Power of classes (Realism vs. Filling unlimited power)

[Adhin]

Actually yeah, that right there when it happens to often, in one game, starts to get a bit grating but it depends on the role your character has. DAO, being a grey warden made some sense. Mass Effect made some sense due to Shepards role and whatnot but it just is a bit weird when your character has no real station or job involving that stuff but he/she does it anyway.

 

I can see city to tribe related stuff in PE. Think they've mentioned tribes of some kind roaming the wilds, could be misthinking that though. Anyway that I could see being a far more believable thing with out being some magic peace man between 2 warring nations.

[SlithyTove]

I rather liked the power rise from levels of BG through ToB.

 

By the end you are very very powerful, but still not strong enough to take on a medieval army all by yourself and it took a long time to get there.

 

 

I also very much like the XCOM: Enemy Unknown style of leveling. Rookies are just useless, and a full Colonel is very strong, but the Colonel can still only take about as many hits (read: very few) as the Rookie. His power comes from the utilisation of his and the rest of the team's abilities to make sure they don't get hit much.

 

It's the complete opposite of the jrpg leveling where you often end up MILLIONS of times more powerful by then end. The XCOM method feels more "real" in the sense that "weak" enemies are still dangerous if you let your guard down. Just like Wild Bill Hickock, you can be the fastest gun in the West and be killed by some idiot because you weren't paying attention.

[Adhin]

Actually considering majority of 'armies' in DnD terms are all lvl 1 warriors, your lvl 20-30 Fighter could annihilate thousands by him self... go to-hit systems (that scale with level) gooo!

[TrashMan]

I don't get it why are so many peopel fixated on POWER progression insted of character/story progression?

 

F*** power...especailly the cheap and shallow representation of it trough buffing stats to redicolous levels.

 

 

The best games I played were those without redicolous pwoer levels or thosue without any leveling at all. There's your perfect balance right there.

[Imrix]

The best games I played were those without redicolous pwoer levels or thosue without any leveling at all. There's your perfect balance right there.

And the best game I played were those where the players begin with immense personal power and must struggle to decide how to effectively leverage that power to better the world, so... Duelling anecdotes, yaaaaay!

 

Done right, power progression is a form of character progression.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Imrix

[SlithyTove]

Actually considering majority of 'armies' in DnD terms are all lvl 1 warriors, your lvl 20-30 Fighter could annihilate thousands by him self... go to-hit systems (that scale with level) gooo!

 

A high level fighter would be a "best case". All the casty classes would run out of spells pretty quickly.

 

That level 1 dude will always have at least a 1 in 20 chance to hit. With 1000 archers behind some meat shields on an open field he is eating 50 arrows a turn. And most respectable armies would include at least a few single-digit level knights, wizards, priests, etc. Eventually one of them would get a hold person or what not through.

 

If that high level fighter could hole up in tight quarters where they have to come one at a time to him he could do for thousands of level 1s before they got him. But there are historical cases where real people in tiny groups could hold off hundreds in similar scenarios so I don't see that as such a bad thing.

 

Maybe a monk where they are just immune to virtually everything a standard army could throw at them. But only if you obey video game rules. Pen and paper style they can just string nets between horses until they get him and drown him in a barrel or something. They are still slightly grounded in the realms of people even if they incredibly powerful.

 

 

 

Would be sort of fun to simulate something like this in PE now that I think about it. Once (if? PE2?) the player gets truly ToB powerful, put them up against the equivalent of a small medieval army where they have to chew through a flood of fairly weak attackers to nab the leader and force a surrender Inca v Spain style.

[Lephys]

A high level fighter would be a "best case". All the casty classes would run out of spells pretty quickly.

 

See, I'm really hoping you get enough progression development choices with "casty classes" that you can end up with a range from (example numbers) 50 weaker-more numerous spells per rest all the way to only 10 much-more-powerful spells with more specialized/potent effects (not just damage) per rest. Of course, it seems casty classes will have more depth than just auto-attack with a piddly weapon + a handful of spells.

