So, I spent a bit of time training characters and I came to understand how you can train a character to get really high ability scores as well as levels. Do ability scores matter? I've got the highest scores on my multi-class character by far. In fact, I've found that by training up a lot of the low level skills not even in your class, you can get good gains.
Obviously, we won't have 800-1mil exp to burn, but I wanted to propose an idea to make multi-classing harder (as it is in dnd.)
My first quick idea was that each skill have a primary attribute and those skills would be easier to train depending on your attribute in that skill. So, it would benefit people who wanted to class as a single class or even as a pure build. Like str...con as high stats. Could just leave the exp as is except add in a modifier for discount based on your scores.
I have had other ideas that it's harder to take classes once you take a class in something else, but I think the first idea, with some tweaking is best.
Thoughts?
Goblin Squad Member
|
There should not be and will not be any disincentive to *train* multiple roles, other than the inherent tradeoff of specialization versus versatility.
There will be disincentive to *slot* multiple roles simultaneously, in the form of dedication bonuses which have not yet been implemented.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So my understanding of what you are saying is give discounts on skills using a primary ability based off your score in that ability? Wouldn't that just make multi-classing better because you would be able to take all the cheap skills to raise your ability scores quickly?
Also this sounds a lot like the EVE training skills, which they took out of the game because they weren't fun for new players.
So my understanding of what you are saying is give discounts on skills using a primary ability based off your score in that ability? Wouldn't that just make multi-classing better because you would be able to take all the cheap skills to raise your ability scores quickly?
Percentage wise, I think it would cap out pretty quickly. Especially if the ability score was weighted. So as you approached a higher score, you would see a huge difference in the cost of score from what your specialized in and what you didn't. It wouldn't really limit multiclassing as it is now, but it would make it more worth to specialize.
I mean like I said my just buy everything for luls char has all 18+ and the highest is 26. As I said in my main point, what is the most important in this game... high ability scores or high class levels? Because if you wanna get high ability scores, you can do it without worrying about classes. If classes and ability scores were somehow more tied together, however, wouldn't that make it more of a science than it is now?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Neither Characteristics nor Role levels allow one to do anything by themselves. Active and Passive Feats, the buying of which raises both Characteristics and Role levels, are what cause effects in the "real" world.
Characteristics and Role levels are sort of a way of keeping score, and sometimes are prerequisites for advancing one's Feats further.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Atribute scores don't do anything.
They are purposely used purely as requirements for training. It doesn't matter if your character has all 25s, they don't get anything from that other than the option to go train actual abilities that do something without getting locked out for attribute score.
(I have a pet peeve with trying to code everything away and it comes out during downtimes)
Atribute scores don't do anything.
haha, wow. I kind of felt that might be true, but I didn't want to believe it.
Not to mention that there's no reason to go over 20, right? Is there anything in the game with a pre-req over 20?
I wonder if they plan to change that or if they are going to tone them down so you don't get 30s.
I would be *nice* if they actually had purpose. But yeah.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Today's Alpha patchnotes say they're toning down Characteristics:
Completely rebalanced ability score math. Now you need no ability score above 10 until 8th level, and you don't get any points for skills until 5th. The ability score needed for skills starts at 11 at 8th level and increases to 12 at 9th level, 19 at 16th level, and 24 at 20th level. Higher level skills give higher amounts of ability score bonus so it is now more attractive than previously to follow one skill to completion.
.
....my stats won't affect my skill scores or my resistances...
No, because PFO works exactly opposite to tabletop, in that, instead of getting a new level and thus receiving all sorts of abilities only then, one buys the abilities piecemeal, and eventually earns a new level by doing so.
Today's Alpha patchnotes say they're toning down Characteristics:
Completely rebalanced ability score math. Now you need no ability score above 10 until 8th level, and you don't get any points for skills until 5th. The ability score needed for skills starts at 11 at 8th level and increases to 12 at 9th level, 19 at 16th level, and 24 at 20th level. Higher level skills give higher amounts of ability score bonus so it is now more attractive than previously to follow one skill to completion..
.
...my stats won't affect my skill scores or my resistances...No, because PFO works exactly opposite to tabletop, in that, instead of getting a new level and thus receiving all sorts of abilities only then, one buys the abilities piecemeal, and eventually earns a new level by doing so.
That's cool. So hopefully no more 30s.
