Limiting Combat Roles by Class

[Sylvius the Mad]

This isn't a feature I generally like. I think classes should be designed to make sense within the setting, and then the players can work out how they want to use those classes together as an effective group.

 

For example, in D&D-based games many different classes can adequately fill the role of front-line warrior, including some non-warrior classes like Clerics. They might not all be as good at acting like a front-line warrior as a Fighter is, but that can be compensated for with the rest of the group.

 

Similarly, in DAO a character of any class could fill that front-line warrior role. Warriors, obviously, did well, but Rogues and Mages could both, depending how they were built, do the same (Rogues were arguably better at it).

 

The tendency, which I mostly blame on MMOs, to force each class into a specific combat role is something that I think harms the coherence of the game's setting. Class abilities should not be so narrow as to appear obviously designed.

 

So I'm very much hoping that Project Eternity will not rigidly define classes by their intended roles in combat.

[Ieo]

This isn't a feature I generally like. I think classes should be designed to make sense within the setting, and then the players can work out how they want to use those classes together as an effective group.

 

For example, in D&D-based games many different classes can adequately fill the role of front-line warrior, including some non-warrior classes like Clerics. They might not all be as good at acting like a front-line warrior as a Fighter is, but that can be compensated for with the rest of the group.

 

Similarly, in DAO a character of any class could fill that front-line warrior role. Warriors, obviously, did well, but Rogues and Mages could both, depending how they were built, do the same (Rogues were arguably better at it).

 

The tendency, which I mostly blame on MMOs, to force each class into a specific combat role is something that I think harms the coherence of the game's setting. Class abilities should not be so narrow as to appear obviously designed.

 

So I'm very much hoping that Project Eternity will not rigidly define classes by their intended roles in combat.

 

Well, given the development pedigree and the intended target audience, I don't think Obsidian is considering MMO "roles" in place of the traditional D&D "roles" with which the IE players are familiar...

 

Still, it's a good thing for Obsidian to keep in mind while developing their companions+classes--there should be some flexibility in implementation, because with the limited number of companions on the board, being stuck with "ideal" combat groups can greatly decrease the combinations of companions we might want to have around for storytelling purposes.

 

This is also a good argument for multiclass/hybridization--in the MMO, to not be pigeonholed in a pure combat role, and in SP games to allow flexibility alongside my chosen companions, whether or not our companions themselves could be re-classed (e.g. so many people dual-classed Imoen to mage).

[FlintlockJazz]

Aye, the rise of the 'Holy Trinity' (Tank, DPS, Healer) is something I hate to see. If there is 'aggro' as well (which DAO used, the heavier your armour the more aggro you caused) and cooldowns in a game then I tend to be put off. It's not something I want to see in a SP game.

[metiman]

I don't undestand what you are asking. I played WoW for a couple of weeks before I got completely bored with it. I don't remember anything special about the classes. How do games actually stop you from using an inappropriate class as a warrior or whatever? People soloed mages and sorcerers and maybe even thieves in BG2, althought it was a lot easier if you somewhat cheated and used a dual class character. So it was possible to play without a warrior/tank of any kind. In fact it could be fun, although it was certainly difficult.

[Infinitron]

Well, I'm pretty sure mages were more "limited" in D&D than in any MMO...especially at low levels.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Infinitron

[TrashMan]

I don't undestand what you are asking. I played WoW for a couple of weeks before I got completely bored with it. I don't remember anything special about the classes. How do games actually stop you from using an inappropriate class as a warrior or whatever? People soloed mages and sorcerers and maybe even thieves in BG2, althought it was a lot easier if you somewhat cheated and used a dual class character. So it was possible to play without a warrior/tank of any kind. In fact it could be fun, although it was certainly difficult.

 

It often hapens that classes are made for one role and one role only.

From class design, skills and feats avilalbe to them and so on they are almost pidgeon-holed into one role and it's hard to get away from that. People start roleplaying a class, and not a character.

This severely limits roleplaying options.

[Sensuki]

Being DotA player I'd hate to see the 'holy trinity' as previously mentioned, seep into a cRPG like this (tank, carry, support).

[Caerdon]

It's usually a bad thing when class synergy has to be specifically programmed in. I vehemently disliked DA:O's explicit aggro system. It felt like I'm mind-cotrolling my opponents.

[Adhin]

Yeah, as far as I'm concerned DnD invented it, and then broke it with 3E. 3E is a very, very good platform to looking at how to do things. Think one of many games have a habit of ignoring that... frankly seeing a mildly more (then heavily more) Diablo item system in DAO/DA2 was... saddening to me. Either case I fully agree though I still want classes to exist. But I kinda went into that heavily in another thread about sub-classes. They should exist, but they should be mallable.

