Jump to content

Subclasses, Barbarians, Paladins and backgrounds


Recommended Posts

Yes, right, so...

 

 

They keep wanting to add more classes, and that makes me wonder how the subclasses will work, and how much of

a difference playing a subclass will make as opposed to playing the vanilla class.

 

If we take the Fighter as an example;

 

They want to add Barbarians as a stretchgoal. Now, how different will a barbarian actually play compared to a fighter?

I'm sure they will add some nice twists to it to differentiate it, but I think a better option would be to make barbarians

a subclass of the Fighter. And while on that point, rename it to Berserker, because that is essentially what they are.

 

Barbarian to me is a cultural background. Not all barbarians would be fighters. There could be Barbarian Hunters/Rangers, Barbarian Druids/Shaman, Barbarian Rogues.... and Barbarian Warriors. Most likely not Wizards though. And possibly not Priests.

 

So add *Barbarian* as a cultural background/subrace instead, which I was under the impression we'd get to pick.

A pc with the Barbarian background could gain bonuses to some physical attributes, due to their ruggedness, and a bonus to Wilderness Lore, if that is in, while recieving penalties to maybe intelligence, charisma and speechcraft, or something.

Much like how Arcanum handled it, in fact.

 

 

Right, enough about that!

 

 

 

Seems a lot of people want Paladins as well. But when you get down to it, they are merely fighters (which are in the game)

with a strict moral code (which can be RP'ed) and holy abilities acquired through their faith.

 

 

Now, on to my idea for how subclasses could work.

 

 

Take the Paladin for an example. Say you start out creating a normal fighter. Through your travels, you come across a Holy Warrior (Paladin) whom you engage in conversation with. You become interested in his order, and ask how you might join.

He directs you to their closest Temple/Church/Chapel, or wherever it is Holy Warriors (Paladins) hang out, and you thank him and head off to pay it a visit.

 

When you arrive, you inquire about joining, and after some preaching and whatnot are to undergo initiation.

Upon completion, you join their ranks as a bottom-rank Holy Warrior (Paladin), and recieve a few new special abilities tied to this, along with restrictions (to balance things out a bit).

You have to follow the teachings and the Code, and in doing so, gain more favour from the God of your faith. You may rise through the ranks, and as you keep cementing your dedication, your God grant you additional abilities and enhance old ones.

 

Of course, mess up, and you lose favor along with abilities. Should you "fall" or simply choose to leave the Order, you lose all abilities and revert to being a normal fighter again. Free to steal, threaten, bully and intimidate as much as you want again.

 

This way, you would be free to switch careers with your Fighter, or just stay vanilla, if you wish.

 

 

Not really sure what other "subclasses" would work with a system like this... Berserkers, maybe.

 

To become one, you'd have to find and bond with an animal spirit (with the guidance of a mentor). Then have to sort of... increase the strength of the bond, by making the spirit "happy", for lack of a better word. The spirit might be uneasy in towns, cities, and you might lose favour with it the longer you stay around these areas, whereas being in the wild, hunting and killing things pleases it.

A stronger bond makes it easier to drawn forth the spirit and enter the Berserker rage, and maybe increase the duration while reducing the fatigue that comes after.

Displease it enough, and maybe it will wrest control from you and lash out at everything around, including allies, or simply leave, robbing you of your Berserker abilities.

 

Just trying to convey my thoughts how the system could work, here...

 

Of course, there would be subclasses for the other classes as well, not just Fighters, I hope you understand :p

 

 

I might also add that with this system, abilities gained from your subclass would grow in strength independently from your

main class. So, RP your subclass, and you are rewarded.

 

 

I realize this is very different from how subclasses/kits worked in the IE games.

Just think this system could be very rewarding and flexible. Not sure what class you want to play, just that it's some kind of

fighter? You get to play the world and see what subclass might interest you, or switch if you want.

 

 

Of course, to play a subclass from start, if you know what you want to play and really feel like an established adventurer, you should be able to pick subclass at character creation. Just start the subclass at lowest rank. You can still switch if you want to change later, with this system.

 

 

 

 

Sorry for a slightly chaotic post. Hope it's somewhat coherent. Really want to hear your thoughts!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I like your idea of becoming a Paladin or a Berserker, but in my opinion neither the Paladin nor the Berserk are Fighter subclasses.

 

I would expect a subclass to be something like a BG2 kit. For example a Swashbuckler. It's a Rogue who gives up its sneak damage to get a Fighters BAB. Such rules are easy to implement and do not change the general layout of the class, but allow a fine tuning what the player wants to do.

 

On the other hand, the Paladin.

