Goblin Squad Member
|
There is one small point that you all are overlooking "keywords".
One keyword will be slotted to a(class)slot. So your "ranger" Fighter/Rogue, Has to slot a keyword Fighter or rogue?.
One will lock out keywords for the other.
I don't follow. If you could explain what those keywords are and why they cause problems I would be most grateful.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see where that is a problem. 'Fighter' is not just the name of a D&D-esque character class, it is a role. A man (or woman) whose primary role is fighting. That could be an archer, a polearm user, an unarmed combat specialist or whatever.
Similarly, a 'Rogue' is someone relying on wits and agility, usually to make money but for whatever reason the player chooses.
So you just need to decide which of these roles is most suitable for your concept of a 'ranger' character. If you are a scout or woodsman then you are likely to take more rogue skills than fighter ones, if you are primarily an archer or wilderness warrior then you'll be more at home with fighter skills.
Taking a skill from one archetype list does not preclude taking them from another, so you can mix and match until you get the character you have envisaged.
My primary game system is GURPS and this sort of character development is second nature. There are no defined classes so you can build whatever sort of character you want. Because you buy from a pool of points, you are inevitably going to have to compromise somewhere, and your fighter is not going to be as good a swordsman if you also buy a high stealth ability. It doesn't stop the character being a warrior, but it makes him slightly more of a generalist than a specialist swordsman.
@Wurner
Hope that this will be of some help.
Elements of a SpellThe main thing the level of the spell indicates is how many keywords it supports, and thus its potential base damage. Unlike cantrips, which read the keywords on the wand or staff, a spell reads the. Your provides more and more basic keywords as you improve it, and those keywords are ones that support that specialty's spells. Thus, a high-level evoker will have the full variety of keywords likely to appear on high-level Evocation spells. Some schools share a lot of keywords, while others might not share many at all. As a result, an evoker might not be the best at necromancy spells (which don't share a ton of similarities), but he'd still do well when casting damaging Conjuration and Abjuration spells, which have more keyword overlap with Evocation spells.
Additionally, you can acquire metamagic keywords. We're currently envisioning them as long-term buffs applied by other Refresh abilities, so you can change your metamagic loadout on the fly (to some degree). All spells expect an increasing number of metamagic keywords as their levels increase, until 8th and 9th level spells expect four at a time. This is something of a departure from tabletop, but the flavor is preserved: In addition to essentially being a wild card keyword slot to upgrade a spell's potency, your choice of metamagic alters the stats of your spells. If you're running with Extended metamagic active, your spells will last longer; if you're running Widened, your AoEs will be bigger; and so on. At high levels, two casters of the same school may be tossing out the same spells with all keywords fulfilled, but their spells will differ significantly based on which metamagic keywords they prefer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thank you NineMoons, I didn't know about that.
Unless there is more information about this "class feature slot" out there somewhere, I think it's too early to conclude that every set of class abilities will require slotting something similar to be useful.
Could it be the text you quoted only relates to spell casting?
I think all classes will have the "class feature slot", But have no idea how it will work. Domains for divine casters-cleric/paladins/druids?, Ki powers for monks?, bonus keywords for melee type characters?.
Might be a way to add bonus/free class feats/keywords.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
well its not just that. its that some classes have abilities/skills that cannot be represented by training other skills.
Now those of us who arnt playing one of the four will have to find a work around and train on things we think will build apon what we do while we wait for the specific archtype abilities that are iconic for those archtypes.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
To come close to replicating a PnP class:
With full BaB; train attack.
With defense bonuses; train defense.
With martial weapon proficiency; train in many weapons.
Those three heuristics don't cover sorcerer, bard, and druid.
For bard, train a little bit of everything.
For sorcerer, train exactly the same way a wizard would until we get more information; they are very nearly interchangeable in the PnP anyway.
I don't have an answer for druid; it's a different spell list than cleric and has two additional unique features that are probably going to be late implementations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Since the game is based on Eve skill increases... Dont plan on playing any class.
Granted this may change a bit, but I havent read anywhere that changes my thought process on that.
Raise skills as you want them. With the idea of fitting the role you want to play. There is no reason any character cannot have good saving throws, good base attack, and good "skills." We will be able to train whatever we want, the only thing that picking a class will do is give you certain starting skills trained... But you will be able to train everything with one character.
Starting out it may be a good idea to specialize so you can do something, but there is nothing stopping you from being able to do everything.
