with each course having it's positives and negatives... there is no one best choice.
This works perfectly in table-top RPG systems. In those systems the specialists TRY to steer themselves towards scenarios and situations that fit into their area of expertiese.... but the world is NOT perfectly predictable... you don't know what you are going to run into out in the middle of the wild...and there is no time to call a "time-out" in the middle of combat and run back to town to get the right specialist.... that's where the generalist comes into his own...having someone that is adaptable and can fill multiple roles is a huge benefit when you can't perfectly predict what you're going to need... the utility infielder is hugely beneficial.
This dynamic tends to fall apart in your standard PvE Themepark... because everything is scripted...every area of the wilderness, every challenge in every dungeon is perfectly well known and perfectly predictable. In that scenerio, the generalist tends to get screwed...because there is no need to be adaptable, you know EXACTLY what specialists are optimal for any given dungeon/task... so you can get them.
If PFO was designed as your standard scripted Themepark... I'd probably agree with your preference. But it's not...as far as I can tell...it's an ENTIRELY different type of game.... it's mostly about PvP and factions... which means conflict is largely unpredictable...because it is other human beings and not scripted mobs that are your main opponents.... so the generalists come back into importance again. Furthermore it seems to be mostly designed around GROUP play (the whole faction thing)...not SOLO play...so it's perfectly acceptable, perhaps even desirable for characters to NOT be able to handle certain situations on thier own, unless the players really made the character build choices (and sacrificed some of the strength of the specialist build for versatility) in order to do that.
It also leads to greater strategy in the faction vs faction aspect of the game.... If you are at war with a rival guild...the Knights of Nee... and you know they are almost all fighters or melee types...you can play that to your advantage when plotting operations against them by trying to setup situations that fighters don't do well in. On the Knights of Nee side, if they realize that about themselves, they better do something to try to compensate...perhaps strike an alliance with a heavy magical guild...or hire some mercenaries, etc.
In every tabletop RPG I have been apart of, everyone has tried to come up with their own specialty. You do not want to step on the toes of your friends.
Hmm, you're playing a sword & board fighter? Well, I want to play a fighter too, so maybe I can do either a dual wield or 2H.
A friend of mine ran a Star Wars campaign once. On a side note, he is getting ready to start up a Pathfinder campaign with a world he created. His SW setting was the time leading up to the Battle of Ruusan. A friend and I both were playing Jedi Consulars. I had done some research and decided on a set of powers I wanted to have. Sever Force, Force Light etc. My friend decided not to follow in my footsteps so we would each be unique.
In the world that it seems like PFO is becoming, having everyone be unique would be welcome.
@GrumpyMel: Themepark games beg for specialists and punish generalists. This is especially true in WoW, and why there aren't hybrid builds in that game anymore. "Hybrid" means "compromise," and people aren't willing to make compromises when they know for a fact they will be performing a single role indefinitely.
A sandbox game, on the other hand, would seem to reward generalists and punish specialists, especially in PvP and even in PvE if the trinity is dissolved and roles become fluid. The unpredictable nature of conflict you mention will beg for generalist builds. In that environment, being a specialist will be a liability.
Older players will have the luxury of generalizing, granted by time. New players will be forced to specialize initially to compete. In order to avoid placing a "specialization tax" on new players, builds must be well-rounded from the start. Otherwise, as the game ages, it will devolve into a trinity system of specialized roles.
All of this would be the case whether or not there was a cap on adventuring advancement.
@Daniel: Placing drawbacks on abilities would exaggerate the specialization problem above, hastening the devolution into a trinity system.