 

If warrior is there 'tank' class, it should be the best at it, but by a small-sih margin and others should be pliable into that role. Hell you can make tank-mages in 3E. Granted that usually involves 'some' fighter or something close. Clerics can pull off that front-line fighter extremely well as previously stated by OP. Then you got skills being more universal. Yeah rogues where best at picking locks and disarming traps, but for 90% of the stuff, any class could handle it if they went that route.

 

Personally I love the ephasis 3E brought to your character in relation to other versions, and other RPG's for that matter. The feats you picked and your class combination (if any) ultimately had a giant impact on who you where. As much as I love 2ne edition, it lacks that in extreme quantities.

 

-edit-

Ahh, as per an 'aggro' system its a cRPG thing since a DM or, well, a human isn't behind the enemies. Also position can mean less, even if your physically able to block the monsters. You often lack stuff like grapples handled properltyy or the ability to keep a monster or person at bay with a shield or weapon. Hell even ToEE didn't do that in full and it had a ton of those rules in place. When you lack that level of controle and detail PnP provides in controlling stuff, you ultimately need another system to manage it.

 

That's where the whole 'hate management' stuff came into the picture. Most Infinity engine games just used basic AI that had them attack the nearest enemy. Everyonce in awhile you'd get certain opponents that had more directed stuff like 'attack ranged' or mages, or would go after priest classes. But... most of the time it was just the nearest dude, and if you had your formation right, that was your front-lines.

 

It works out to near the same, and ultiamtely if somethings on your mage you run it by your Front-lines so they go after that once you go past them. Having a 'taunt' or 'aggro' based off armor class or class type is just a bit more automated of a system that's WAY more apparent to 'everyone'. Not really sure which one I like better to be honest.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Adhin

[eimatshya]

From what Tim Cain said in update 12, it sounds like they are planning for the classes to dictate combat role, at least to some extent. Still, it would be nice to see some more flexibility in the system.

[norolim]

Yes, this is very important, Obsidian. If classes are designed specifically to play the roles of tanks, DPS and healers, it will significantly limit tactical choices and group management options. It's a good idea in case of MMOs, which have simplified character customisation and combat mechanics. But PE, I hope, is not planned as a simplified RPG. I really hope so.

[Knott]

I hate to repeat myself, but with all these different topics for the same thing it seems unavoidable.

The worst possible thing they can do with classes (besides locking them to a certain mindset/morals) is to lock them into a certain stereotypical fighting style and putting up weapon restrictions.

 

Why must a ranger always be sterotyped into using a bow or forced to dualwield? Who says spellcasters can only use staves or daggers?

And why must we be severely punished by disproportional costs should we ever dare to be creative?

[Merin]

This just feels like a 3E vs. balance argument again.

 

People who like 3E like character creation freedom. They don't like limits on what they can make They love multi-classing, min/maxing, and using skills and such in unique and unusual ways.

 

This isn't wrong - but it does cause a problem for game balance.

 

Since they chose to go with classes, I have to believe that balance and clearly defined roles are exactly what they want. They have said as much, I remember specifically in the Reddit questions that Tim Cain answered.

 

And since they are looking to balance things, especially for tactical choices with companions and such, classes being built for specific roles seems like a no-brainer. They are doing it.

 

---

 

Outside of this, while the terms like tank and such came out of RTS and MUD's (sorry, they existed before MMO's, guys... the terms for the roles, at least), the concepts are older. D&D, the very beginnings, you had front line combatant, support, ranged, flankers, and artillery. Yes, magic items gave some leeway on some things, and spell selection in particular, but the concept of specifically trained people filling specific roles is how militaries work....

 

Phalanx soldiers weren't also archers. Skirmish troops weren't used to absorb initial charges. Heavy cavalry didn't hold back to fire trebuchets.

 

I am not a fan of MMO's, but in this concern all they did was codify and focus on what already existed.

 

You can even see this in most classic super-hero teams -

 

Justice League: Superman, Wonder Woman - your bricks; Batman, Aquaman - your flankers; Flash - your skirmisher, Green Lantern - your artillery; Maritan Manhunter - support.

Fantastic Four: Human Torch - artillery; Invisible Girl - support; Mr. Fantastic - skirmisher; Thing - brick

X-Men: Angel - skirmisher; Beast - brick; Cyclops - artillery; Iceman, Marvel Girl - support.

 

Did they mix it up for a good story? Sure... but they clearly had roles in the field.

