Sub class skill trees

[Adhin]

Yeah though I don't think a group or faction should have to big of an impact on my choices in character development. I mean, ultimately, that's more of a title and would be nice to get an ability or 2 (with a passive or 2) for that but I wouldn't want it being part of the actual character progression. To me factions are story related character growth. I've always viewed combat/social skill stuff of my character to be more of a manifestion of the type of person they are, generally irregardless of whatever faction or group hes associated with. Though in some PW in NWN RP stuff groups one is associated with always ends up being what you use to say what you are, or what people often refer to you as.

 

As an example my favorite character I had up till I just stopped was Kurn, was a Barbarian/Psion/Fighter. He didn't call him self a barbarian, or a fighter, I refered to that part as a 'fury warrior' but the psion part is a little more apt name and he'd use that as a descriptor when folks asked. Ended up joining a Psionic order and becoming a Master in that group so he was a Master Psion (egoist oriented as some may guess). Very oriented around blood/physical stuff.

 

I think, group or otherwise, it would just be nice to be able to pick say... a personal affinity that happens to have class names to describe them, Warrior, Warlock, or whatnot and the ones available are based off your current character development at the time. That's, as I mentioned before, like Kingdoms of Amalur but less... bulk, more specific. I mean if all your doing is going heavy melee, not really varying from that path, calling your self a Warrior or Berserker if you got some rage stuff would fit, regardless of your faction. Faction could add a title infront or, or after that stuff. As an example the military again, Rank vs Job role. They refer to you as your rank, but your experience and knowledge determines what jobs you do for your squad more often then not and will often get added onto the end of the rank.

 

Hope that rambling made sense heh.

[Fromage]

See, to my mind, that's what a class is; the only link between a class and your abilities are that only people with certain abilities would be acceptable to be in a class, and society would expect someone with that class to have certain abilities. The way it currently works in most games is that the most fundemental portion of who you are in a class based game is what that class is, and yet at the same time being that class has no effect on you besides what kind of weapons and powers you can use.

 

That's why I recommend making classes more like their closest analogues in the real world; a mix of jobs and titles. I'd rather have it mean something substinative for me to be called a knight, rather then just meaning I wear heavy armor and am good with a sword.

 

This also has the benefit of making the world feel much more alive, and provides a great jumping off point for several quest lines amoung the various institutions and organizations that bestow the classes that could lead to the PC having both gross and subtle effects on the world and its balance of power, even outside the main quest (which it is my understanding is more intimate and personal in nature).

[Adhin]

Yeah, I get that, but I still it should be split up. Ultimately in an adventurer type role they'd call them selves what they feel like, why I'd like some kind of affinity class title we select outside of what we're picking to define are selves skill wise. Then also get titles from organizations you join. Basically, if the only way I can be called a Warlock is if I join a specific faction that I don't actually have any desire to join imma be a tad irritated and disapointed. If that was, however, a class title or, vocation or whatever you want to call it name I got to pick from a list of stuff had specific requirements to say, unlock that class title... I'd much prefer that.

 

I think ultimately we're just going on with semantics on what to call it at this point though. I'd like getting some kind of title from joining an organization, and I'd like to have my own title that follow normal RPG class naming that's seperate from that. Hell if I know what you'd call either of those, not sure you really have to name them but just giving the player that freedom to pick what they want to call them selves (but actually have some kind of benefit to that) would be my ideal I guess.

 

Hell maybe not really limiting them to much past some basic stuff like having warrior abilities unlocks all the (or most of) the warrior-esk titles to choose from. Though I could see some being available to specific skill sets such as taking rage like skill unlocking 'Berserker' as a self-descriptive title (with some maybe HP bonus). That's the kinda thing im hoping for anyway.

 

With all that in mind, I'd say a 'class' is the combination of your self-picked title and your organization given title. Ultimately I feel having it 100% tied to organization is to limiting and doesn't mimic RL as much as allowing the normal RPG-style self-defined class naming would allow for. There 2 seperate extremes, rather meet in the middle.

 

-edit-

As per the knight example (or templar) I think that should be an organization title. Anything that has more of a conitation to being in a group such as that should definitely be apart of a more organized guild/clan thing for sure. I'm talking about more general descriptor stuff like Adventurer or Mage.