Again, this is based off Eve skill training, that Ryan said PFO will be copying.
I have a character that can fly every ship type in Eve. I can do logistics (cleric), Fly heavy combat ships (fighter), fly recons (theif), and do any type of trading and industry.
So in the end, the sky is the limit with time and patience.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Since the game is based on Eve skill increases... Dont plan on playing any class.
Well, it's inspired by Eve, but it will be different in many significant ways. One of those will be its emphasis on Classes (or Roles or whatever else you want to call them).
We also wanted to capture the idea from the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game that dedication to one path would have additional benefits.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Since the game is based on Eve skill increases... Dont plan on playing any class.
Granted this may change a bit, but I havent read anywhere that changes my thought process on that.
Raise skills as you want them. With the idea of fitting the role you want to play. There is no reason any character cannot have good saving throws, good base attack, and good "skills." We will be able to train whatever we want, the only thing that picking a class will do is give you certain starting skills trained... But you will be able to train everything with one character.
Starting out it may be a good idea to specialize so you can do something, but there is nothing stopping you from being able to do everything.
Again, this is based off Eve skill training, that Ryan said PFO will be copying.
I have a character that can fly every ship type in Eve. I can do logistics (cleric), Fly heavy combat ships (fighter), fly recons (theif), and do any type of trading and industry.
So in the end, the sky is the limit with time and patience.
So can I, but it's taken 5 years to get to this point.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Since the game is based on Eve skill increases... Dont plan on playing any class.Well, it's inspired by Eve, but it will be different in many significant ways. One of those will be its emphasis on Classes (or Roles or whatever else you want to call them).
We also wanted to capture the idea from the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game that dedication to one path would have additional benefits.
Oh yeah, dedication even in Eve has its benefits. Mainly that, focusing on a specific path will get you better percentages. Where as generalization is in fact easier, you wont have that extra edge that a focused person has in a specific role.
As the guy above said, it took me 6 years to be the best at anything I did. I could do all the roles in combat I wanted at max skill. It just took forever to get there.
In the end, its all speculation at this point I guess. We will have to wait and see what comes along.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We don't have that information. It might still be 1.5 years and the commonality is only in 1 year of the training.
Yeah, your right. Could be 1 year worth of training for all the basic skills required in the game. (thinking of all basic skills in Eve, Shield, Armor, Engineering, Electronics, Mechanical) To get all the basics maxed out I think it takes a year if not more.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Since the game is based on Eve skill increases... Dont plan on playing any class.Well, it's inspired by Eve, but it will be different in many significant ways. One of those will be its emphasis on Classes (or Roles or whatever else you want to call them).
We also wanted to capture the idea from the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game that dedication to one path would have additional benefits.
What does it mean by dedication to one path?
How many skills outside of that path does it take to be considered "not dedicated"?
Do they really mean, the completion of a path? Where the bonuses for dedication are realized when you fill the last box in that path (as it was in SWG)?
These are the questions needing additional clarification.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To come close to replicating a PnP class:
With full BaB; train attack.
With defense bonuses; train defense.
With martial weapon proficiency; train in many weapons.
Those three heuristics don't cover sorcerer, bard, and druid.
For bard, train a little bit of everything.
For sorcerer, train exactly the same way a wizard would until we get more information; they are very nearly interchangeable in the PnP anyway.
I don't have an answer for druid; it's a different spell list than cleric and has two additional unique features that are probably going to be late implementations.
I think what I will try is going either the cleric or fighter route, then when Druidic skills are implemented (they should then require non-metal armor and weaponry but not punish me for using them to that point) begin training up the druidic skills and limiting myself to clubs, staves, and leather.
Whether to go fighter or cleric will be contingent on whether cleric deity selection is meaningful I imagine.
It would be good, I think, if becoming a druid at a later date entailed prerequisites and some sort of quest that entailed an explanatory ordination.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Luckily, the system being proposed actually aids my character concept.
I can work on wizardry, with a light sprinkling of rogue and cleric abilities, then go for the Animal Companion and (maybe) shapeshifting when it becomes available.
It is my idea of the druid, not the AD&D version but the one more often seen in fantasy and mythological sources.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
These are the questions needing additional clarification.