I still do think they should make use of the ability scores, however. That's a whole level of depth they are ignoring. How they can balance both would be hard to say, but I'd like to see my character grow in a way unrelated to buying skills.
BUT if they spec it so that you'd have to buy like every skill of the type to end up with a 24, it might be ok. Was getting 21 or 22 before I even left the first town. And yes, I (still) know that was because of major experience.
Ideally, the ability scores would do something at least to show your power, but I don't think they are even that because of the mass of skills that use each.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Whilst initially annoyed by the ability scores i eventually came to like them.
The curse of Table top D&D is min/max power builds. In organised play like pathfinder it even leads to power creep in the modules as people writing scenarios have to take account of power built player characters when designing encounters.
In online game it results in cookie cutter downloadable builds and in the case of EVE doctrines where only certain builds are ever commonly used in large fleets. Also in EVE its very easy to build 1 month trained alts that do exactly one thing and nothing else and just log that char in when you need that ability.
As someone that was very good at min/maxing I know all the pitfalls it leads to. The PFO system is BRILLIANT at discouraging power building.
I do agree though that it needed balancing, it was a little harsh.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I haven't had time to go through the full list of feats with a fine tooth comb yet but I've found that some of the in-class synergies seem just as if not more powerful than most multi-role synergies.
The single class feature and single armor ability limits the advantage of mixing roles by quite a bit.
There are some very powerful single role builds. I think dedication bonuses and any other penalty to multi-role characters should not be implemented until it's clear just how much of an advantage multi-role character's can gain.
The PFO system is BRILLIANT at discouraging power building.
I do agree though that it needed balancing, it was a little harsh.
Explain this, if you would. I also think min-maxing is pretty lame because I did that when I was a 10 year old gamer. It was fun to be the best, but then I was like I want to do something different. Maybe I took a loss 8 out of 10 times, but the others I was able to discover something great.
I wonder how it discourages min maxing. I mean, I guess I should say how it discourages DLable builds. Which are close enough to the same to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The PFO system is BRILLIANT at discouraging power building.
I do agree though that it needed balancing, it was a little harsh.
Explain this, if you would. I also think min-maxing is pretty lame because I did that when I was a 10 year old gamer. It was fun to be the best, but then I was like I want to do something different. Maybe I took a loss 8 out of 10 times, but the others I was able to discover something great.
I wonder how it discourages min maxing. I mean, I guess I should say how it discourages DLable builds. Which are close enough to the same to me.
Mainly that by forcing a degree of cross classing the players may in the end actually start to diversify and make some use of those class feats.
For example in alpha I originally leveled stealth as a handy way to bump DEX but then started using it and eventually leveled it further becasue it had become useful.
In tabletop there was a lot of nonsense evolved to do with optimizing builds. People developed rules like "if your going to have rogue levels make level one a rogue" or " never cross class a wizard unless you maintain caster progression". Though at least in an online game there is no real scope for rules lawyers to twist things to the point of silliness :D
Of course the opposite extreme is people that think "role play" means building an ineffectual character ( " my paladin is a great RP character as it only has 8 CHA and STR" ) which is worse than min/maxing.
Its pretty clear the people complaining about taking "useless feats" have power building in mind. Ironically if the same XP went to a "training feat" that only boosted a stat by an identical amount they probably would not object even though in a sense they are worse off (the same stat boost with no secondary feat benefit for same XP) .
I think the real objection here is that the cross training makes min/max builds LOOK untidy :D It may just be an OCD issue.
Yeah, I'm just waiting for that skill from x class gets used by y class and it becomes powerful in a way that nobody would have guessed. But since classes seem to have no bonuses... there truly "aren't classes." Cuz I mean you could probably never take a class level and be a pretty decent character. I know this because it took me a long time to realize what I needed to take to get a level haha. Not a great char, but you could do it.
I am very anxious to get races in here so that we can get some level of beyond skill customization, though, and I still lament the idea of ability scores and classes being basically fluff.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, I'm just waiting for that skill from x class gets used by y class and it becomes powerful in a way that nobody would have guessed. But since classes seem to have no bonuses... there truly "aren't classes." Cuz I mean you could probably never take a class level and be a pretty decent character. I know this because it took me a long time to realize what I needed to take to get a level haha. Not a great char, but you could do it.
I am very anxious to get races in here so that we can get some level of beyond skill customization, though, and I still lament the idea of ability scores and classes being basically fluff.