 

Let's look at some Dungeon and Dragons cRPGs. In IWD a the Paladin renounced any reward. In BG2 you could become a Fallen Paladin if your reputation went below a threshold. In NWN2 you could loose your lawful good alignment, thus preventing you from taking any more Paladin levels, due to an alignment shift in conversation or due to actions taken.

 

Also you would expect the NPC crowd to react differently if they're approached by a trustfully Paladin instead of a sturdy Fighter, wouldn't you?

 

Also, what's about items, weapons or armor restricted to Paladins, like a Holy Avenger sword? If Paladin is a sub class only you have to add sub class based restrictions (or maybe feat based restrictions), which will increase the complexity of the game, instead of class based restrictions.

 

Summarising, this clealy breaks, in my humble opinion, the idea of a Paladin beeing a Fighter sub class,

 

Please note, that I do not want to say, it's not possible to implement the Paladin as a Fighter sub class. But that it will become as costly as implementing a class on its own.

 

Same holds true for the Barbarian. I do want to get treated differently than a Fighter. Maybe I do get some druid spells, like the Ranger in D&D, maybe the ability to rage, maybe some better ways to survive in the wilderness (hunting, tracking), maybe some special armor (I really like barbarous looking fur armor) and so on. Well, if being a Barbarian boils down to raging only, than I would agree to you, implement him as a Fighter sub class called Berserker.

 

 

Edited: Fixed wording.

Edited by Raedwulf
Link to post
Share on other sites

Berserker not a subclass to fighter? It was a fighter kit in BG2, as far as I can recall.

A berserker, in my own very personal opinion, is a fighter with a twist. A fighter with some, I'd say, shamanistic powers.

 

As for the Paladin...

 

I'd rather not see Paladins in PE. At least not by that name. Call them something else, unique to the Eternity world, if they must be in.

I'd say priests, no matter what, are not primarily trained to fight with weapons. I'd say they take the role of a medium more, channeling the divine

powers through their body to heal, or banish demons or whatever, whereas Paladins are imbued with the Holy power to strengthen their martial abilities

against the evil powers. I dunno, something like that. Paladins being the soldiers of their faith. Or something...

 

 

Regardless, this thread isn't so much about what subclasses to include, but rather about the system I'm suggesting.

The system would work for some subclasses, but others might be a bit of a stretch, and would probably be better off with their own main class.

 

 

 

The whole point would be that you'd gain these extra abilities and restrictions, and NPC's and the world would recognize it and comment on it, where applicable.

 

Think of it as the kits from BG2, only woven through the world and narrative instead. Or a bit like the guilds from TES.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, since they already got the "barbarians" they could always tie the paladin as an opposite soldier of an empire a la Roman empire.

I'd say the answer to that question is kind of like the answer to "who's the sucker in this poker game?"*

 

*If you can't tell, it's you. ;)

village_idiot.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my mind a class should represent a distinct function on the battlefield and during the course of gameplay.

 

In a world without absolute moral considerations, imposed by an alignment system, is a paladin still distinct enough to call a "class?" Their role in a fight is that of a fighter with some lesser priestly powers and some special abilities directly tied to fighting "evil." Take away the notion of absolute good and evil and you're left with a class that sits right smack dab between the priest and the fighter.

 

I'm not really for or against Paladins being included in the game, but in other similar discussions, my contention has been that if they are in the game, Paladinhood should be something proved through deeds in a quest-line, not something that is handed to you at the time of character creation -- it's a title in my mind, not a distinct "class."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless, this thread isn't so much about what subclasses to include, but rather about the system I'm suggesting.

The system would work for some subclasses, but others might be a bit of a stretch, and would probably be better off with their own main class.

 

I'm not talking about which classes or sub classes to include, too. I'm talking about game mechanics, player expectations and the most limiting factor... money.

 

Just by calling a class a sub class you're not saving money.

 

And, as said before, if being a Barbarian boils down to raging only, than I would agree to you, implement him as a Fighter sub class called Berserker.

 

In my mind a class should represent a distinct function on the battlefield and during the course of gameplay.

 

There's life aside the battle field, isn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think subclasses are a good idea; races are going to be subdivided so I don't see why they couldn't apply the same to the classes to allow for even more diversity. At the same time, with cultural and racial diversity already being options it's probably something that should only be implemented if they have the resources and time to make a good job of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my mind a class should represent a distinct function on the battlefield and during the course of gameplay.

 

In a world without absolute moral considerations, imposed by an alignment system, is a paladin still distinct enough to call a "class?" Their role in a fight is that of a fighter with some lesser priestly powers and some special abilities directly tied to fighting "evil." Take away the notion of absolute good and evil and you're left with a class that sits right smack dab between the priest and the fighter.

