Sub class skill trees

[Galdegir]

So as probably many of you I've been enjoying borderlan 2 lately and Im really impressed with that game. While playing it I got an idea for project Eternity which I posted in another topic about clases. So the basic idea is that each class would have three tree skills so you could develop it how you like. Why? casue that would give the player choice which is always great.

 

A fighter could develop into a warrior (good) a berserker (chaotic) a death knight (evil)

A rogue could develop into a ranger (good) a thief (chaotic) a assassin (evil)

A mage could develop into a wizard (good) a sorcerer (chaotic) a necromancer (evil)

A cleric could develop into a priest (good) a shaman/druid (chaotic) a dark priest/cultist (evil)

A magic knight could develop into a paladin (good) a slayer (chaotic) a antipaladin (evil)

 

a warrior would be a fighter with good attack and defence great with shields

a berserker would be great with axes, hammers, maces wery powerful attack but a weaker defence

a death knight

a ranger would be great with bows but also swords, a protector of forests great survival skills

a thier would be a master of traps, lockpicking, stealing and shadow skills (guild wars 2 shadow walk and so one)

a assassin would be master of backstabing, the greatest class to dual wield weapons, great mobility

a wizard would be a guy in a pointy gandalf hat with great elemental spells but weak to pchysical attacks

a sorcerer would be like a warlock from wow he could use magic but also wear light armor he would be porficiena at long rande and in close combat, master of mind magic and illusions

a necromancer would be a master of death magic, summoning skeletons, ressurecting fallen enemies as zombie minions and so on

a priest would be a master healer great an buffs and suporting the party, best class to fight of the undead

a shaman/druid would commune with the spirits and animals and be able to summon them for help

a dark priest/cultist would be the opposite of the priest so curses instead of blessings, spreding deasesas instead of healing

a paladin could use some holy magic and would be a little bit like the guardian from guild wars 2

a slayer wound be immune to magic, a character that specializes in killing mages

a antipaladin could dark magic and enchanted evil amrors and weapons, cast fear on enemies and so on

 

So those are my ideas for classes and subclasses trees. So what do you guys think would you like something like that in the game? vote and give your opinions:)

Edited September 27, 2012 by Galdegir

[Adhin]

BL1-2 both just used a toned down version of Diablo 2 skill tabs. I'd like there to be subclass stuff but I'd rather that not just be diablo-style skill trees. Rather it be more like say DAO in how you picked a secondary skill set to add on based off a buncha prestigue/sub-classes. I mean 3E class setup ultimately allows for more customization like that but that's cause you get to mix all classes however you see fit (which can go bad real quick). I'd prefer they not go that route entirely but perhaps having a min/major skill/talent set for each class and, downt he road you can pick subclasses that can also use base class min skills to add over a more specific type thing.

 

Either way curious where they go, but I hope it's not D2 style (like you saw with BL2)... it's kinda old and your stuck with in the fields of your main class. Buncha base classes, buncha prestigue/sub classes to pick past a certain lvl... let us pick skills with in that. Also some kinda switch up between passive and active stuff would be nice. Ehh ill stop here before I get into to much rambly about systems.

[Rabain]

The DAO system was pretty decent, it gave you specialisations to choose within your class which on their own gave you certain benefits as well as a set of abilities to develop as you levelled up.

[Tale]

I get hung up on little details, for that I have to apologize in advance. Your example using good/neutral/evil is enough for me to dislike the idea. I'm hoping the game is more mature than to start ascribing morality to class builds. Or even in general.

 

Beyond that, I question the purpose. Is this just a hope that you can triple the number of classes? Hey, if they feel that the budget is enough that they can diversify the classes into appreciable sub-classes, then yay. But I doubt that. I'd prefer to have something like a well designed and complex Necromancer class than just cutting up a third of the sole mage class and giving it that title.

 

I mean, some of these concepts are ones I would genuinely like to see. But I'd like to see them be better fleshed out if included.

[Mabster]

I think I would rather have more flexible progression inside a single class than two tiers of limiting specialization. I thought specializations worked well enough in DAO, but the mechanic is there to limit your options not expand them, so I just don't see a reason to use such a system here. I think by properly explaining how different options will affect their characters, players can be trusted with a large pool of choices, rather than shoehorning them toward efficient builds.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Mabster

[DRevan]

Yes if choosing a certain sub-class would affect how the world responds to you(which is something DA/DA2 failed to do with the blood mage specialization).

