Jump to content

Class design and combat performance


Balancing classes and combat performance  

117 members have voted

  1. 1. Should all classes be able to reach similar combat potential if the player chooses to do so?

    • Yes, my choice to play a certain class should not hinder my performance in combat
      33
    • No, not all classes value combat skills the same way. Classes should be balanced considering both it's combat and non-combat value.
      83


Recommended Posts

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.

http://cbrrescue.org/

 

Go afield with a good attitude, with respect for the wildlife you hunt and for the forests and fields in which you walk. Immerse yourself in the outdoors experience. It will cleanse your soul and make you a better person.----Fred Bear

 

http://michigansaf.org/

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

K is for Kid, a guy or gal just like you. Don't be in such a hurry to grow up, since there's nothin' a kid can't do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Is nomine vacans liberarit vobis ex servitut.

Is nomine vacans redit vobis ars magica.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...

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 by Comedian
  • Like 1
Is nomine vacans liberarit vobis ex servitut.

Is nomine vacans redit vobis ars magica.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

God used to be my co-pilot, but then we crashed in the Andes and I had to eat him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Tsuga C

http://cbrrescue.org/

 

Go afield with a good attitude, with respect for the wildlife you hunt and for the forests and fields in which you walk. Immerse yourself in the outdoors experience. It will cleanse your soul and make you a better person.----Fred Bear

 

http://michigansaf.org/

Link to post
Share on other sites

>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

The words freedom and liberty, are diminishing the true meaning of the abstract concept they try to explain. The true nature of freedom is such, that the human mind is unable to comprehend it, so we make a cage and name it freedom in order to give a tangible meaning to what we dont understand, just as our ancestors made gods like Thor or Zeus to explain thunder.

 

-Teknoman2-

What? You thought it was a quote from some well known wise guy from the past?

 

Stupidity leads to willful ignorance - willful ignorance leads to hope - hope leads to sex - and that is how a new generation of fools is born!


We are hardcore role players... When we go to bed with a girl, we roll a D20 to see if we hit the target and a D6 to see how much penetration damage we did.

 

Modern democracy is: the sheep voting for which dog will be the shepherd's right hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

The most important step you take in your life is the next one.

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...