These questions have all been clarified. The quote I linked was to a very early blog post that showed that the idea of rewarding dedication to a Class has been part of the design all along. It evolved from the Capstone system mentioned in that blog to the Dedication/Focus Bonus mentioned here:
The main thing we want to achieve with this system remains keeping optimized multi-role builds from being far more desirable than single-role builds.
...
So what we're proposing now is the idea of a "Dedication" or "Focus" bonus.
Essentially, whenever you only have feats from one role slotted (rounded out with generic feats that aren't role-specific), you'll gain a bonus to doing what that role is supposed to do. This bonus is pegged to making the pure build competitive with the best synergistic multi-role build, may shift over time as new synergies are discovered, and may scale up in power based on your level (becoming similar in power to tabletop's Capstone at 20th level if high-level synergies are really powerful).
There have been quite a few discussions about this.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope there is not too much "dedication" to class.
I do want it to follow the eve system, where you have tons of universal skills that are extremely important.
Example from Eve:
Universal Gunnery Skills:
Advanced Weapon Upgrades
Controlled Burst
Gunnery
Rapid Firing
Motion Prediction
Surgical Strike
Trajectory Analysis
Weapon Upgrades
(I know I forgot one)
Focused Gunnery Skills:
Small Projectile Turrets
Small Autocannon Specialization
Small Artillery Specialization
Medium Projectile Turrets
Large Porjectile Turrets
Capital Projectile Turrets
Small Laser Turrets
Small Pulse Laser Specialization
Small Beam Laser Specialization
Medium Laser Turrets
Large Laser Turrets
Small Hybrid Turret
etc etc
There are 2 specializations for each gun type. Requiring the base skill is trained max, and a couple sub skills trained to certain levels.
So there is a broad range of skills, but once you are a master of one races gun types, you can start training into another races gun types easier since you have the general skills trained already.
Maxing out gunnery skills alone will take over a year.
Im hoping this model part of Eve is followed. This will allow someone who wants to play a Paladin, but cannot start as one in EE, train up as a fighter and easily convert into a Paladin once it is available.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There have been quite a few discussions about this.The main thing we want to achieve with this system remains keeping optimized multi-role builds from being far more desirable than single-role builds.
...
So what we're proposing now is the idea of a "Dedication" or "Focus" bonus.
Essentially, whenever you only have feats from one role slotted (rounded out with generic feats that aren't role-specific), you'll gain a bonus to doing what that role is supposed to do. This bonus is pegged to making the pure build competitive with the best synergistic multi-role build, may shift over time as new synergies are discovered, and may scale up in power based on your level (becoming similar in power to tabletop's Capstone at 20th level if high-level synergies are really powerful).
I want to see multi class characters. Preferably from the AD&D erra rather then the D20 erra. I guess we will find out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I want to see multi class characters.I'm sure you will. In fact, I think the whole point of the Dedication bonus was to try to make sure that single-class specs weren't so obviously gimped that everybody was multi-class.
A dedication bonus is not really needed. Like the skill list above I wrote. If you do not dedicate, you will be behind in total damage output and there is no "specific bonus" for dedication.
Granted in several years of play, you can be maxed out, which puts you as dedicated in everything. Getting to that level requires you to be subscribed non stop for 6-7 years.
Of course, being "multi-classed" leaves you behind compared to a focused person. With skills setup as time based training that is a given. No need for a bonus on top of that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A dedication bonus is not really needed.PFO will be different from Eve in significant ways. For example, you'll only have 6 slots in which to place your attack abilities. I'm not sure the conclusions you're drawing based on comparisons to Eve will hold true.
Well, most of the ships I fly only have 6 weapon slots. If you only have 6 slots to use as a multi classer, that is a hindrance to multi classing alone.
All Im really saying, is there are plenty of skill choices they can add to the game to make focusing in a class more prevalent. No need for an additional bonus. And really no need for a "class" to begin with.
(Which is why I hated D20 Star Wars, D6 star wars allowed you to be whatever you wanted... It may take a bit longer if you placed attributes in other areas, but you can do it and become as good as anyone else.)
I just dont want a linear system, plenty of linear games out there. Or themepark if you will.
For instance: Melee weapon skills:
Axe
Sword
Polearm
etc
You of course can add specializations for each type that give you bonuses. Training a base skill from 0 to say 5 will take you 10 days. Then you can specialize, taking that skill from 0 to 5 will take 14 days. Before you can specialize though, you must have a few general Melee skills to level 4.