[Bloodbathe]

I would rather build my character as I go along instead of getting skill points and sticking them in fireball or backstab.

[Mabster]

Yes if choosing a certain sub-class would affect how the world responds to you(which is something DA/DA2 failed to do with the blood mage specialization).

I don't think the game mechanics should be something that are made part of the in-game world. A NPC could react to a spell you use, the way your dress or to your reputation, no need to include the mechanic for this purpose in my opinion.

[Knott]

@galdegir: By using such lables as good/chaotic/evil you are imediatly turning off a lot of people. Using such lables for sub-classes/Kits would be one the worst possible ways to implement such a system

 

Yes if choosing a certain sub-class would affect how the world responds to you(which is something DA/DA2 failed to do with the blood mage specialization).

I don't think the game mechanics should be something that are made part of the in-game world. A NPC could react to a spell you use, the way your dress or to your reputation, no need to include the mechanic for this purpose in my opinion.

 

The only valid reason to use classes in a computer game, is to use it as a reactive and narrative mechanic.

If classes are not there to lable you as a stereotype, then there is no good reason to use classes.

[Eyferann]

i think subclasses are nice, but i would rather have a class tree for the class I chose, and then depending on how many points i have invested in one direction my title as a class changes. So you are recognised for doing things in a certain way but it does not restrict you in any way.

[Galdegir]

I get hung up on little details, for that I have to apologize in advance. Your example using good/neutral/evil is enough for me to dislike the idea. I'm hoping the game is more mature than to start ascribing morality to class builds. Or even in general.

 

Beyond that, I question the purpose. Is this just a hope that you can triple the number of classes? Hey, if they feel that the budget is enough that they can diversify the classes into appreciable sub-classes, then yay. But I doubt that. I'd prefer to have something like a well designed and complex Necromancer class than just cutting up a third of the sole mage class and giving it that title.

 

I mean, some of these concepts are ones I would genuinely like to see. But I'd like to see them be better fleshed out if included.

 

Tale I get what you're saying with the good/chaotic/evil thing. For example you can play as an assassin and still be a good guy but in some cases that does not work for example I can't imagine being a paladin and making evil choises that would be out of role. So there has to be some system implemented the good/chaotic/evil may not be the right one but I'm open to other suggestions.

 

As for the purpose well right now we get how many 5 or 6 classes right (Sorry really can't remember the exact number right now)? Well like you I would like well designed classes but at the same time I'm a bit wary of limitations and obsidians choice of what those classes will be. For example I'm one of those people who hates the witch doctor in diablo 3 and does not understand which a proper necromancer was not included in the game. So if obsidian chooses to have 5 complex classes there is always a possibility that some people will not like them so it would be great to have an option to modify them hence the idea of subclasses. If the classes are done really well and someone plays as a mage and by choosing the spells he wants can make a necromancer out of the mage then that's great but the question remains will we see that kind of freedom and complexity? I havent seen a proper necromancer in a game since ages and diversity when it comes to classes is something I would really love to see.

 

@knott: I know but when I choose a character/class i like to roleplay it the right way. So as mentioned above I can't see a paladin being evil or a hell knight being good. So there has to be some system. the one I proposed may not be the correct one I'm fully aware of that but hey thats what this forum and discussions are for. If you have an idea on how this should be implemented I would love to hear it. The idea that there will be no classes and as the player progresses he may chose his stye of play is a good one but at the same time a part of me would really love to see some well designed classes that play differently and would give me a reason to play the game again as a different character.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Galdegir

[Mabster]

The only valid reason to use classes in a computer game, is to use it as a reactive and narrative mechanic.

If classes are not there to lable you as a stereotype, then there is no good reason to use classes.

Classes determine things like hitpoints or how a character progresses through levels, they are part of the mechanics of the game, and should not be included in the narrative. The class wizard does not determine how a character looks, smells or behaves. If an npc refers to that character as 'a wizard' it should be because he or she used a spell or maybe wears a pointy hat. Nothing breaks immersion faster than referring to things that are not part of the game world.

 

If the classes are done really well and someone plays as a mage and by choosing the spells he wants can make a necromancer out of the mage then that's great but the question remains will we see that kind of freedom and complexity? I havent seen a proper necromancer in a game since ages and diversity when it comes to classes is something I would really love to see.