Edited September 29, 2012 by Adhin

[Homo_erectus]

I really do not want to see prebuilt classes in this game. Give me the tools, and freedom, to build each character I play in a unique way that fits my play style or the concept for that character that I have when I start the game. I play RPGs for the characters that I make not for the characters that some (talented and good looking I'm sure) game designer came up with. Giving us the tools to develop our characters the way we each individually like them to be gives everyone the opportunity to make themselves happy.

[Methuseleh]

Classes in general - boo.

 

If you must have classes... well... don't.

 

But if you really, really, can't do without the archetypal classes, then specialty kits or evolutions take some of the sting out of being channelled.

[Adhin]

Yeah it's not about being channelled, I don't like 2nd edition style of classes. And while I like that you can pick and choose whatever at any point in 3E I'd still prefer a more free-form version of it. A 100% completely classless system always seems to result in to much sameyness for my taste, and often times lack some kind of thing to name your character whihc just always feels off to me. Skyrim, for instance, no title, no class name, even fi they had the system as is and let me pick a class name I'd be happer with it. Its stupid, it really is, but its details and flavor like that, that ultimately make things more enjoyable.

 

Kingdoms of Amalur (yeah I know i keep bringing it up, most of that games kinda boring) did a good job of having the same be a 'blank slate' and let you customize past that to make each character a bit more unique... no one could do everything but they didn't use a skill system like TES does either. I think a far more expansive system like that, with a full on attribute system like in FO or whatnot wouild do a good job of allowing that level of complexity but I 'still' want a title that I pick, for my character, that isn't tied purely to story progression of some type.

[Oner]

I dislike skill trees greatly. They look like they offer freedom in developing you character but all you do is either spend every point in one skill tree to get the strong skills, while wasting poins on weak ones you wouldn't even look at otherwise. If you want to develop into multiple trees, you get a selection of base skills and no strong ones. Hurray.

[Umberlin]

I dislike skill trees greatly. They look like they offer freedom in developing you character but all you do is either spend every point in one skill tree to get the strong skills, while wasting poins on weak ones you wouldn't even look at otherwise. If you want to develop into multiple trees, you get a selection of base skills and no strong ones. Hurray.

 

I suppose it doesn't wholly apply, but there have been skill trees where the unlock is level based, and not 'you must have this many points spent in the tree' format, allowing you to take from multiple trees as long as you meet the level requirement (others used additional requirements besides, or opposed, to level such as statistical requirements or requirements of action/exploration that beg you've found or done something in particular to unlock a given skill).

Edited September 29, 2012 by Umberlin

[Adhin]

a super restrictive skill tree always kinda bugs me I just use skill tree as a means to say a tab or skills or group of stuff. Doesn't have to be linked up, simple level requirement for them would be more then enough.

[Oner]

I dislike skill trees greatly. They look like they offer freedom in developing you character but all you do is either spend every point in one skill tree to get the strong skills, while wasting poins on weak ones you wouldn't even look at otherwise. If you want to develop into multiple trees, you get a selection of base skills and no strong ones. Hurray.

 

I suppose it doesn't wholly apply, but there have been skill trees where the unlock is level based, and not 'you must have this many points spent in the tree' format, allowing you to take from multiple trees as long as you meet the level requirement (others used additional requirements besides, or opposed, to level such as statistical requirements or requirements of action/exploration that beg you've found or done something in particular to unlock a given skill).

What you're describing sound like tiered skills, not trees, but fair enough. I still prefer freely selectable skills that are all equally useful.

I don't even know how tiered/tree'd skills are supposed to work here. This is a tactical game, not a rougelike.

[Umberlin]

I dislike skill trees greatly. They look like they offer freedom in developing you character but all you do is either spend every point in one skill tree to get the strong skills, while wasting poins on weak ones you wouldn't even look at otherwise. If you want to develop into multiple trees, you get a selection of base skills and no strong ones. Hurray.

 

I suppose it doesn't wholly apply, but there have been skill trees where the unlock is level based, and not 'you must have this many points spent in the tree' format, allowing you to take from multiple trees as long as you meet the level requirement (others used additional requirements besides, or opposed, to level such as statistical requirements or requirements of action/exploration that beg you've found or done something in particular to unlock a given skill).

What you're describing sound like tiered skills, not trees, but fair enough. I still prefer freely selectable skills that are all equally useful.

I don't even know how tiered/tree'd skills are supposed to work here.

 

The games in question still described and presented them as trees, so that's the language I used.

 

This is a tactical game, not a rougelike.