 

I'm not really for or against Paladins being included in the game, but in other similar discussions, my contention has been that if they are in the game, Paladinhood should be something proved through deeds in a quest-line, not something that is handed to you at the time of character creation -- it's a title in my mind, not a distinct "class."

 

Why not? I don't see a problem. Sicne good and evil are (according to you) subjective, then so is the existence of absolute good or evil.

How exaclty does that prevent a paladin-like (or templar-like) class to exist?

* YOU ARE A WRONGULARITY FROM WHICH NO RIGHT CAN ESCAPE! *

Chuck Norris was wrong once - He thought HE made a mistake!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It always bothered me that paladins were restricted to being lawful good; why couldn't they have been a fanatically religious warrior of any religion bearing in mind not all relgions have good intentions? I like nikolokolus's idea of becoming a palidin being more titular than anything, as without knowledge of the in game relgions saying you're a relgious fanatic becomes a bit spurious. Then again, they have priests as a definite class so the logic of this falls apart somewhat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because Paladin, as a name, title, invokes something more then 'religion zealot' for that, look for Templar. It's one reason I tend to rename 'paladin' to templar in majority of stuff as it's far more malable to be any number of things including Paladin-like. Paladin, however, comes with it a very specific line of thinking. For example, you wouldn't name something a 'Death Knight' or 'Baby Eater' and get pissy if you couldn't play one who was the noblest of spirits.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paladin

http://dictionary.re...wse/Paladin?s=t

 

Paladin is supposed to be the enbodiment of noble blah blah, goody blah, Lawful Good SOB. I don't really like the class as it's to restrictive with in that. So, yeah, if they go and add that in, I'd prefer they call it a Templar. But then I kinda feel like there priest class is already going to fill that role. In a sense, Cleric in DnD already fill that role. Cleric with a few fighter lvls (or no fighter lvls) can already do majority of the stuff a paladin can do just as well... minus the RP flavor of 'being' a paladin. Ultimately, that's all a Paladin is, RP flavor that does some kinda ok-**** other people do better. But then thats kinda how it is for anything beyond the base 4 if ya ask me... which is good, I like that. But Ranger and Barbarian are far more flexible into fitting a huge array of characters. But if your a paladin - your a Paladin.

 

-edit-

Oh and as per subclasses, I don't think they're gonna be doing em. Looks like we'll be getting a list of full fledged classes (at least 8 atm, maybe 10 at 2.5m). Personally I hope they add in either the ability to multiclass. Either like 3E but I'm actually, for whatever awkward reason, hoping its more like 2nd Edition only more flexible. That being you pick anywhere from 1 to 2 classes, either at lvl 1 or down the road a bit. And both lvl up side-by-side. Ultimately a Fighter/Cleric in 2E kinda kept pace together better then trying to mix fighter/cleric in 3E. 3E allowed you to mix Base/Prestigue classes in pretty awesome ways but doing so with a caster often left things a little... limp, compared to 2nd edition. They actually have a ton of PrC 'just' to try and 'fix' that.

 

Good example was 'True Necromancer' in Rigis Mortis. It basically requires you have Arcane and Divine spell levels (literally lvl 5 wiz/cleric) then at which point every lvl of True Necromancer advanced each thing by 1 lvl. So if you went a 5/5/10 you ended up being a lvl 15 Wizard/Cleric spell wise... which was pretty awesome. And something that if it was 2nd edition you could just do right from the outset.

 

So yeah I kinda don't think we need PrC but I hope they have some kind of multiclassing system up that's... somewhere inbetween 3E and 2E. I actually kind of think how 4E handles it was DnD own attempt at bridging that gap by either allowing you to continue down your main class or mix in another, but ultimately your original class determines your base stat progression for the entirety of the game... I kinda like that. I don't like a lot of 4E, but it does have some good ideas here and there.

Edited by Adhin
  • Like 1

Def Con: kills owls dead

Link to post
Share on other sites

^ What Sensuki says. I've been watching these devs for a long time, through several dev cycles. I know that they prefer development within classes, using a suite of skills and 'feat' options rather than kits / subclasses / prestige class type models.