I think safe to assume that there would be the same amount of abilities and other options to customize characters regardless of whether there will be a subclasses or not. It might be possible that with subclasses balancing the game becomes so much easier that they have time to add more stuff, but I'm not sure if that's realistic.

[Ashram]

I do like the class and subclass kind of idea as long as multiclassing is allowable and that the subclasses aren't restricted by alignment.

 

For example in DnD you had the Assassin and then you had the Avenger. Both pretty much the same except for the rp flavor of how you got into the class and your motives.

[Fromage]

Generally I don't like classes the way they are used by games, especially when they are referred to by NPCs. I personally advocate completely excising the actual cause though and focusing on skill based development instead of levels. To me, the entire point of classes is to put my character on a certain amount of auto-pilot, so I don't need to worry about certain portions of their abilities, but I actually am interested in guiding those abilities myself.

 

Clearly though the tradition has some interesting ideas, like allowing extra abilities depending on how you've tuned your char., and in that light I approve of them as a shorthand for, "I have trained so hard to stab people in the back I get a bonus at it".

 

I suggest a system whereby the game has several famous individuals and/or groups who offer to take you under their wing and train you, possibly with extra special secret techniques that only they know. Depending on who you work for, you would gain access to different special abilities, and each would depend not only on your skills (though partially so) but also on quests that you've performed for that organization, as well as how, generally, your public values align with theirs (totally possible to play a sociopath here, heh).

 

You could become a knight, but it would be by being especially loyal and upstanding martial specialist for a local Baron (or Thane, or prime minister, or whatever). Perhaps there may be several different nations you could strive for knighthood, each with different special abilities but with roughly similar skill requirements (though severely divergent public values, most likely). This would be, in effect, much like subclasses, but much more attached to the game world in interesting ways.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Fromage

[Merin]

Given my druthers, I want more control over my character and more options...

 

but too many options, especially if they are completely a la carte, is a balancing nightmare and a pain in the butt for a player like me who doesn't want to whip out a spreadsheet, calculator and spend hours figuring out DPS.

 

So sub-classes are nice. You pick your class, that limits you on some stuff, then eventually you pick a sub-class that specializes your character in a specific way.

 

To be clear - I'm vehemently against multi-classing, though. That can burn in a fire until it's no longer even a bad memory.

[Adhin]

The non-class structure also really tends to bug me as a person who does get heavy into the systems of RPG's and games. It's something I love to do, theorycraft or just make up my own RPG mechanics for a mod or some such. One point I converted D2 over to using mostly 3.5E ruleset once I realized I could... found it lacking so changed it over (a few times now) to something completely new from my end.

 

In the end a class is good in that it allows you to define some general ideas on the outset. Also good to keep in mind classes aren't just something RPG's made up. The concept of that existed well before and still preveils in job roles both in the military and other such things. Good example is the Ranger. That is something that's existed for a very long time and was, more or less, fitted for RPG's and has been skewed, often times in cRPG to mean a dude who uses ranged weapons when really it's a ward of a range. That being someone who protects a wide area. Park Rangers, Police bodies as rangers and so on.

 

It's also just nice to have something to call your self besides your name. I'm not an (to use my screen name) 'an Adhin'. I maybe a programmer (im not, but thats a 'class') an Artist (definitely one of those). In an RPG I think it would be good to set some very basic stuff to start off with though with how they handle magic and the 'soul' 3 base classes wouldn't nessesarily work. But then, maybe it could? Warrior, Rogue, Mage. Basic 3, everything ultimately trickles into that (priests being mage-types). I'd say there should be a host of generic traits or talents anyone has access to (obvious non-combat for all but im talking combat related). Then some lets call it base class only stuff (say, fireball for mage). Then very early on you get into more complex stuff, DnD terms im talking about level 5. Good example is the DnD Wizard school specialization, instead of picking that at lvl 1, pick it at lvl 5 and it comes with more necromantic heavy spells (some necromancy spells could be say 'minor' that show up for all mages).