Now add in generalized skills for melee:
Grip (allows you to use larger weapons one handed)
Thrust (allows you to do stabbing actions which gives you a bonus to hit armored targets)
Strong Arm (allows wider swings giving you more damage)
Granted this is all made up. But you can have these skills under Melee that are not really giving you new abilities but just adding to your melee rolls. Say Thrust for instance, your character may not actually thrust at an opponent but they get the bonus to hit no matter what.
_______________________________________________________________________
I think it was calculated that it would take 22 years to max in all skills in Eve. That was back in '07 though, and they have added a lot of new skills since then.
_______________________________________________________________________
Of course again, we are not developers of the game. They will follow the system they want and will come up with their own. All speculation.
Just fun to discuss.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ray is a type of spell targeting method. A type of Ranged Attack. In tabletop, some casters might take a couple levels of fighter and take Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization in Ray and then add in some Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot. It is not an extremely common build, but would probably show up more if you did not have a 20 level cap with which to put characters together.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Right, so as I was thinking, the spell Ray.
Im sure there will be a spell skill group that may cover this.
I havent played much Pathfinder itself, but Weapon Focus or Specialization is not for spells. Maybe they changed this in Pathfinder, not sure.
I will be playing it though once my kickstarter stuff is finished off.
I want to see multi class characters. Preferably from the AD&D erra rather then the D20 erra. I guess we will find out.There have been quite a few discussions about this.The main thing we want to achieve with this system remains keeping optimized multi-role builds from being far more desirable than single-role builds.
...
So what we're proposing now is the idea of a "Dedication" or "Focus" bonus.
Essentially, whenever you only have feats from one role slotted (rounded out with generic feats that aren't role-specific), you'll gain a bonus to doing what that role is supposed to do. This bonus is pegged to making the pure build competitive with the best synergistic multi-role build, may shift over time as new synergies are discovered, and may scale up in power based on your level (becoming similar in power to tabletop's Capstone at 20th level if high-level synergies are really powerful).
That dedication bonus is going to have to be incredibly powerful. Back in 3.0 and 3.5 versions of D&D, there was almost no reason to stay single classed. Every who was the slightest bit interested in efficiency(even if they weren't 'power gamers') ended up multiclassing. The only exception to this was monk, because the rewards at higher levels were always better than the things you had to give up to multiclass... but a lot of it was because ALL of the official monk multiclass options were incredibly weak. I'm not including Book of 9 Swords because, honestly, WOTC lost their minds on that one.
In Pathfinder, hardly anyone ever multiclasses or uses a prestige class because the base classes offer a huge amount of flexibility through alternate advancement paths. I feel that AA is something that PFO needs to look strongly into, if they want to keep people from going crazy with the multiclassing. The allure of alternate advancement PLUS the dedication bonus might be enough to keep everyone from running around as ranger/assassin/sorcerers/monk/druids.
Otherwise, some diptard will theorycraft the most ridiculous combination of abilties possible and every single character will look like that after a few months. Realistically, there will probably be several of these stupid 'uber-builds' no matter what. GW needs to stay on top of these silly things, and actively buff the dedication bonus to slap these crazy uber builds into place, otherwise any chance of game balance will disappear faster than Mountain Dew at gaming convention.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As stated by another in this thread, I plan on building my character toward his experiences instead of an archtype.
I plan at starting as a rogue-like character with some fighter skills, but after I start playing, based on in-game and in-character experiences, he might add in cleric or even wizard skills. Or might become a fighter. I don't know how he will grow and that will be the fun part about playing him.
================
Also some of the thoughts on making characters to fit what you want to play brought back my memories of how the Bard was in 1E AD&D. If my memories are correct (and I don't feel like digging through storage to find the book). The Bard was made by being a Fighter, then becoming a Rogue, and then a Wizard. Once you had obtained a certain level in all three classes, you became a Bard.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
In PnP, "ray", like "bow" and "unarmed strike" is a weapon group that can be selected for feats that apply to a weapon group. It's not uncommon to see casters focus on rays, because it's +1 to hit for a feat. I've never heard a proposal to spend 4 levels in fighter to specialize in rays, and there's a reasonable point that it might be outside what is actually legal by the rules, but that's a point for a different subforum.