 

It's kind of archetypal. How many fantasy stories do you read about wizards going toe to toe with barbarians? How many thieves or archers? How many stories are the barbarians in back, covering the backs of others or tending the wounded? I'm sure there are exceptions out there (or you can pick the odd occasions like Robin Hood and John Little having their quarterstaff match) but, for the most part, these "roles" really existed before MMO's.

[Baudolino05]

Frankly, if you're worried about tactical depth, you're looking in the wrong place. Having more than a path to develop your class it's about strategy, not tactics. Of course having options in character development is good, but when it comes to combat it's not the point. The point is building your game not around godamn "sacrad trinities" or "agro bul****s", but around real tactical concepts like area control and synergies between units, and you can have both with any class system (or, of course, without classes).

[Labadal]

I want the companions' classes to reflect their personalities. They would obviously still have to fit some sort of role in combat, but it would be interesting if Obsidian tried to do it this way. I don't want a companion to have a personality and then I see his/her class and it doesn't make sense.

[SirMonkeyMonk]

I don't mind at all if classes have specific roles in combat, but I dislike it when there are a lot of required roles. I understand a healer is very useful and someone who can deal with traps as well, which more or less forces you to take a cleric and a rogue into your party.

 

Rogues, no matter how combat orientated, should never become tougher than the strongest fighter. One guy is simply more trained to stand on the frontline. However a party full of rogues should be able to become a deadly combination, just like a "balanced" team. They would just need different tactics. In a lot of cRPG I wanted to try to play with all rogues or at least a stealth party, but this usually is a bad idea. I do have hope this will be less the case in P:E, especially because they said you will often have a non-combat route as well.

[rjshae]

Specialized roles create more interesting tactics. It's like the infantry-armor-artillery trifecta in modern combat. I like having distinctly different specializations and hope they don't wash it down too much.

[Rabain]

If the game is going to be soloable (as we heard from Josh Sawyer previously) then I'd assume Tim's recent Reddit response is basically clarifying the reason for using a class based system and not specifically saying you will be pigeon holed by your class.

 

For example if you want to play a mage you can perfectly fine finish the game as a mage on your own. If you choose to bring a full party then you might want a tanking character, just like you would have done in BG you pick up an npc to tank for your mage.

 

I don't see what the big deal is here, we all know how hard or easy it is to play any class in the IE games and what 6 character party composition is like. Tank using a cleric with appropriate spells selected, dps with a rogue or mage, heal with a druid. There are plenty of combinations and knowing which character you might aim to pick up when you decide to play as a bow-wielding rogue is useful and by no means limits your ability to play that rogue.

[Sylvius the Mad]

It's usually a bad thing when class synergy has to be specifically programmed in. I vehemently disliked DA:O's explicit aggro system. It felt like I'm mind-cotrolling my opponents.

While that was a bit silly, it wasn't tied to class. A character of any class could wear heavier armour and draw more attention.

 

DAO is an example of a game that doesn't limit combat roles by class. The BG games don't, either. If you want to build a party around Viconia and 5 wizards, you can do that, and the party can still be effective.

[Sylvius the Mad]

This just feels like a 3E vs. balance argument again.

 

People who like 3E like character creation freedom. They don't like limits on what they can make They love multi-classing, min/maxing, and using skills and such in unique and unusual ways.

Yes. Building characters in new and different and interesting ways is fun.

This isn't wrong - but it does cause a problem for game balance.

Balance isn't something I think the game designers should really spend much time on, specifically since I don't want scaled content either. If the content isn't scaled, then Obsidian is already not in control of balance.

Since they chose to go with classes, I have to believe that balance and clearly defined roles are exactly what they want. They have said as much, I remember specifically in the Reddit questions that Tim Cain answered.

We might be reading too much into his specific word choice. As such, I think it's valuable to raise the question of roles-by-class explicitly.

And since they are looking to balance things, especially for tactical choices with companions and such, classes being built for specific roles seems like a no-brainer. They are doing it.

But without that many companion characters, that risks limiting players to just a handful of viable party constructions.

[happyelf]

If you want tactics, then you want roles, even if classes aren't locked into them.

[Merin]

And since they are looking to balance things, especially for tactical choices with companions and such, classes being built for specific roles seems like a no-brainer. They are doing it.

But without that many companion characters, that risks limiting players to just a handful of viable party constructions.

 

I think we are kind of at that. Even with all the stretch goals we've reached we have 5 companion slots and 7 potential companions. That's with the two additional companions from the stretches, so originally we would have had JUST enough to fill out the party. Unless I'm really misreading stuff.

 

You have 5 companions plus your MC. Initially there were 5 classes, but now there are 2 more. That implies 1 companion of each class - and they've also said that each companion is of a different class, so yeah. You ARE limited in your options - the only clear way to get two of one class in the party is when you make your MC.

