kadelyn.the.dragon

In reference to the Josh Sawyer quotes from Prometheus' post above, I think the idea of flexibility presented is going in the wrong direction. Going 50% Fighter and 50% Wizard will not make an effective Fighter/Wizard, it will make a confused character build. For flexibility to work, there has to be fluidity between the mixing of classes. For example, if a Wizard's spells are inhibited by armor, why would they level in a class that prefers Heavy Armor? Perhaps the Talents will clear this up. I recall in IWD2, characters could take points in Armored Arcana to reduce the spell failure chance presented by armor. Talents like that which create a 'bridge' for hybrids would be interesting and fun. I don't like the idea of a class having access to a different role, but never being as good as another class specifically geared for it. This seems like it's actually taking away from the benefits of creating a flexible character. In that case, mixing classes and trying unique builds are rather pointless, considering the effectiveness of a character will be diminished for going outside of their class. I think Mass Effect did hybrids intelligently. Every hybrid class became builds all their own and effectiveness wasn't sacrificed, they simply fulfilled a different role. Think of it this way; why does a gish have to be a weak fighter mixed with a weak spellcaster? Why can't they be effective at fighting and spellcasting, just not have as much access to fighter and spellcaster abilties as characters dedicated to those classes? I think the problem is no one really knows what to do with classes. I imagined classes as archetypes commonly found in fantasy universes. You have your Conan The Barbarian and your Gandalf The Grey with options provided by classes. But when someone wants to experiment outside of those archetypes, the class system seems to break too easily. This 'breaking' seems to come from a confusion between a class' role in a party and the archetype they are intended to represent. I know this has been mentioned in another topic, but if hybridizing becomes too convoluted, I think Specializations are the way to go. I know D&D Next is implementing a system where every class can be played in a variety of ways (acrobat rogue, assassin rogue, etc.) and I think P:E designers could learn a lot from this system (despite still being in beta).

I like the idea of unkillable summons. I don't think there's an effective method of implementing summons otherwise, they provide too much versatility. The reason why summons are usually used at higher levels in 3E/Pathfinder are because they're an indirect form of healing (would you rather heal 1 to 8 points or a static 6 points?) and they provide extra attacks (invaluable at every level, regardless of the actual attack bonus). I don't know about anyone else, but to me, summons are too valuable, especially in a Vancian system where spells are typically prepared ahead of time. As it is, summons are a distraction, heal, and damage rolled in one. It's even worse if a summon can use special abilities, like psionics. I think summons in P:E should be 'moving spells', which possess weaker effects over a longer time. What I mean is, one summon deals fire damage to an enemy over time while another heals nearby allies over time. In terms of creative design, maybe these summons can be 'manifestations' of the caster's Soul, like spirits they created to do their bidding, and they can't be attacked because they're intangible spirits. So, a caster might have to choose between a Fireball, which inflicts high direct damage in an area, or a Spirit Of Flame, which inflicts low damage against enemies nearby, listens to player commands, cannot be targeted by enemies, and lasts for the spell's duration. I think this gives an interesting choice in combat and erases any worries about the summon's defenses. It just becomes a lower-powered spell with a longer duration and a variable area of effect. If a player wants to create a distraction, that should be a separate effect, like an illusion spell.