 

I think we'll have a lot more options with casters in P:E, so this type of consideration won't be only for fightery-types.

[Gavinfoxx]

I want levels to be the only arbitrator of power. I want the game to start at something like: 'gritty fantasy / within human limits'. Then transfer to 'heroic fantasy / barely superhuman'. Then to 'wuxia / superheroes'. Then to 'effective godhood'. D&D 3.5e and Pathfinder do this (level 1-6, level 7-12, level 13-16, level 17+, respectively), and I would like to see a similar progression. Maybe not to effective godhood, and maybe there are XP caps at the different chapters which are lifted at major events... but I want to see dramatic growth in capabilities and scope of the sorts of things the characters are doing, and where the problems are.

 

There's a very interesting document that talks about the scope of these changes, for 3.5e and Pathfinder in particular. This mirrors, in some ways, the Heroic/Legendary/Epic tiers of 4e D&D... and I think the ideas are very sound. Anyway, here's the document:

 

http://antioch.snow-fall.com/files/members/Endarire/DnD/Challenging%203.5%20and%20Pathfinder%20Parties%201%2031%2011.doc

[Iucounu]

A high level fighter would be a "best case". All the casty classes would run out of spells pretty quickly.

That's true. But if you had become immune against normal weapons in hell, and posessed the big metal unit, things would turn out differently :D

But that's just the philosophy I like in games: You don't become all powerful just because you're high-level. You need more than that.

 

As for powerlevels in general: I think classes should be differently powerful for different levels. A mage should be rather weak in the beginning but at high levels a force to be reckoned with.

Fighters should be able to wield certain magic, but that shouldn't be something every fighter can. It should depend on your "soullevel", your awakened state, that kind of thing.

Apart from that, I think especially at the beginning power should depend on the race. A Godlike fighter could be a challenge to a whole group of "normal" people.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Pen and paper style they can just string nets between horses until they get him and drown him in a barrel or something.

 

I like that idea.

[Gavinfoxx]

A high level fighter would be a "best case". All the casty classes would run out of spells pretty quickly.

That's true. But if you had become immune against normal weapons in hell, and posessed the big metal unit, things would turn out differently :D

But that's just the philosophy I like in games: You don't become all powerful just because you're high-level. You need more than that.

 

As for powerlevels in general: I think classes should be differently powerful for different levels. A mage should be rather weak in the beginning but at high levels a force to be reckoned with.

Fighters should be able to wield certain magic, but that shouldn't be something every fighter can. It should depend on your "soullevel", your awakened state, that kind of thing.

Apart from that, I think especially at the beginning power should depend on the race. A Godlike fighter could be a challenge to a whole group of "normal" people.

 

The thing is though, this AD&D, 'well, the Wizard is weak for low levels, but then is a god at high levels, the inverse of the fighter' really, really, really breaks down as far as gameplay is concerned. You have, in every situation, some characters that can't really contribute at all to what is going on, which really doesn't work as far as fun gameplay is concerned! There's a reason that people have started to want balance in the sense of equivalent agency, power, and utility between classes of equivalent level; because this is more fun!

[Sensuki]

It should feel like Baldur's Gate 1.

 

Project Eternity 2 can take a more BG2 approach

[Iucounu]

The thing is though, this AD&D, 'well, the Wizard is weak for low levels, but then is a god at high levels, the inverse of the fighter' really, really, really breaks down as far as gameplay is concerned. You have, in every situation, some characters that can't really contribute at all to what is going on, which really doesn't work as far as fun gameplay is concerned! There's a reason that people have started to want balance in the sense of equivalent agency, power, and utility between classes of equivalent level; because this is more fun!

Which people have stated it is more fun?

I don't know, I have yet to see a game in which I find this "homogeneity" fun. It rather strikes me to be artificial that everone must have the same power at every time.

