Classes and the ability to wear anything/use any weapon, each should be viable.

[Stiler]

In the latest update, talking about monks, it mentions

 

"here are no restrictions on armor and weapons – you could wear plate and use a sword, if you wanted to, and the talent system is flexible enough so you could build a great monk that specialized in that gear."

 

then later goes on to mention:

 

"Sure, you can do that, but that plate armor will inhibit your ability to get Wounds, which means you don't get as many special attacks. And unarmed attacks are among the fastest types of attacks, so a weaponless monk can get rid of his Wounds faster than any armed monk, so he will suffer very little of their damage-over-time effects. That's like having extra hit points for free! FOR FREE! Who wouldn't want that?!"

 

So really, how viable is it to wear armour or use weapons?

 

IMO I'd like if each choice was more flexible, where there's both advntages and disadvantages where each choice is still viable.

 

why would anyone choose to wear the plate armour, if the unarmoured monk performs better then the armoured plus gets better attacks, etc? Where's the advantage to that?

 

Having the ability to wear/use anything is great, but the actual design of classes, abilities, their combat, etc needs to support this ability. Where there's no clear "if you're a monk it's absolutely BEST to not wear armour, otherwise what's the point? allt he min/maxers will simply play the class how it was designed, with no armour and using their fist, because it's clearly the "best" option available for that class.

 

 

I mean, is it really a "choice" if wearing plate armour basically from what is said) neuters your attacking/damage ability? That just seems like an option for people who don't care about min/maxing. Why would I pick a monk, then throw plate on them, if another class is better at it and more viable?

 

What I mean is that to me, it would seem better to give each class viable reasons to wear/use different weapons, with there not simply being one "clear" best choice to go with and hte others are weaker compared to another class for that type.

 

So a monk in armour plays differently then a monk without armour, but also differently then say, a warrior with armour, so a monk in armour isn't simply a worse" warior" (if he uses armour) or a worse monk if he uses it (because his attack/damage suffers greatly).

 

Surely there could be more viable ways to design it with trade offs, especially in terms of attacking/core combat abilities (it sees the monk in armour would really be missing out on the "main" point of his class if he wears it, kind of like telling a magic user "sure you can wear plate, but you can't cast any spells in it!, not really a choice then imo).

 

 

I mean for example, how about instead of simply saying a monk in plate armour has more protection (and thus doesn't get wounded - which equals no attack skills) something like:

 

With Plate armour:

 

Advtanges:

More base protection from attacks

Ability to wear heavier armour at lower stat requirments (because of monk training/stamina/willpower

(mid'ish lv ability) became one with his armour - The monk has now gained the ability to build attack power (IE what he builds with his "wounds)  by damage inflicted to his armour.

 

Disadvantages:

Slower attacks

Makes more noise (IE no sneaking or anything of hte such, enemies are alerted quicker/at a longer radius then a non-armoured monk)

Slower wound building (until the one with armour ability)

wound healing isn't as quick.

 

Something like that allows BOTH paths to be viable.

 

The armoured character has a harder start, slower wound building/attacks, but after training and time he opens up his wound ability through the armour and is just as viable.

 

on the other hand the non-armoured monk is quicker, quieter,  gains his attack power right away (since he doesn't have to train in armour to unlock it) so he has  more advantage to attacks from the start rather then having to wait.

 

You could even go deeper then this, I'm not sure how in-depth the skills will be in PE, but you could even go as far as to have different monk abilities that open up depending on what you do.

 

Having like a "armoured monk" skill-tree that opens up with skills that are built around wearing armour, or having the un-armoured skill tree you can go down.

 

Something like that would allow both "builds" to be different, yet viable. Rather then having one clear "viable/better" build and saying "You can build this way...but really why would you? or play this class if you want to use that"

Edited May 8, 2013 by Stiler

[Hormalakh]

you aren't thinking it out completely. there will be points where it may be advantageous for your monk to wear armor. some enemies might overwhelm your wounds abilities, making wearing armor important.

 

at this point, this is all speculation. theory. you don't really know how things work out mechanically until you have the game in front of you.

[Stiler]

I am aware of that, just going by what I've read.

 

It just seemed like , while armour would give you more protection, it comes at the cost of the core-concept/ability of the monk, and thus defeats the point of "choice" if that choice isn't really that viable. Why pick a monk, slip plate onto him when you are basically nerfing your own character?

