Class design and combat performance

[Tsuga C]

Option #1 smacks of the desire to have it all--build a super class that doesn't need any others for support. This flies directly in th face of the stated strong point of a class system, the promotion of teamwork. As P:E is a class-based game that will feature a good deal of combat, it's safe to say that #2 will be the choice.

[Pshaw]

I feel that when it comes to non-combat related skills/perks they shouldn't be tied to a class at all. Which is to say just because I'm a priest doesn't mean I should be unable to picklocks or disarm traps. Nothing about being a priest prohibits me from learning these things. As such I think classes combat potential (whether that be damage, survivability, healing, buffing, debuffing, ect) should be balanced against combat potential. Out of combat skills and perks shouldn't be tied to combat at all. Though I think you should have to choose between whether or not you are going to improve your combat skils or noncombat skills as you level. Such as the skills system in fallout. If you wanted to be great at barter or sneaking you had to give up putting points into lasers or melee. You make the choices in the direction your character grows and at what rate but the only thing your class locks them into is their combat abilities.

[Nomine Vacans]

At worst when the classes are all balanced out, the difference between them is down to visuals.

 

1st level fighter can hit 10pts of damage with claymore and is protected 4pts by scale armor.

1st level wizard can cast 10 points of damage with magic missile and is protected 4pts by weak magic veil,

1st level ranger can shoot 10 points of damage with composite shortbow and is protected 4pts by padded armor.

 

6th level fighter can hit 2 times for a total 30 pts of damage with valyrian claymore and is protected 10pts by lamellar armor.

6th level wizard can cast 30 points of damage with lightning ball and is protected 10 pts by magic veil,

6th level ranger can shoot 2 times for a total of 30 points of damage with composite longbow and is protected 4pts by armored jack.

 

12th level fighter can do 15 pts of area damage 10ft radius with whirlwind attack.

12th level wizard can do 15 pts of area damage 10ft radius with fireball.

12th level ranger can do 15 pts of area damage 10ft radius with area suppression fire mega attack.

 

There, classes are all balanced out, everybody has their own way of fighting, everybody is equally effective.

The game is robbed of class differentiation beyond visual flavor, doesn't matter one bit which class you choose or what kind of party you build.

Or maybe fudge around and give fighter 2 pts more damage and armor, since the other two do ranged damage. Makes no difference.

In a given example classes are not equal. Fighter still have to go to close combat, therefore takes more damage from melee attacks/kiting. I know what it wasn't your point, but it shows how balance could be missed even in abstract speculation.

[Jarmo]

...

Or maybe fudge around and give fighter 2 pts more damage and armor, since the other two do ranged damage. Makes no difference.

In a given example classes are not equal. Fighter still have to go to close combat, therefore takes more damage from melee attacks/kiting. I know what it wasn't your point, but it shows how balance could be missed even in abstract speculation.

 

Shortened my post for clarity.

[Nomine Vacans]

...

Or maybe fudge around and give fighter 2 pts more damage and armor, since the other two do ranged damage. Makes no difference.

In a given example classes are not equal. Fighter still have to go to close combat, therefore takes more damage from melee attacks/kiting. I know what it wasn't your point, but it shows how balance could be missed even in abstract speculation.

Shortened my post for clarity.

**** me. I will never learn to read posts FULLY before quoting. Never.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Comedian

[AGX-17]

Every class should have combat value, especially given the seperation of combat and non combat skills into their own separate zones. That's going to necessitate a broad diversity of skills that don't ultimately boil down to DPS, aggro-accumulation/distraction and buffs/debuffs.

[Karkarov]

I'm not saying the battles wouldn't be tactical or enjoyable, or that there'd be absolutely no difference between classes or attacks.

I'm saying that the class differences would become more superficial and thus the party building would lose an aspect I enjoy.

Personally I agree. Your prior posts do sound like 4th Edition D&D, a game I refuse to play because it is watered down and homogenized beyond all belief. Classes need to be balanced but they also need to be distinct and have a very clear feel that goes beyond how they do or absorb damage.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm strongly of the opinion that balancing all classes for combat harms world building.

 

I'm also strongly of the opinion that traditional Fighter characters, who have no other particular skills aside from physical combat, should be better at physical combat than everyone else. Fighters should be the best sword fighters, the best archers, the best dagger fighters, the best shield users. Other classes might be their equal in combat, but they should not be their equal is physical combat.

 

I also think versatility should be weighed quite heavily when balancing classes. Classes that have more tactical options should be less good at those options.

[Tsuga C]

Other classes might be their equal in combat, but they should not be their equal is physical combat.

 

This makes perfect sense. If you focus laser-like on doing one thing to the absolute best of your ability, then you should be the best there is at that particular vocation. Any class standing toe-to-toe in an anti-magic zone against an equal level Fighter-type character should be at a disadvantage, the degree of disadvantage being generally dependent upon the melee combat orientation of their class in general and their own feats/skills and statistics in particular.

 

When it comes to archery, however, I would put Rangers on equal footing with Fighters as archery is most often their stock in trade.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Tsuga C

[teknoman2]

>implying that the poll options mean something, considering the fact the devs have already said that they will separate combat and non combat abilities, making each type grow independently

[Ninjamestari]

I think the real question to ask is whether or not people want a completely combat focused game that offers little else, and nothing else really matters in the long run, or do we want a game that has multiple viable ways to progress besides combat. If the devs go for the former, then it automatically becomes necessary to balance the classes completely around combat. If latter, then it becomes necessary to balance them around all skills and abilities.

 

If they choose the purely combat focused path, I know I won't be bothered to play the game.