My point was that a wizard with fighter levels can do some wizard stuff better than a character with only the same number of wizard levels; if costs increase exponentially, the XP cost to splash in a different class will be small compared to the cost to improve in the current class, and the fighter will want a little bit of divine magic, and the wizard will want to learn how to kidney-shiv a Kobold.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Otherwise, some diptard will theorycraft the most ridiculous combination of abilties possible and every single character will look like that after a few months.
My fear is that ridiculous or not, someone is going to theorycraft builds for each role (Defender, Striker, Controller, and Healer) and we will begin seeing a lot of the same build all over the place. I think that is just as bad if everyone is a pure "Fighter Build" or "Cleric Build" as it would be if everyone is a "Wizard/Fighter/Rogue/Eldritch Knight".
I do not care so much about Pure Class vs. Multi-Class. I just want to see some friggin' variety!
There's isn't anything wrong with people multiclassing. I have absolutely no problem with it. The character advancement system is part of what excites me! I just want to make sure that if someone WANTS to stay single class, they can while still being competitive.
It IS going to be a player versus player centered game. If the only way to stay competitive is to multiclass into a fighter/assassin/druid/sorcerer then 99% of the people in the game will do so. I just want to make sure that if someone wants to be just a monk, or just a ranger, or just any other single class, they can do so and be competitive versus other players with a similar amount of experience... at some point. It would make sense for a wizard or sorcerer to be weaker at lower levels - this is fairly traditional. As long as they have the pay off of being at the high end of the power curve at higher levels, I say that's fine.
If playing MMO's and MUD's/MUSHes for 20+ years has taught me anything, it's that perfect balance is unachievable. This system makes it even harder to reach. We don't NEED 'perfect' balance. I kind of hope that GW goes for the rock, paper, scissors approach. It's harder with this kind of advancement system, but it's the only system I've ever really seen work. Class A beats Class B, Class B beats Class C, and Class C beats class A. It will have to be more complex than that, of course.
Back to the actual topic... I hope they put in options for spell casters to wear light armor. An unarmed monk looks almost impossible to make until well after open enrollment. I'm really hoping they'll leave the options for a magus available.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's what the Dedication bonuses are meant to reflect. You probably will not see one for Magus or other APG classes for several years, if ever. Clerics may be the only option for starting armored caster, with druids and bards coming in later in EE. Though popular support from the player base could potentially alter that. I know a lot of people who enjoy playing APG classes more than core ones in the PnP. (Though I tend to be a core type of person myself).
Otherwise, some diptard will theorycraft the most ridiculous combination of abilties possible and every single character will look like that after a few months.My fear is that ridiculous or not, someone is going to theorycraft builds for each role (Defender, Striker, Controller, and Healer) and we will begin seeing a lot of the same build all over the place. I think that is just as bad if everyone is a pure "Fighter Build" or "Cleric Build" as it would be if everyone is a "Wizard/Fighter/Rogue/Eldritch Knight".
I do not care so much about Pure Class vs. Multi-Class. I just want to see some friggin' variety!
There's really only a few things that can be done to combat this. Forum goers will post builds and videos of them using those builds. Things that look effective will be emulated. If a particular build is especially effective, it will be emulated a LOT. The nerf hammer and the buff wand are really the only ways to combat these kinds of builds. If a particular character feature is being abused across lots of different builds, it likely needs to be nerfed. If certain other abilities aren't seeing any(or little) use, a minor buff can help bring it into usefulness.
Alternate advancement paths and dedication bonuses, if used correctly can go a long way towards combating Flavor of the Month builds. There won't ever be a way to get rid of the FotM builds - no game has ever found a way to do it. PFO's base character creation system goes a long way towards it, simply because it takes so much time to get a character to certain power levels.
Also, I think that some system should be put into place to determine what you're going to do from the start. If, at character creation screen, you could pick between several options(call them whatever you like) that gave some kind of bonus for staying in a certain advancement path... for instance Jedediah the Jumper(JJ for short) wants to be a rogue. He's decided will never do anything else other than be a rogue. He gets a reduction in exp costs and training times for training rogue skills(for arguments sake, let's say 10%) but he takes a penalty of an equivalent amount for taking skills from other classes. His buddy, Aramisia the Assaulter(AA from now on) wants to be a fighter/wizard. He'll never go outside those 2 classes and so he gets a 7% reduction, but a similar increase if he goes outside. More than 2 classes you choose '1 from column A, 2 from column B, 17 more from wherever the heck I feel like' and you get no bonuses or penalties at all. The numbers are made up, and can be altered in whatever direction is appropriate.