 

Using it at specific points, while that might be helpful, I am talking more about making it the "main" thing for the class, if someone wants to go into the game wearing armour on their monk the entire game, it doesn't seem that viable from what was said.

[curryinahurry]

Without having more details it is difficult to really assess the viability of such a build; but I could see an armored monk as a tank with counter-attacking abilities:  The first could be a return in kind counter-puncher... there might be a wound ability that allows the monk & his wounds to resonate with materials delivering back damage or channeling it into a weapon.  Wear plate and get hit with a mace?  Your return attack with a slashing weapon can channel crushing damage (hope that made sense).  Another could be to build  damage soak that allows for massive counter-attacks  that are more infrequent, storing up attacks that can be unleashed on a single opponent or at the center of an AoE.  There are probably a lot of other ways to create synergies with armor as well, its more a matter of what you will sacrifice; mobility, DPS. etc.

[DCParry]

Well, my answer would be.. so?

 

Making any equipment viable for any class can be an admirable goal, but the definitions of "viable" and "optimal" are going to vary from person to person, and, more importantly, from player to designer. The benefit for using any equipment should be the ability to use any of the equipment. Monks can use plate armor. Should they have special benefits for wearing such armor? I think that's were you are heading. I see two problems with this. 1) Design time: Being able to design specific class based advantages for every piece of equipment in the game is prohibitive (in my opinion), 2) Class distinction: I think that you bleed away some of the unique flavor of a class when you make them completely optimal in every situation with every kind of kit. 

[Kjaamor]

I'm going to go on a slight tangent from the OP's original post, which I hope they'll forgive, but personally I've never regarded the whole concept of 'All classes are equally viable' as actually being a good thing.

 

I rather like the fact that rpgs will leave some classes as more or less powerful than others, and more or less powerful at different points. To me, it weighs into the strategy of play, and I find it very rewarding to look at my options, balance them out and try to optimize them. To a degree, you want all classes to have the potential to be similarly powerful, but certainly not all builds. If any idiot can put forward any absurd combination and be as effective as my (hopefully) well-thought-through build, then where is the reward in thinking things through? Similarly, it's awesome when you hear someone who has really done their planning come up with something you might not have done (The fighter/mage as tank in IWD2 springs to mind).

 

Granted, it's a personal thing, but I just thought I'd point out that not everyone would have the same goals at heart for the system.

[Giantevilhead]

But no one said that it wasn't viable. For all we know, there could be an option for a character to lower their guard so that they'd take more damage or there could be abilities/items that can inflict self damage.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Giantevilhead

[curryinahurry]

I would prefer the character development system not leading to kits like "armored monk" vs. unarmored monk which in turn leads to specialization.  Not that a specialist shouldn't be viable as a build, but rather that generalists should also be viable. Situational usefulness of different styles as Hormalakh mentioned is one way to deal with this.  the other way is allowing players to build generalist characters that are good a several things, but invariably have a few large weaknesses (not so much glass cannons as Achilles heels), while specialists might only be strong in certain aspects and only marginal in others, yet can avoid glaring flaws.

[Randomthom]

I love that they are making it an option but I don't see why every option should be as viable as every other.

 

Think about it this way, if you were an archer and someone offered you full field plate for the coming battle, could you wear it? Yes. Would you wear it? Probably not because of the reduced visibility and movement that you'll require to do your job as an archer.

 

It sounds to me like the armoured monk will be generally viable though we haven't seen how the combat mechanics play out precisely yet so it's still anyone's guess out here really!

Armour, in this case, should be the trade-off between how offensive/defensive your monk is. More armour = less damage taken = less damage dealt. Sounds like a fair tradeoff.

 

Personally I'm interested in the viability of a Fighter archer (not using full plate!)

[Sannom]

"here are no restrictions on armor and weapons – you could wear plate and use a sword, if you wanted to, and the talent system is flexible enough so you could build a great monk that specialized in that gear."

 

then later goes on to mention:

 

"Sure, you can do that, but that plate armor will inhibit your ability to get Wounds, which means you don't get as many special attacks. And unarmed attacks are among the fastest types of attacks, so a weaponless monk can get rid of his Wounds faster than any armed monk, so he will suffer very little of their damage-over-time effects. That's like having extra hit points for free! FOR FREE! Who wouldn't want that?!"

So really, how viable is it to wear armour or use weapons?