What are your thoughts on the diversity of roles that any given class can take? Should classes be more linear in their character choices, focusing on a specific role, or should they be more diverse, capable of taking a variety of roles based on choices made? I realize there is already a topic similar to this, but if I remember correctly, the topic is about a year old. So instead of bumping an old topic, I wanted to start anew and open the topic with some ideas of my own in regards to roles, classes, and party dynamics. The point of this topic is to throw around ideas for how classes should be built and what choices are available to players in terms of abilities, traits, and attributes to create builds. > Roles In Strategy RPG's I think by now, everyone can recognize four basic roles in strategy games. You have your Tanks, which act as the center of attention and absorb incoming damage for your allies, DPS, which inflict the highest damage over time to enemies, Mezzer, which control mobs with status effects (not necessarily mandatory), and Healer, which provides buffs and healing to the party members (mostly to the Tanks). These are the simple ideas behind each role, but they are not even what I see as important roles in a party. Honestly, a party make-up can be further simplified to just DPS and Healer, since the only requirements for a successful party build is a way to deal damage efficiently and a way to avoid damage efficiently. In essence, roles are defined by the threats in a game. If every conflict can be dealt with by simply beating someone up, you don't even need roles, really. Most of the time, classes are built to appeal to a role. In games which allow more lenience in builds, such as pen-and-paper tabletop games, a player determines their role by how they mix and match classes and character choices (traits, abilities, etc.). I think the simplest example that comes to mind is the Druid class in Pathfinder. There are two main builds for Druids; one centered around 'wild-shaping' and one centered around 'spell casting'. In Pathfinder, wild-shaping is simply a set of physical Ability Score modifications and bonus special rules. As such, the wild-shaping Druid must sacrifice their spell-casting potential for better physical attributes. On the other hand, if the Druid wished to be the spell casting variant, they would increase their spell casting attribute to increase the effects of their spells. In one hand, the Druid is a physical damage dealer and more tough than their spellcaster counterpart. In the other, the Druid has more supportive abilities, such as better healing and stronger control effects, than their wild-shaping counterpart. This illustrates an example of greater flexibility in roles as a certain class based on character choices (choosing to be more warrior-like or more spellcaster-like). I will speak later about how this appeals to my own ideas about party roles and parties. Now let's consider the Infinity Engine games and what roles are played in those games, or at least what I've perceived according to my experience. > Roles In IE Games Infinity Engine games typically split their classes between 'Mages, 'Priests', 'Warriors', and 'Rogues', but when it comes to the actual task of playing through the game, I've identified the following roles for (in my opinion) effective gameplay: The BSF: Also known as the Big Stupid Fighter and the Meat Shield. When it comes down to it, the BSF is the primary source of damage for your party. They have the most HP, the lowest AC (nothing is more terrifying than melee combat supremacy at -10 AC), and the highest melee damage. An archetypal Tanker is not expected to deal that much damage, medium at most, which is why the BSF is not your typical Tanker. They have the highest THAC0, the best weapons, and the highest Strength among your party members. In most cases, the party is simply supporting the BSF, such is the case of the Spellcaster. The BSF is typically a Fighter, Ranger, or Paladin. The Spellcaster: I think many people maintain the idea that the Mage and the Cleric are two different beasts with quite different roles. The Mages are the archetypal blasters, with spells like Magic Missile and Fireball. The Clerics are the archetypal healers and buffers. However, I put them together because, in my experience, they perform a similar role, and that is to support the BSF. The Spellcaster has two goals in a fight; keep the BSF going and make the BSF better at killing. Healing and summoning creatures as distractions are the best methods to keep the BSF going. Buffing and crowd control make the BSF better at killing. In regards to Blaster Casters (Mages with a plethora of direct-damage effects), I don't believe this is the best direction for a Mage, considering the limitations of the Vancian spell system used in IE games. As such, Mage spells with longer durations, including, but not limited to, summoning spells and crowd controls are actually more effective than direct damage. Not to mention the higher chance of team-killing with blast spells like Fireball and Cloudkill, the BSF has to clear out of the way in order to maximize the spell's effect (it's not worth it to damage the enemy if you also damage your allies) and some enemies are highly resistant to certain elemental damage. Therefore, I typically let wands and scrolls do the blasting for me. Why waste slots on blast spells when you can just use a wand? Regardless, most of the time, I let the Utilitarian do the ranged damage. The Spellcaster is typically a Mage, Cleric, or Druid. The Utilitarian: I recall in games having that one rogue to handle traps, lock-picking, conversations (depending on rule set), and scouting. Most of the time, this character had high Dexterity, making them great archers and the designated 'magic arrow hoarder' of the group. When the BSF wasn't hitting, usually the Utilitarian picked up the pace. The Utilitarian was also the primary initiator. They could usually one-shot the first enemy that came barrelling towards the group (although in most of my games, I gave everyone ranged weapons, something I also recommend). Other uses for the Utilitarian included picking off enemy spellcasters and archers (while the BSF busied himself with the melee baddies), using stealth to scout ahead (picking off anyone who strayed alone), and laying waste to enemies who were just too tough for the BSF (while I made my BSF play a game of 'cat and mouse' with the big scary monster). The Utilitarian is typically a Rogue, Bard, or Ranger. I think there are occasions where any of these roles shined and any of these roles utterly failed. Furthermore, I've discovered these roles through my personal experience of playing IE games. If you have different opinions about playstyles, I'd love to hear them, that's what this topic is for. In most games, my party build would consist of 2-3 BSF's, 2-3 Spellcasters, and one Utilitarian. So, assuming that the goal is to break from these roles, how can P:E give classes the choices to mix and match these roles or even create new roles? > Personal Ideas Concerning Roles When it comes to the relationship between classes and roles, I absolutely hate how stale builds can become. My favorite pasttime has been experimenting with builds to create quirky mechanics for a character. I remember one build in Pathfinder where I mixed a monk and dragon disciple for a 'glass cannon' character. She was essentially a normal monk that could turn into a dragon and inflict a high damage natural attack combo combined with her normal unarmed damage (never found rules saying that I couldn't use kung-fu as a dragon ;P). And I know for sure in D&D 3.5, there was an incredible diversity in builds. A huge variety of build options were provided with the introduction of new feats and new prestige classes in every book. Even though 3.5 characters spiraled out of control sometimes (templates, oh god the templates), they were also highly varied. I think one of my favorite games for creating builds is League Of Legends. I know it's nothing like an IE game (despite also being a strategy role-playing game), but I think there are still lessons to be learned from the system. First of all, it's possible for some of the quirkiest builds in the game to work effectively, regardless of who you play. Some characters synergized really well with certain items and certain team members. Best of all, some characters have lenient roles. For example, one character named Kayle is known for having the flexibility to be built like a DPS or built like a support. I'm not saying P:E should allow players to create quirky character builds that don't make any sense (ala D&D 3.5), but rather options should be provided to allow characters to fulfill a role in their class' "flavor", For example, if you wanted to play a fighter archer, they would be more focused around different types of archery attacks, where as a ranger archer would be focused around utilizing traps and their animal companion with their archery. Regardless, both would be effective as a ranged damage dealer in their own way. I think when designing their classes, Obsidian designers should consider how a particular class could be built and provide options for those builds. No, it's not possible to identify every little role, but it is possible to provide a diversity at the least. Not all paladins have to be divine melee fighters, why can't they inflict their smite with archery? Not all rogues have to be assassins, why can't they be tankers based on evading attacks? In reference to the IE roles discussed earlier, what if I could utilize a Rogue as a BSF? They wouldn't be the typical 'high armor, high melee damage' character, they would be a BSF in the Rogue-fashion, evading attacks and maybe inflicting sneak attack whenever they 'parry'. Or Mages as Utilitarians? If spells were more accessible or provided more utility, mages could fulfill this role as a secondary damage dealer and jack-of-all-trades. It's going to require careful game design, but I think a move towards 'more roles for any class' will provide an interesting experience for people whether they build for effectiveness or just build for fun. > TL;DR I think P:E should provide more roles (Tanker/DPS/Support) to each class, but those roles should be played different between each class. For example, a Rogue Tanker would be based around evasive maneuvers and sneak attacks 'procing' on successful parries.