Guaranteeing that every member can contribute in an equal way is perhaps more important in a MMORPG, but not so much in a single-player party RPG imho. A great part of the fun I had with these kind of games was to create strong and rather weak characters. And in a system that allows a great difference in power there will in most cases be party members who are more important than the rest.

 

But I believe it is still possible to let have everyone a meaningful way to contribute. Like in Baldur's Gate, the Wizard had the greater power potential and was the joker in major fights, while the fighter did the hacking and slashing in between. I don't say this is optimal, but I didn't find it that bad either.

A good system for me would be perhaps, where certain characters come to play and can shine in certain situations, or whose abilities get useful in cooperation with certain other characters. But that doesn't mean they must have the same raw fighting power.

[Lephys]

As for powerlevels in general: I think classes should be differently powerful for different levels. A mage should be rather weak in the beginning but at high levels a force to be reckoned with.

 

The only time I hate this is when it's done in such a way that a mage is essentially a Magikarp for about 10 levels, then abruptly evolves into a Gyarados. Or, you know, for those first 10 levels, he's Jubilee from Xmen. The rest of the party's all "Don't worry, we'll take care of combat for a while! You just run around in figure eights so as to not get hit and instantly die! You can light our celebratory cigars after we win the fight! And hang in there! You'll be quite powerful one day!"

 

I mean, if a Level 1 fighter can single-handedly take down 5 Goblins, I think the Mage should be able to as well (though with spells, rather than with melee combat and fortitude.)

[JFSOCC]

The ultimate problem of getting powerful is that you won't feel powerful if your challenges remain challenging. One way of dealing with that is having different types of enemies. You don't fight normal human beings anymore, but dragons. For instance. no-one feels particularly powerful if they're level 20 and still have to fight other humans with care.

On the other hand you want players to remain challenged.

I don't think limiting class power is the way to go, rather find different and other interesting challenges for the player to use their new-found powers on.

[Gavinfoxx]

No, the idea is that everyone of the same level must have the same power / capability of contributing. If you want someone to contribute less, make them a lower level!

 

Seriously, it's not that hard. If you want the person to be mundane and contribute less, make them lower level, and have conflict in the group due to their lack of skill and training, and then get them the training to reach parity. What I mean is that 'level' is an obvious primary measure of power level, and there is no need to obfuscate this by making some people's levels worth more than others.

[Lephys]

The ultimate problem of getting powerful is that you won't feel powerful if your challenges remain challenging.

 

Well... they need to remain challenging, but I think I still get what you mean, regardless of what that COULD mean. However, that really only becomes a problem when the factors involved with the difficulty of your challenges are overly simple. If you're just going with increasing numbers on damage and hitpoints and armor, then yeah, things don't feel very different at all unless you dramatically boost these numbers, in which case things will become a bit too easy.

 

As you said, going from human bandits to dragons is one factor that addresses this. But, that's exactly my point. Even if takes you the same amount of time to take down a dragon at level 20 as it did to take down a group of bandits at level 10 (conflicts presented to you remain challenging to your current level/capabilities), you're now accomplishing so much more in the same amount of time/effort. Another good example is that, if you're 3 levels above that group of 5 bandits you fought earlier, but now 10 bandits come at you, you can feel the difference in your power by the ease with which you can dispatch each individual bandit, but it's still challenging to take on a certain number of them.

 

Obviously each of these types of factors would need to be considered throughout the power progression of the game, or you'd end up with 150 bandits in one battle at level 30, heh. But, I don't think combat needs to become easier, in its entirety, as you go along just to allow you to feel more powerful. It's a diminishing return, it is. If you can kill a bandit without taking any damage, every single time, then they don't even serve a purpose as a combat challenge anymore. You're not testing your skill, and you're not even showing it off anymore. My ability to kick a sloth is not a testament to my prowess. It's a testament only to the difference in ability between myself and that sloth. My ability to kick a dragon, on the other hand, would be amazing, because a dragon's formidability is already so far up there.