This rewards players in another way for not going FOTM build, simultaneously helping to close the gap on the presumably more powerful multiclass builds by allowing them to advance more quickly and making it more appealing to stay there because of the penalties received for going outside those boundaries.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The biggest weapon this game will have against multi classing is....patience (lack thereof). 2.5 years is a long grind to cap and there will be very red shiny flags to capture at the end.
How many gamers out there would rather waddle with mid level abilities of 3 classes? The dedication bonus isn't what has to be lights out, it's the high level feats that have to be lights out.
Worst case, how it would it be different than the tabletop game, where plenty of people DO multi-class.
And it seems like (hell, they've said so) many Ability trees will have over-lapping pre-reqs,
so "multiclassing" Fighter/Barbarian/Monk will not require 'starting over from scratch',
you will already be a good way along the path of meeting pre-reqs just from having Fighter pre-reqs covered.
The Abilities themselves need not be Class specific, but will be shared by even 'single class' Fighter/Barb/Monk builds.
I don't see the distinction between many classes as being much different than between different 'focuses' or archetypes within those classes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the thing everyone is missing... There will not be builds like we see in PnP or other MMO's.
Being a skill based system means you have variety.
If you are patient, you will have the best "fighter" or "wizard" in the game. Because most people will not be patient enough to train those long run skills.
With skill based systems, we will also have a ton of generic skills that everyone will want to have. If you do not take these you will only gimp yourself.
For instance:
Energy management, and energy systems operations are generic skills for Eve. (only 2 of 50) These two skills are completely useful for every ship type you fly in game, whether its a freighter or a battleship. If you do not take them, then your power systems will drain fast and leave you as a sitting duck.
I think we will have similar skills... but not for sure since its all speculation here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Worst case, how it would it be different than the tabletop game, where plenty of people DO multi-class.
And it seems like (hell, they've said so) many Ability trees will have over-lapping pre-reqs,
so "multiclassing" Fighter/Barbarian/Monk will not require 'starting over from scratch',
you will already be a good way along the path of meeting pre-reqs just from having Fighter pre-reqs covered.
The Abilities themselves need not be Class specific, but will be shared by even 'single class' Fighter/Barb/Monk builds.
I don't see the distinction between many classes as being much different than between different 'focuses' or archetypes within those classes.
This
But to add, there should be plenty of skills that are required for everyone.
Worst case, how it would it be different than the tabletop game, where plenty of people DO multi-class.
And it seems like (hell, they've said so) many Ability trees will have over-lapping pre-reqs,
so "multiclassing" Fighter/Barbarian/Monk will not require 'starting over from scratch',
you will already be a good way along the path of meeting pre-reqs just from having Fighter pre-reqs covered.
The Abilities themselves need not be Class specific, but will be shared by even 'single class' Fighter/Barb/Monk builds.
I don't see the distinction between many classes as being much different than between different 'focuses' or archetypes within those classes.
But they really DON'T multiclass any more - at least not among the gamers I play with or among the players at any of the 3 game shops I go to.
Virtually nobody multiclasses anymore, because in PFO it's almost always better to use an AA path or to take one of the hybrid classes that gives you everything you could possibly want from multiclassing, plus much more cool stuff. The only things I ever see that even approaches multiclassing is something called 'gestalting' which is closer to first and second edition D&D multiclassing... but everyone in the party gets to do it otherwise it really isn't fair.
That being said, multiclassing like what you're talking about won't be an issue until they put out many more base classes than what's available at the start of EE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Otherwise, some diptard will theorycraft the most ridiculous combination of abilties possible and every single character will look like that after a few months.My fear is that ridiculous or not, someone is going to theorycraft builds for each role (Defender, Striker, Controller, and Healer) and we will begin seeing a lot of the same build all over the place. I think that is just as bad if everyone is a pure "Fighter Build" or "Cleric Build" as it would be if everyone is a "Wizard/Fighter/Rogue/Eldritch Knight".
I do not care so much about Pure Class vs. Multi-Class. I just want to see some friggin' variety!
There's really only a few things that can be done to combat this. Forum goers will post builds and videos of them using those builds. Things that look effective will be emulated. If a particular build is especially effective, it will be emulated a LOT. The nerf hammer and the buff wand are really the only ways to combat these kinds of builds. If a particular character feature is being abused across lots of different builds, it likely needs to be nerfed. If certain other abilities aren't seeing any(or little) use, a minor buff can help bring it into usefulness.
