I get the no class thing (I guess) but why label the skill trees Fighter, Ranger, Wizard? Would it not make more sense to label them Melee, Range, Magic?

[bb.]

Basically the title. I get understand they're simplifying PoE's systems for broader audience appeal, but calling the skill trees 'Fighter, Ranger, Wizard' seems like a step too far, and actually counterintuitive if they're trying to show that you make any type of character. If someone wants to make a druid or priest for example, it's not even immediately clear that this is possible...? Whereas if the skills trees were labelled 'Melee, Range, Magic', it broadens the possibilities significantly, and gives the impression you are not building a certain type of character. Thoughts?

[Wormerine]

On 9/2/2024 at 7:20 AM, bb. said:

If someone wants to make a druid or priest for example, it's not even immediately clear that this is possible...?

Is it possible? I can't be bothered to scan the skilltrees and decypher what each icon likely represent, but a quick glance at Wizard's skilltree looks very much like it mostly, if not entirely, consists of Wizard things. We know we use grimoire to cast a spell, so that makes us very much a wizard if we choose to cast spells.

In the recend deepdive there was a mention that for Avowed they leaned toward "learnable" skills, so not things inate (Cypher) or granted by higher power (priests). So it is possible each tree is to a big extend similar to it's PoE counterpart, or at the very least is evocative of that kind of archetype, and the biggest difference is that you can freely dip between the three.

Unlike PoEs, in Avowed we will play a heavily defined character, so certain classes might be more appropriate than others. For example Aedyr trains Arcane Knights. The Envoy might be one of such Knight (or Hunter if we go Fighter/Ranger, or Geomancer if Ranger/Wizard, or Arcane Hunter Geomancer if fighter/ranger/wizard ), or  something conceptually adjecent.

Those classes are also fairly neutral when it comes to believes and political alignment, so they wouldn't dictate our character's leaning.

Edit. On a flip side, there is a companion skill tree as well, so perhaps companions will be able to provide a flavour of classes we can't play as?

Edited September 4 by Wormerine

[Silvaren]

There was Tunglefoot spell in the first trailer, so some flavour of druid can be used in the game.

[Zahar]

I hpe they hit the nail again, because PoE and specially Deadfire has some of the best class design and systems in any game, period. I just replayed Deadfire (2 runs actually) and man, it's so complex yet elegant...

[SenSx]

I agree, I love classes, and they made such a great work in PoE 1 and 2.

It is probably cool in BG3 as well.

 

But I understand that they wanted the game to be more accessible, as this is closer to open world action/rpg games like Elder Scroll games.

I just hope we find those great builds and synergies between the ability choices.

We need to be able to have completely different character possibilities, and not everyone playing the same with access to everything to easily.

[Wormerine]

On 9/15/2024 at 11:45 AM, SenSx said:

But I understand that they wanted the game to be more accessible, (…)

We need to be able to have completely different character possibilities, and not everyone playing the same with access to everything to easily.

   Classes are as accessible as they come - you simplify player made builds in favour of pre-configured kits.

While team-based class systems are my personal favourite, I just don’t think there is much benefit to a class system in a single character game, as there are no other equal party members to synergise with. 

From what Obsidian has showed my impression is that Avowed will focus more on player defined kits (choice of weapon and couple active skills), rather than more traditional “builds”. They also keep mentioning an ability to keep switching playstyles, so at least an easy access to respec is a likely possibility.