 

In other words, milestones. I don't like the idea of using the same starting milestone to prove that you're powerful and have progressed (I know you weren't specifically arguing for this, JFSOCC, but it's come up in many other threads recently, and it's pertinent). It works, obviously, but I think presenting greater milestones as standards of comparison is a much more effective method. You're still going to have a range of challenge (some overall "content levels" are going to be a level or two below you, some right on your level, and some a level or two above, at any given character/party level). No one's arguing that. And you're going to face easier foes and tougher foes, in various scenarios. But, just rolling with the general idea that keeping a steady progression in the challenge presented by combat encounters is bad because you'll never get to feel your power and progression leads to problems like "Oh no, we can't have a larger group of bandits attack, because that's making up too much for the fact that bandits are now lower-level than me!" I mean, at what point would it be okay to up the challenge? Should it trail behind you by 5 levels for the whole rest of the game, because you've earned it?

 

It just doesn't make much sense. There's got to be more to it than that, is all. It's got holes.

[Gavinfoxx]

I wouldn't mind at high levels if there is a 'random encounter' where you are given the option to not play through it, due to the fact that you very obviously utterly outclass them. Or you could get jumped by bandits, who are like, "Alright, get out your valuables, you are being robbed by the Bandit Prince of... wait. I know you. You are the people that... that... oh my gods, it's them! We bit off more than we could chew! Let's get out of here!"

[Lephys]

^ Perhaps you even have the option of letting them go (affecting reputation in an interesting way) or stopping them and "robbing" them of all their stuff (or confiscating all their stolen stuff, however you want to look at it), or killing them anyway. Perhaps you get minor reputation effects with any of them, or perhaps just the non-killing-them choices (because, if there're no survivors, who tells the tale?), but all three would affect your party's assessment of you. And one could possibly lead to a nice little loot surprise, or even some new/ongoing story element (missing artifact or valuable, or a stone tablet that ends up helping you decipher some writing in a ruin, which grants you access to the depths of that ruin, etc.).

[Iucounu]

The only time I hate this is when it's done in such a way that a mage is essentially a Magikarp for about 10 levels, then abruptly evolves into a Gyarados. Or, you know, for those first 10 levels, he's Jubilee from Xmen. The rest of the party's all "Don't worry, we'll take care of combat for a while! You just run around in figure eights so as to not get hit and instantly die! You can light our celebratory cigars after we win the fight! And hang in there! You'll be quite powerful one day!"

 

I mean, if a Level 1 fighter can single-handedly take down 5 Goblins, I think the Mage should be able to as well (though with spells, rather than with melee combat and fortitude.)

I wouldn’t find this so bad, if the mage can make up for this with crowd control or massdamage spells that have an impact on even more powerful foes. I also found the explanation in earlier D&D solid , that mages need to travel with fighters and other group members in the wilderness because they require protection, as they would use up their spells alone rather quickly and are fragile as well.

But yeah, giving the mage the potential to kill foes one on one to greater extent would be perhaps more dynamic, if made good, that is. I only know that for example in Dragon Age, I didn’t find it very appealing. But that can have other reasons too.

 

No, the idea is that everyone of the same level must have the same power / capability of contributing. If you want someone to contribute less, make them a lower level!

 

Seriously, it's not that hard. If you want the person to be mundane and contribute less, make them lower level, and have conflict in the group due to their lack of skill and training, and then get them the training to reach parity. What I mean is that 'level' is an obvious primary measure of power level, and there is no need to obfuscate this by making some people's levels worth more than others.

 

As long as skills, stats etc. have still a great impact, perhaps I would be ok with that.

For me I guess it’s most important how it is explained in the game. If the inner logic of the game can coherently explain me why a fighter is equally powerful as a mage at every level of experience, fine.

[keiichimorisato98]

What do you fink about power limits in eternyty shoud it be like jrpg 1 hit everythng burns or more realistic ?

you can't one hit anything in a JRPG, well you can but only if you are a high enough level.