 

So within the class archetype there is lateral progression that in many ways is superior to subclasses. Personally I'd follow the Oblivion model and simply let you, at a certain level, choose what you want to call your own subclass. If after several levels you've made a lightfighter / swashbuckling fighter you might want to call him "Gentleman Blade" or whatever. Cosmetic? Sure. Would people dig it? Probably.

sonsofgygax.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I kinda like the more free-roam with in a class. Though in relagion to what Monte Carlo said, im gonna restay something I posted in other threads awhile back. I think it would be nice if they had I guess class titles you could pick from that're perhaps based off your total class combination (if they do multiclassing). I liked the idea they had in Kingdoms of Amalur but i think they handled it to much in tiers so you may of had something you liked, but it was a low lvl title so kind of failed a bit in that regard for me. Though at the same time I don't think they really need class names like that outside of what your class is called. I'd be fine being a.. Fighter/Mage I don't need to be called a Spellblade, though it would be nice to have that as a title swap if you ended up making a fighter/mage.

 

Though, really hoping it hits 2.5m+ 'and' they do multiclassing, cause I really wanna make a Barb/Sypher... just like my favorit Barb/Psion in some PW for NWN I played for a few years. Well, played that character for a few years, played int hat PW for more like 12-ish.

Def Con: kills owls dead

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because Paladin, as a name, title, invokes something more then 'religion zealot' for that, look for Templar. It's one reason I tend to rename 'paladin' to templar in majority of stuff as it's far more malable to be any number of things including Paladin-like. Paladin, however, comes with it a very specific line of thinking. For example, you wouldn't name something a 'Death Knight' or 'Baby Eater' and get pissy if you couldn't play one who was the noblest of spirits.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paladin

http://dictionary.re...wse/Paladin?s=t

 

Paladin is supposed to be the enbodiment of noble blah blah, goody blah, Lawful Good SOB. I don't really like the class as it's to restrictive with in that. So, yeah, if they go and add that in, I'd prefer they call it a Templar. But then I kinda feel like there priest class is already going to fill that role. In a sense, Cleric in DnD already fill that role. Cleric with a few fighter lvls (or no fighter lvls) can already do majority of the stuff a paladin can do just as well... minus the RP flavor of 'being' a paladin. Ultimately, that's all a Paladin is, RP flavor that does some kinda ok-**** other people do better. But then thats kinda how it is for anything beyond the base 4 if ya ask me... which is good, I like that. But Ranger and Barbarian are far more flexible into fitting a huge array of characters. But if your a paladin - your a Paladin.

 

I did check out the wiki link before I posted, and it doesn't say anything at all about them restricted in such a way, in fact if anything it does paint them as religious zealots. Besides having a new take on an old class isn't necessarily a bad thing, definitions can change over time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why have a subclass when you can just keep progression free-form ?

 

I guess because with the addition of the two extra classes as stretch goals the freeform progression seems to be out the window. Barbarians on the face of it are Fighters with some special abilities and Ciphers to me just seem to be soulmages/sorcerors. Both could easily be freeform options within fighter and mage but we've been told they will be classes (if the goals are reached).

 

I don't see there being much in the way of freeforming within classes, you might be able to make a mage who wears platemail but that is only an item restriction being lifted. From what I've seen so far I get the impression that fighters will be fighters and distinct from mages, fighters won't be learning mage spells and mages won't be learning fighter abilities. You might be able to make a combat mage but he will most likely be using a specific set of mage spells, not some set of abilities picked from a fighter skillset.

 

It would seem very weak design to me if a fighter could learn some priest spells and be a paladin in everything but name while Barbarian gets to be its own class...just because of some design whim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sipher is there version of a Psion, not Soulmage or sorcerer....

 

Personally I like how they're going about it but then I like class systems, I just prefer it when there is a lot of choice with in that. And then preferably the ability to mix classes to some extent on top of that. To bad we wont be getting any real details for like a year on any of this, really would love to know the kind of abilities and general progression for a class and all that good stuff.

Def Con: kills owls dead

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sipher is there version of a Psion, not Soulmage or sorcerer....

 

No offense but what is the difference? It is another class that uses "spells" to do stuff, basically it is a soulmage/sorceror. The mechanics will probably be 99% the same as either caster type. You could say the same about Priests I guess though there is enough difference in our minds between priest and mage that it is a valid option to have them as separate classes. There are many fantasy worlds both in books, games and film where magic is just an affinity someone has and can be used for both damage and healing. We apply our own consensus on what a priest vs a mage should be because we understand what these classes traditionally represent.

 

I don't really mind what they call a paladin but I'd like to have that goody goody warrior type in the game without having to just RP it in my head. I'd rather the world had some compelling lore behind that holy warrior type.

 

I think that is what many players are asking for when they ask for additional classes or subclasses, they are asking for their favourite class type to have representation so that when they play it they feel more invested in it and in the game world.

 

Every game that has had some paladin/holy warrior type class that I have played, I have always used that class on my first playthrough. I would like that for PE too, just because I would like it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...