 

-edit-

Actually the 'base' class thing wouldn't have to be a class-class, as with DnD it's more of a general catagory and could easily function the same way in my idea above. In away it's a lot like DnD is setup back in 3E but a lot of the 'feats' could, ultimately, be a bit more open ended. Actually had an idea once of taking all the feats from classes and adding it to the general pool instead of doing multiclassing, just make the base class choice determine which ones you gain for free as you lvl. Though that would require a bit more tweaking as Fighter's get a bit awkward at that point.. would probably want some extra restrictions to make some class stuff a bit more important but... im getting mildly off topic.

 

That's the kind of thing I meant with the major/minor. Ultimately I'd want a general pool for all classes, a general pool for the base class type, and then more specialized stuff that you define a bit later on (or even early on). Would also be nice to get lvl 1 only 'background' stuff. Hell the specialization stuff could fit into that actually. Pick 1 specialization as a background thing, then have those available again at later lvls (say 10-ish, again using DnD as a scale ratio) along with ones that weren't available at lvl 1.

 

The key to that working, however, is to ensure it's not like DAO in that DAO had a rather small number of abilities or, often, they where mostly stuff you used vs passives. One reason I would like to see passives and active abilities in 2 seperate progression rates. Attributes, non-combat, passives, active abilities. 4 areas of progression, the 2 combat (passive/active) stuff falling into the general -> general class -> specialized class stuff. Given enough 'stuff' with in that gives that level of freedom you generally get with more open stuff like say, Skyrim, but ultimately allows you to do a better job of creating that big, burly crazed dual wielding lunatic warrior vs a mage guy. That and, in the end, everyones mostly the same in TES like open ended systems. Skyrim did a lot to do more actual customizing via the talents and I absolutely ate that **** up but.. in the end, everyone can throw a fireball in that game and everyone can use... anything, to reletively great effect with little effort. And, frankly, that aint how the world works. We all got strengths and weaknesses, some more apparent then others. And in the end you gadda focus on something to actually get anywhere meaningful with it.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Adhin

[Fromage]

I agree that class pre-dates RPGs. Troop classifications, though, like in class done well, is assigned by how they are equipped, not used as a limiter to prevent them from using certain equipment. In other words, a light cavalry unit can put on extra armor, and lo! they are heavy cavalry.

 

This is not to say that I think class should be all about equipment, of course, but rather that it should be a way to describe someone, not define them. Like in your example of the ranger, if the game warden of a preserve went to town and became a baker, no matter how good he was at the bow he would no longer be a ranger.

 

Far better, to me, is to use class not to define what you can do, but describe what you actually do and how you do it.

 

Providing focus and guidance would then be the purpose of the instituions, each would not only tell you what they would like you to do for them, but how they would like to see you progress.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Fromage

[Shevek]

I would prefer multiclasses like how they did it with the old IE games with a feat system layered on top of that.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Shevek

[Hobo Elf]

I'd rather not have classes be defined by something as subjective as Good and Evil. Why is a Warrior, by default, good? What makes Assassins evil? Accepting money to kill someone? Doesn't every adventuring party do that anyway? It's a narrow path into banal cliches where Necromancers will be pale and underfed men who are obsessed with surrounding themselves with as many Skeletons as possible and Paladins will strive for justice and goodness; not because the character has his own moral ideology that lead him to this path, but because it's expected of him because that's just the way Paladins are.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Hobo Elf

[evolvia]

YES YES YES please you must add sub-class that's more more great to the game.

[Adhin]

@Fromage: I agree with that, and actually a bit less crazy and maybe a bit less 'samey' then the type of systemed used for naming in Kingdoms of Amalur used. Idea there was your 'class' name ended up being a 'card' you picked which opened up based off your overall skill point progression. These had passive bonuses and whatnot, my biggest issue with it was you'd find a name you really wanted, say, Warlock... but it was tier 3 of the rogue/mage combination. And if thats where your going you'd ultimately be better off using a higher lvl 'class card' for it.

 

I guess with in that line something close to that would be a nice way to make your class name shift as you play but not to the same extent as having 7 versions of the same damn thing. Basic example, say you start off as a Warrior, end up taking Necromancy at lvl 10 (in my earlier examples) instead of being a Warrior/Necromancer you get a choice of those 2 or 'Death Knight' and each one comes with a little... minor passive bonus. Then again I don't have much trouble with DnD system of being called a FIghter/Cleric.