I actually see classes as being more a shorthand for a bundle of prerequisites.
fair enough, but I just feel like it should make you a tiny bit stronger. I don't know if we've found out if a class does make you stronger... like once you get to the top, is it worth going lvl 15 fighter + cheap extras or is it worth pushing to lvl 16 fighter. That's when I think it will matter.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
fair enough, but I just feel like it should make you a tiny bit stronger. I don't know if we've found out if a class does make you stronger... like once you get to the top, is it worth going lvl 15 fighter + cheap extras or is it worth pushing to lvl 16 fighter. That's when I think it will matter.
Raising things like Evangelist, Unbreakable and Crusader is what matters and will improve your performance. Raising those needs levels in the relevant class.
I am actually a little annoyed that classes exist in the game as at all as we were promised they would not be there. I suspect a lot of forum complaining by people stuck in the old D&D idiom meant they were resurrected in current form. It would have been better if they had just been wiped entirely.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think some people are seeing the difference between classless and open-class and some aren't.
Classless means classes don't exist- no class requirements, not in achievements as pre-requisites or class-based keywords. Limitations come from the gear and feats themselves. It means if I've spent my limited xp for a Holy symbol implement to maximum I can be a full-blown fighter in heavy armor and a greatsword and a maxed out Holy Symbol full of divine expendables at full effectiveness. Then I could weapon swap to mage staff and a rogue kit at their fully-trained power if I had put the xp into all of that. I give up some synergies, highest levels of power, and a lot of xp in return for the versatility.
Open-class means classes DO exist but a single character is not locked into a single class permanently, instead we can train and equip any class we want. That's what Pathfinder Online is. With the need to match keywords on gear to active and passive feats we can only have one class of abilities (the original broad definition of "class", and how RPG classes got named that way in the first place) equipped at full power at a time. Any trained abilities we slot outside that class are commensurately not providing all the power they could from the high levels we have already trained for lack of class-based keywords.
You can change gear and use those other feats at their fully trained power now, but that is putting on a different class in an open-class system, not being classless.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I really, really like how choosing abilities drives the class(es), not the other way around. You gain a level in X because you trained in those abilities/feats that earn you that level. Excellent design choice, in my opinion.
I like that bottom-up approach to classes too. Nearly all the games I've played in recent years have been like that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Side note: The fact that it went backward from Skyrim, and reintroduced a rigid class system, was my first disappointment with Elder Scrolls Online. The fact that it was yet another MMO where you played an epic solo story alongside (but not really with) other people, who were also playing a solo story, was the second disappointment. I played in the Beta, but I never bought a copy of the full game.
Some people think that an epic story, with tons of background material and worldbuilding, is absolutely essential to putting the Elder Scrolls name on a game. That's probably true for a solo Elder Scrolls game. I believe the MMO version could have kept the back story, the books full of lore, etc., but dumped the solo storyline. Between ESO and PFO, I think we'll see that Goblinworks chose the path of longevity, and ESO will follow the typical AAA MMO growth/decline/death curve.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Side note: The fact that it went backward from Skyrim, and reintroduced a rigid class system, was my first disappointment with Elder Scrolls Online. The fact that it was yet another MMO where you played an epic solo story alongside (but not really with) other people, who were also playing a solo story, was the second disappointment. I played in the Beta, but I never bought a copy of the full game.
Some people think that an epic story, with tons of background material and worldbuilding, is absolutely essential to putting the Elder Scrolls name on a game. That's probably true for a solo Elder Scrolls game. I believe the MMO version could have kept the back story, the books full of lore, etc., but dumped the solo storyline. Between ESO and PFO, I think we'll see that Goblinworks chose the path of longevity, and ESO will follow the typical AAA MMO growth/decline/death curve.
Thing is really devoted fans will stick to a solo leveling super heroic storyline adventure game for a while - even trying it twice or more with different builds but eventually they go do something else until the new "version" is released.
Sandbox open world games have players that have been around 10 years or more.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since I am more about playing the game than working the game I am seriously considering an approach to skill selection similar to my intended approach to alignment.
Though my allies and guildies may well disdain my approach, and notwithstanding my skills with spreadsheets, I may allow my character to simply evolve without attending to optimization.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since I am more about playing the game than working the game I am seriously considering an approach to skill selection similar to my intended approach to alignment.