 

And that's why you won't be able 'freely selectable skills that are all equally useful.' Just look at the oldschool games PE is pulling from. They all had limiters in terms of how you could acquire different skills, abilities and feats where applicable.

[Galdegir]

You know its not about class skill tress but then I think about it would be cool for spells to have levels. I'm mean lets say im playing as a mage and my element is fire. I have a tree of spells that I can chose from, ech time a level up a get a point that a am able to spent on a spell. So lets say the first spell I choose is fireball. So i have a fireball at level one but then I get another point to spent I can buy another spell lets say fire arrow or I can spent that point on my fireball spell to increase its level. It could be a little bit like torchlight and so on. So let say that fireball at level one would be a little fireball that hits just one enemy and on level 5 it would be a huge fireball shoot from two hands that is AOE. That way then playing a magic caster the player would have a choice of chosing and upgraiding the spells he or she want.

[Oner]

This is a tactical game, not a rougelike.

 

And that's why you won't be able 'freely selectable skills that are all equally useful.' Just look at the oldschool games PE is pulling from. They all had limiters in terms of how you could acquire different skills, abilities and feats where applicable.

I don't know where you got this from. Neither IE game had a Traps tree for thieves where you could buy spike/flame/magic traps for use or anything similar.

[Leferd]

Keep the classes distinct and generic.

 

I am under the assumption that this game will be a relatively low level adventure ala Baldur's Gate, with sequels that will further level up the characters to "epic" goodness. Introduce further specializations and sub-classes then.

 

For right now, Tim and Josh should concentrate in making the basic classes fun and balanced. Introduce too many variables and you will approach feature creep. Not good when dealing with a modest budget.

[Umberlin]

This is a tactical game, not a rougelike.

 

And that's why you won't be able 'freely selectable skills that are all equally useful.' Just look at the oldschool games PE is pulling from. They all had limiters in terms of how you could acquire different skills, abilities and feats where applicable.

I don't know where you got this from. Neither IE game had a Traps tree for thieves where you could buy spike/flame/magic traps for use or anything similar.

 

Neither IE game? Are you under the impression there were only two?

 

I'm sorry . . . but I think you must have either quoted me by accident, or seriously misread what I wrote. I'm not talking about some trap skill you pick out of a skill tree. I'm talking about abilities/skills/etc unlocked via leveling, that had requirements. For instance a Sorcerer wasn't ever going to learn and use Meteor Swarm at level 1, there were limiters and requirements. So unless you think all forms of limitated advancement in an RPG are a skill tree . . . I have no idea why you're acting like I was talking about a skill tree.

 

You didn't have freely selectable skills abilities and feats. Some were more open than others, certainly, but many had small requirements while others had bigger ones or absolute limiters even in some cases. And that's why you won't have 'freely selectable skills that are all equally useful.' Just look at the oldschool games PE is pulling from. They all had limiters in terms of how you could acquire different skills, abilities and feats where applicable.

 

Let's look at that again:

 

"And that's why you won't have 'freely selectable skills that are all equally useful.' Just look at the oldschool games PE is pulling from. They all had limiters in terms of how you could acquire different skills, abilities and feats where applicable."

 

Where there, exactly, do I suggest the old IE games had you going down a dungeon crawler style skill tree? Because I didn't. Nor did I mean to. Nor have I ever suggested I'd want that only point out in a devil's advocate manner that skill trees come in more types than was suggested in an earlier post. Which is true. Skill trees come in many types and how open or closed they are is purely a mark of the Developer's intent.

Edited September 29, 2012 by Umberlin

[Oner]

Neither IE game? Are you under the impression there were only two?

Eh, 'none' would've been the right word, my bad.

 

Where there, exactly, do I suggest the old IE games had you going down a dungeon crawler style skill tree?

In the title. Skill trees are the tree shaped skill progression systems found in games like Diablo and Torchlight.

What you are talking about are the feats of DnD, which is fine, but don't call them skills then, because the skills in DnD don't work like that. At least in 3rd Ed they didn't, don't know the fourth.

[Adhin]

Argueing name of a skill or talent or trait, perk, whatever is just semantics. They get named whatever they get named on a game by game basis. And, ultimately, General feats in DnD are actually setup like a skill tree they just simply aren't represented like one. Though you could easily map them out that way if you so choose to. Granted 'Skill Tree' makes it seem like it'll have a start point and all branch out into a single direction but again that's simply graphical semantics. DA2 had 'skill webs' since they tended to be relteively cirular but that's still a skill tree. Any system that has skills, or talents, or feats orwhatever the hell you feel the need to classify them as, once those have requirements involving others of there like you can put it to a tree or web or whatever.