Alternate advancement paths and dedication bonuses, if used correctly can go a long way towards combating Flavor of the Month builds. There won't ever be a way to get rid of the FotM builds - no game has ever found a way to do it. PFO's base character creation system goes a long way towards it, simply because it takes so much time to get a character to certain power levels.
Also, I think that some system should be put into place to determine what you're going to do from the start. If, at character creation screen, you could pick between several options(call them whatever you like) that gave some kind of bonus for staying in a certain advancement path... for instance Jedediah the Jumper(JJ for short) wants to be a rogue. He's decided will never do anything else other than be a...
Its a skill based game, not a class based game. We will not be picking a starting class... except to give us some starting skills. Once the game begins, you can train whatever.
Your skill increase will be limited by the attributes you have. Which are based on gear and skill. So if you are geared out as a fighter then want to start training as a wizard, you will need to change out your gear and then train the attribute related skill before your wizard skill training time is up to par.
That will be all that limits multiclassing. Attribute scores dictate skill training times.
I know I read those things in a blog. No Classes, and skills train based on attribute scores. Attribute scores will be based on gear and skills. (there will probably be an attribute increase skill, for every attribute.)
Edit: did some blog reading... We need to hear more I guess, there will be archetypes, but its not specific enough and over a year ago. Its seems my statements are correct though overall.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For what it's worth, I plan to take the skills that fit my character concept, whether they're going to get me the best build or not. Will I take some skills specifically for creating better returns out of that skill "group" - sure. However, I know from past experience in other skill based MMOs that I'll be learning some skills just because they fit my character and they provide fun game play. After all, in SWG I took Ranger skills just so I could forage plants and milk creatures to better role-play a poor farmer. How much did that have to do with creating the most effective build? :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ok, reread the Your Pathfinder Online Character blog.
Everything will be close to as I described. You will start with an archetype that gives you base skills. You can train up from there whatever you want. All skill based. "Class" will be a group of skills under an Archetype skill tree. You can train skills in any Archetype from the start.
If you choose to focus on a specific "Archetype." You will be rewarded with a Capstone ability. Expect that to take 2.5 years of focus.
If you decide to train skills in a non Archetype skill tree before you earn the Capstone ability then you will not ever be able to get that ability. BUT if you reach and earn the capstone ability, you can then train other archetype skills and still have the capstone ability.
If you decide to train non Archetype skills, it will warn you that you will not be able to earn the ability.
Attributes determine how fast skills train, and give you saving throws.
Skills do not give bonuses, but give you the eligibility for abilities, weapons, armor, spells, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you choose to focus on a specific "Archetype." You will be rewarded with a Capstone ability.
If you decide to train skills in a non Archetype skill tree before you earn the Capstone ability then you will not ever be able to get that ability.
"As currently conceived, the "Dedication" system replaces the previous idea of "Capstones" (as something you would only get if you take all 20 levels of a role in sequence).
The feats you unlock by getting a role up to 20 may be something exciting we save for your "max level," but you'll get access to them no matter what multiclassing path took you to 20."
No more "losing it forever".
That was the PFO developer speaking for PFO.
TT hasn't changed besides the minor (insufficient) Errata they issue, which is always on their PRD site.
Otherwise I think you have the gist of it, albeit you seem to be blurring the lines between 'skills' and 'abilities'/'feats'.
As reflected in the 'Dedication' system, it is Feats that are Class-tied, not so much skills AFAIK,
although skills may be pre-requisites to take certain Feats, including Class-linked Feats.
Not all Feats need be Class tied, I could see simple 'Melee Feats' taught by 'Melee Trainer' that aren't tied to any Class, albeit Fighters/Barbs/Rangers/Paladins/Rogues/Monks/maybe Clerics are more likely to use them than a pure Wizard/Sorceror build. That may be likely (along with lows level general Caster Feats independent of Wiz/Sorc/Cleric/Bard), and would be amenable to Settlements just starting out since with one building they can take care of many classes' low level training. But who knows, it might all be Class-tied from the get go, although given there is also supposed to be abilties more tied into trading/diplomacy/management that don't correspond to TT classes, I think GW /will/ be pursuing things in a way including signifigant non-class-specific options.