Though my allies and guildies may well disdain my approach, and notwithstanding my skills with spreadsheets, I may allow my character to simply evolve without attending to optimization.
A character that evolves based on what experiences they have and what they find is far more fun to play then something preplanned all the way to maximum level with no room for even one skill out of place.
Since I am more about playing the game than working the game I am seriously considering an approach to skill selection similar to my intended approach to alignment.
Though my allies and guildies may well disdain my approach, and notwithstanding my skills with spreadsheets, I may allow my character to simply evolve without attending to optimization.
The bad part comes when 1 year down the line you realize your character is worthless, though.
I am against optimization, but making a bad character in game like this would be heart-breaking. Granted, you may have to try to make a bad one because it should still be good at something.
But it's very possible that weapon types will 'die out.' So if you specced all of your skills in a weapon that is bad, that will be an issue.
To be honest, I am not sure how the game gives out experience for new characters and if that bonus is repeated (as it should be.) I plan to set a character to gain exp, roll a second one, spend the beginning exp and play on that. Maybe devote like 25% of exp to the second character (since I don't have DT), and then look at the world as it is and decide what I really WANT my character to be. I don't think I will be focused on optimizing in the way of the game (like looking at builds online), but I want to plan my main character very well.
I want a unique character. I also hope to become the baddest Necro on the server once they implement everything for Necro. So, likely my main will be that character and can just load up on exp until the time is right. Of course, once I have a plan I will still use it to unlock achievements and buy a little bit of stuff.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...your character is worthless...
I've seen neither evidence nor credible supposition that this can occur. All characters, by simple dint of being able to learn anything, can always dig out of any hole in which they find themselves--unless *every* character is worthless.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...your character is worthless...I've seen neither evidence nor credible supposition that this can occur. All characters, by simple dint of being able to learn anything, can always dig out of any hole in which they find themselves--unless *every* character is worthless.
Agreed. Even if everything you trained turned out to be less than useful, you could just start training more useful stuff. This isn't a "race to the level cap/the real game starts at the cap" kind of game.
Plus, if EVE is any kind of example, there's a good chance that sometime down the road the devs will change something, and today's "worthless" skill will become the new "must have" skill.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This isn't a "race to the level cap/the real game starts at the cap" kind of game.
Pretty much this.
Plus things WILL change.
The typical game cycle is:
1) the Devs miscalculate deviousness of players combining things in an unexpected way and feat/item X becomes slightly overpowered
2) word gets out and the spreadsheet min/maxers come out with builds that optimize this advantage of feat/item X
3) even if the advantage is only a few percent people start to build characters around X because even a few percent is an advantage
4) new players hear that all the vets are using X and it is OP and start to build towards it
5) forum trolls who did not build for X start complaining that X is "way OP and unbalanced" citing the vast number of people that use X
6) the Devs respond by nerfing X but usually overdo it and now make X useless
7) rinse and repeat with item Y
The moral ???? Longterm in games building for whatever is overpowered is a bad move unless you do it early enough to get a long run of advantage before it is "balanced" into nerfdom.
If you haven't seen the new changes yet, my tables give a fairly clear picture of Ability and Exp advancement for different feats.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rhgx?Updated-Tables-for-Feat-Advancement-Feat
When spreading out in to other role's feats, be wary of whether that feat's advancement requires advancement in levels of that Role. Big example of this is the Reactive feats. If you are primarily building Fighter but really want to use higher level Rogue reactive feats, you will have to invest heavily in pushing up your Rogue levels.
Previously, Armor feats had the same issue. Hopefully (thank Erastil if they did!) they took them out.
@Caldeathe and Being: I salute you! But wisdom might mean a little pre-planning on your parts if for no other reason than to avoid falling into an exp vacuum where everything you want to do requires doing everything else first.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Part of what I really liked about Morrowind was that you didn't have to follow the plot. Also, the plot very early on told you to go do something else, and there was a lot of 'else' to do.
Also, it didn't lock you into a "build" like Skyrim does - perks are so influential in Skyrim that they decide what your character can do, much more so than skill points. This encourages power gaming and planning your character BEFORE rather than WHILE playing the game, limits player freedom (no horizontal progression) and discourages experimentation. I hate the Skyrim character system and love the Morrowind system (except for the weird stat increases).
I'm very happy that PFO will not "lock" you into a build. That is a significant difference between PFO and Skyrim.