 

You get to shuffle around 2 slots out of 5 now, really. It'll be like most BioWare games post BG2 for me - replayability is hurt by the limited number of companion combinations (which was only kept at all fresh by limiting it to 2 or 3 your can bring with you (or 1, in Jade Empire.)

 

Digressing a bit there - anywho... we were very limited, but two stretch goals have given us some options.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think we are kind of at that. Even with all the stretch goals we've reached we have 5 companion slots and 7 potential companions. That's with the two additional companions from the stretches, so originally we would have had JUST enough to fill out the party. Unless I'm really misreading stuff.

 

You have 5 companions plus your MC. Initially there were 5 classes, but now there are 2 more. That implies 1 companion of each class - and they've also said that each companion is of a different class, so yeah. You ARE limited in your options - the only clear way to get two of one class in the party is when you make your MC.

Right, but if the classes are not restricted to specific roles, then we still have some party construction options. Even if there were only 5 companions, so a full party always had the same 5 people plus the PC, we could still have some tanks or no tanks, or some ranged DPS or no ranged DPS, or some crowd-control or no crowd-control.

 

But if the classes are limited to just their intended role, then that party of the same 5 people is always going to be basically the same party. That's no fun.

It'll be like most BioWare games post BG2 for me - replayability is hurt by the limited number of companion combinations (which was only kept at all fresh by limiting it to 2 or 3 your can bring with you (or 1, in Jade Empire.)

But look at how much more limiting DAO would have been if only Alistair could tank, or if Wynne was always a healer.

 

One related problem that pops up in a lot of modern games (DA2 does it) is encounter design always favouring a specific distribution of roles within the party, but I'm just going to assume Obsidian isn't going to do that, because it's crazy. But based on Tim's responses to the Reddit questions, I now think this question warrants asking.

[ddillon]

But without that many companion characters, that risks limiting players to just a handful of viable party constructions.

 

I think we are kind of at that. Even with all the stretch goals we've reached we have 5 companion slots and 7 potential companions. That's with the two additional companions from the stretches, so originally we would have had JUST enough to fill out the party. Unless I'm really misreading stuff.

 

You have 5 companions plus your MC. Initially there were 5 classes, but now there are 2 more. That implies 1 companion of each class - and they've also said that each companion is of a different class, so yeah. You ARE limited in your options - the only clear way to get two of one class in the party is when you make your MC.

 

You get to shuffle around 2 slots out of 5 now, really. It'll be like most BioWare games post BG2 for me - replayability is hurt by the limited number of companion combinations (which was only kept at all fresh by limiting it to 2 or 3 your can bring with you (or 1, in Jade Empire.)

 

Digressing a bit there - anywho... we were very limited, but two stretch goals have given us some options.

 

And that is one of many reasons that we should have optional IWD/ToEE-style party creation in addition to the confirmed PS:T/BG-style companions.

 

---

 

@everyone:

 

Vote for the option to create as many custom party members as desired if you haven't yet:

 

http://forums.obsidi...on-bgiwd-style/

(a good poll)

 

http://forums.obsidi...ble-companions/

(a biased and misleading poll, but can still vote for the "both" option there)

 

http://forums.obsidi...rafted-parties/

(the best poll, but locked by moderator)

 

Or discuss it here:

 

http://forums.obsidi...lus-companions/

Edited October 1, 2012 by ddillon

[PsychoBlonde]

This isn't a feature I generally like. I think classes should be designed to make sense within the setting, and then the players can work out how they want to use those classes together as an effective group.

 

For example, in D&D-based games many different classes can adequately fill the role of front-line warrior, including some non-warrior classes like Clerics. They might not all be as good at acting like a front-line warrior as a Fighter is, but that can be compensated for with the rest of the group.

 

I generally prefer this sort of system as well, so your fighter can be a frontline melee by picking up a sword and heavy armor, whereas your cleric does it with buffs, your wizard by turning into a lich, and your rogue by having some ridiculous dodge. All the classes have distinct roles in the sense that there are benefits and drawbacks to each approach to the "role". Fighters soak damage. Clerics can heal their own injuries. The wizard drains health off slain foes. The rogue tries to avoid getting hit in the first place.

 

What I also like is when different fights put you in the situation of having different characters assume different roles. When you're fighting lots of little enemies, the cleric can dispatch them in melee, but when it comes to a single large enemy, he needs to stand off and heal while putting his buffs on your fighter instead of himself. The fighter might switch to a bow. The wizard will burn spells like there's no tomorrow.

 

This, I like. I don't much like it when the ONLY possible type of wizard is the "glass cannon" and so forth.