[Gavinfoxx]

The thing about a Fighter having trouble in 3.5e taking out an army, a monk being better at it, or a spellcasters being worse is... wow. Um, it displays a lack of understanding about d&d 3.5e so profound I don't know where to start. First of all, in 3.5e, Wealth By Level is a vital part of what the game expects you to have. Second, it expects you to have Strategic Flight by level 10 or so. And in Caster-land... well, think of it this way. One side has high altitude stealth bombers operating at night. The other has a medieval or renaissance army. I have a writeup of a level 9 Druid (not at the moment, I'm on my phone) that functions this way for this sort of example. He can take on an arbitrarily large low level mundane army.

[TMTVL]

Yeah, but in 3.5 a wee little kobold can become destroyer of the multiverse, if you'll pardon the pun.

[TrashMan]

Done right, power progression is a form of character progression.

 

Cheap. And there's no reason why the progression of power should be big, or why the PC should be powerfull at all... well, other than ego stroking.

 

 

I really don't want to see power scaling such that at high levels entire armies are needed to bring you down.

Anything more than 10 lvl1 guys, and the power scaling has already gone out of control.

 

I mean what - do enemeis have scouters?

Bandit: "OMG! His powur lvl! IT'S OVER 9 THOUSAAAAND!"

 

 

Frak the chap, shallow portraly of power trough stright up stat increases.

 

Challenge should be mantained always. Enemeis should be SMART about how they fight.

I don't care if you're a lvl99 super-samurai-swordmaster ... unless you moveat the speed of light AND have eyes on the back of your head AND the enemies line up to fight you 1-by-1, you're not getting out alive out of an ambush staged by a dozen run of the mill bandits

Edited January 13, 2013 by TrashMan

[Lephys]

Done right, power progression is a form of character progression.

 

Cheap. And there's no reason why the progression of power should be big, or why the PC should be powerfull at all... well, other than ego stroking.

 

 

I really don't want to see power scaling such that at high levels entire armies are needed to bring you down.

Anything more than 10 lvl1 guys, and the power scaling has already gone out of control.

 

I mean what - do enemeis have scouters?

Bandit: "OMG! His powur lvl! IT'S OVER 9 THOUSAAAAND!"

 

 

Frak the chap, shallow portraly of power trough stright up stat increases.

 

Challenge should be mantained always. Enemeis should be SMART about how they fight.

I don't care if you're a lvl99 super-samurai-swordmaster ... unless you moveat the speed of light AND have eyes on the back of your head AND the enemies line up to fight you 1-by-1, you're not getting out alive out of an ambush staged by a dozen run of the mill bandits

 

While you do have a point in some of what you've said, I have to say that a fantasy world involving souls that act as power sources for superhuman (relative to the capabilities of humans in reality) abilities in which you really don't get very powerful would be pretty bland. Sure, 10 low-level bandits might be able to take on your level 30 party, but everyone would have to be pretty powerful at that point, still. Not to mention dragons and other mythical beasts... You either don't have them in the game (again, bland fantasy) or you do and the player's party must be able to match them in "power," eventually.

 

I'm not saying your main character should just go pick up a tree, sharpen it with his teeth, and hurl it so hard at the dragon that it gets impaled into the cliff face. But if your whole, 6-person party still had trouble with 10 level 1 foes (wolves, maybe?), then if they got to a dragon, it'd be instant-lose. They would literally lack the ability to do anything to that dragon. Or what if a town is being overrun by some humanoid creature (like orcs or goblins, whatever they may be in P:E's world)? Are you saying the game has to forcibly limit it to a mere 10-or-so at a time? The rest just stand around whilst you fight? And that's only at approximately level 1, apparently. What if you're level 15 and they're all level 7? They have to either be complete pansies (in which case you're at least 50 times more powerful than everyone else in the town who can't fend them off without you) or they have to be a handful in number?

 

See, you have to consider more than what would be a nice power/capability comparison in a single, hypothetical fight. This stuff has effects on almost everything about the game (story, lore, balancing, etc.).