 

Pretty much every DnD based RPG thus far hasn't though, they just list them out in just that, a list. It's easier given the sheer volume of it all. And as far as infinity games only one to allow any real character customization outside of attributes was IWD2 which used 3.5 rules. DId a pretty damn good job of it to with in an infinity engine.

[Jhonrock]

I like the idea of subclass within the class, but it must have some logic in it. A Cleric becoming a druid? A fighter becoming a dark knight? A rogue becoming a ranger? The subclass should make sense within the main class role.

 

Cleric > Holy Priest or Dark Priest.

Fighter > Warrior (heavy weapons specialist?) or Duelist (light weapons and firearms specialist?) or Gladiator (dual wielding specialist?).

Rogue > Assassin (stealth and sneak specialist) or "Can't-think-in-a-name" (traps and such).

Paladin > Holy Knight or Dark Knight.

Wizard > Necromancer or Elementalist or Illusionist.

 

 

I really like the idea of subclasses, it turns the game much more fun and tactical.

Edited September 29, 2012 by Jhonrock

[Homo_erectus]

Skill tree's are particularly annoying. The reasons why have been covered by other posters.

 

Honestly, I think a system like Arcanum's would be great. I'm sure a lot of people here have played it but for those that haven't, there are four areas you can spend points to develop your character, base stats (STR, INT, etc including health and mana) , skills (physical stuff like fighting, lock picking, bartering, etc), technology and magic. Of those, technology and magic are mutually exclusive. Within the skills, tech and magic sections there are like 20 choices at the lowest level and each one can be upgraded which offers new skills.

 

The practical outcome of this system is that you can make any type of character you want, except a magic using technologist (which is a core conceit of the game world). This system lets you build a unique character as you play. You don't pick a class when you create your character, you chose your base stats and character history.

 

Ultimately I want the character system to give me the freedom to explore and discover how I want to play my characters as I go through the game. I do not want to have to pick between a limited number of predefined classes which forces me to play the game the way the class designer intended it be played.

[Oner]

Argueing name of a skill or talent or trait, perk, whatever is just semantics.

*sigh* We're not arguing about the name. The point is the title was misleading and that lead to miscommunication.

[Umberlin]

In the title.

 

I didn't create the title.

 

Skill trees are the tree shaped skill progression systems found in games like Diablo and Torchlight.

 

Skill trees come in more flavor and variety than what those to present, which was what I said earlier.

 

What you are talking about are the feats of DnD, which is fine, but don't call them skills then, because the skills in DnD don't work like that. At least in 3rd Ed they didn't, don't know the fourth.

 

I called the things you select multiple things, skills were but one of them, which do have limiters and requirements and even total lock outs depending on various factors ranging from class to level and so on. For example, just one example, only being able to raise a skill so much due to limitations put on you by level or class. I also mentioned feats as well as spells (and more). My point was very simple and easy to follow, that the limiters put on you by skill trees (say Diablo) are no more suffocating than the limiters put on you by a D&D like system (a sorcerer only being able to learn a limited number of spells total for example, or the Wizard who can learn more being limited in casts and by what they can foresee), or any other system, because the limiters need to be there.

 

There are exceptions that do let you pick literally anything, say Skyrim, but . . . heh . . . your "This is a tactical game" really doesn't apply to games like that. If we're talking a game that actually requires a tactical approach, like a well run D&D game, then . . . you have limiters and lock outs all over the place. On skills. On feats. On spells. On what weapons you can use. On armor classes. On all sorts of things. Statistical requirements. Skill and feat and spell level requirements for a prestige class, and more. And so much more.

 

The limiters are everywhere. Going back to this:

 

'freely selectable skills that are all equally useful.'

 

That does not apply to a tactical D&D like system where plenty of limiters rightly prevent 'free selection' of such things. Not that we even know what sort of system we'll be using yet, but if it is meant to be akin to the old IE games . . . expect limiters, because those are one of the many factors in such games that make you take a step back and think about what you're doing, plan, think tactically.

Edited September 29, 2012 by Umberlin

[Vampero]

I would want sub-classes it lets you get more choices on how you want to fight !