 

Also, the President is always a president.. yeah we can switch jobs, but that experience is always there, and a lot of my examples are the kinda thing people tend to always 'be'. May switch your rank or whatnot as a police officier but a lot of them are addicted to the job. And as for the army I was thinking more in line with are current ones, where knowledge determines what you are more then what someone gives you. You actually have heavy weapons, demolishen. You can't just throw heavy explosives at your random grunt and decide to call em a bomb expert basically is what I mean.

 

Yeah you can throw heavy armor at light infrantry, but if they've had no training with it they may not you know, really be that. But that's still straight up true, throwing heavy armor on a light makes em a heavy.... just doesn't nessesarily make them an effective heavy.

[nikolokolus]

I don't particularly like the sub-classes presented here, because I don't like sub-classes to be rooted in moral and philosophical terms. For example a paladin or anti-paladin should not be strictly confined to a warrior parent class, those are titles or states of mind, not professions or specializations.

 

Sub-classes based on skill/profession are fine on the other hand. For example, Warriors should be able to go heavy, or light, wizards should be able to specialize in different types of magic, and stealthy types should be able to focus on different aspects of their craft. Giving specializations a name, instead of just presenting a branching skill-tree can also add some flavor and make each character a little bit distinct.

[Fromage]

@adhin: Exactly, which is why what you're good at should determine what you can be, not the other way round.

 

This is also why I advocate having organizations that bestow titles, as this is how it actually works. People in the middle ages were knights because they were good at beating the hell out of people and someone knighted them. Priests were a part of the institutional worship of a deity. These titles (classes) only have real meaning because of the organizations that created them.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Fromage

[Adhin]

Yeah I agree there, RPG's also use it as a base determining of some other stuff like proficiency with certain things, health progressiona nd the like. Personally I don't think RPG's need health progresion but a boost for being a warrior type makes sense. You know, gaining a class title based off role in an organization or whatnot would make sense, just keep it 'adventurer' or something at lvl 1. That said still doesn't fix the whole role focus you get outside of that, so I still feel like there should be some kinda early choice focus to help... paint your character towards one side or the other to keep that 'im a copy of that other guy' that TES games always give me.

 

But then I think the whole Warrior/Rogue/Mage thing still works for that, granted could use different names like Bruser, well rogue sitll works, mage could be more soul-theme named due to the nature of magic in this world. AHh i dunno... I still want that, and I don't think Attributes do a good enough job of doing what I want in that light you know? I mean a Barbarian and a Wizard can have the same con scores in 3E but that Barb will have more HP still. He'll just be better at hitting things at a base, fundamental level.

 

In my current iteration of the mod I work on I actually use 'only buy 1 of 5' Archetype pasives to paint your character in 1 way or another. No hp/mp progression, everyones 150 base. Going Warrior Archetype shifts you to 200/100 (hp/mp) and Mage does the opposite, rest are all inbetween one way or another. I think same type of thing but doing a 'background' that matchs 5 or so archetypes like that would probably fit that role pretty well. You'd still want some way to decide the pool of skils you have though to pick from... second you open it all up 100% to every base character is when you run into the TES issue I have. Or making it so jack of all trades are just not reven remotely viable as your stuck with crap low end stuff across the board (unlike TES where jack of all trades are actually 'master of all trades' heh).

 

-edit-

Actually, going off that, growing ability scores I think are kinda silly. I prefer picking them but I kinda like the FO style of them mostly staying 'as is' and maybe having some story stuff to advance em. One point I was trying to come up with some kinda system that involved temporary shifts in stats to show life-style routines or personal focuses on what your character really prefers (such as hand eye cordination or just brute force) to give a bit of an edge that way.

 

Be kinda nifty if they do body types and stuff but I know a lot of people like to play freakishly skinny people that have giant strength scores cause... why not? heh so, tying that together could just ultimately diminish folks choices.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Adhin

[Fromage]

Backgrounds and race/species are a good replacement for starting class, I agree. They focus your char, especially if, like in Arcanum, they each come with a downside; they also make more sense then labeling someone as a fighter just because they have the barest amount of skill hitting things.

 

Having classes depend on joining institutions should avoid the jack of all trades issue, since each org. would require a certain amount of skill focus to provide its benefits you would be forced to specialize wihile still allowing for someone to play a char without a class (with the downside of not being backed by anyone or having access to special abilities); shoudl provide a nice balance.