 

 

IMO I'd like if each choice was more flexible, where there's both advntages and disadvantages where each choice is still viable.

 

why would anyone choose to wear the plate armour, if the unarmoured monk performs better then the armoured plus gets better attacks, etc? Where's the advantage to that?

You trade some of the monk's specific abilities for the advantages brought by more mundane means. Wearing armor, you're less likely to receive damage, but the trade-off is a smaller pool of resources to use the monk's abilities. Using a weapon enables to do more damage with each hit, but might need for a different use of wound resources. Both concepts are viable, I don't see what's the problem.

 

 

So a monk in armour plays differently then a monk without armour, but also differently then say, a warrior with armour, so a monk in armour isn't simply a worse" warior" (if he uses armour) or a worse monk if he uses it (because his attack/damage suffers greatly).

 

I mean for example, how about instead of simply saying a monk in plate armour has more protection (and thus doesn't get wounded - which equals no attack skills) something like:

 

With Plate armour:

 

Advtanges:

More base protection from attacks

Ability to wear heavier armour at lower stat requirments (because of monk training/stamina/willpower

(mid'ish lv ability) became one with his armour - The monk has now gained the ability to build attack power (IE what he builds with his "wounds)  by damage inflicted to his armour.

 

Disadvantages:

Slower attacks

Makes more noise (IE no sneaking or anything of hte such, enemies are alerted quicker/at a longer radius then a non-armoured monk)

Slower wound building (until the one with armour ability)

wound healing isn't as quick.

 

Something like that allows BOTH paths to be viable.

Your proposed solution sounds terrible, and is in direct contradiction to the goals you've set in the first part of the quote! You're basically saying 'Let's the monk play exactly the same with or without armor after a certain point'. It only keeps the more generic disadvantages of (slower rate of attacks, weaker stealth) while getting rid of all its effects on the specific abilities of the class. There is no choice here! When people asked for the viability of untraditional builds, I'm sure they didn't ask for the invalidation of the traditional way the class is played.

[Greensleeve]

I'm going to go on a slight tangent from the OP's original post, which I hope they'll forgive, but personally I've never regarded the whole concept of 'All classes are equally viable' as actually being a good thing.

 

I rather like the fact that rpgs will leave some classes as more or less powerful than others, and more or less powerful at different points. To me, it weighs into the strategy of play, and I find it very rewarding to look at my options, balance them out and try to optimize them. To a degree, you want all classes to have the potential to be similarly powerful, but certainly not all builds. If any idiot can put forward any absurd combination and be as effective as my (hopefully) well-thought-through build, then where is the reward in thinking things through? Similarly, it's awesome when you hear someone who has really done their planning come up with something you might not have done (The fighter/mage as tank in IWD2 springs to mind).

 

Granted, it's a personal thing, but I just thought I'd point out that not everyone would have the same goals at heart for the system.

 

All classes should be equally viable. All builds should not. 

 

 

As for OP... I disagree on including class abilities tailored towards specialised concepts, such as monks in armour. I do, however, agree on ensuring it's viable and allow for a few choices that would help such builds out. Feats and similar are perfect for such things, in my mind. 

[Aldereth]

The way game balances work with the different class would likely lead to a preferred set up.   So for most IE game, that would be duo wield swords with heavy armor, Sword and board for tank in most MMO...etc.

 

I think a nobler goal is to build classes that is viable with drastically different equipment set up. eg. Mage that can be set up with armor and weapons who specialize in buff, enchantment, touch and short range spell,   Warriors that can be set up with next to no armor but so specialize with their weapon that they can some how deflect and avoid most attack with it.   Heck, maybe a charisma base "priest" that does not use any spell but instead talk people to "death".   He just buff his allies and debuff enemies with speech and sermons

[Lephys]

I had a similar thought, and posted a question in the update thread.

 

The things I already thought of, as far as the sheer difference regarding the Monk's effectiveness goes, are as follows:

 

A heavily-armored Monk could "wade into" a larger group of enemies at once, while still accumulating Wounds at the same rate (lessened damage from the armor + more sources of incoming damage = cancellation). Whereas, the lightly/un-armored Monk could not stand against a group of 6 enemies while he dispatches one at a time. He'd need help from the rest of the party, and/or to use different tactics to thin the group or separate his targets.

 

Plus, there's this that's been mentioned in here, I think; once you fill your Wounds to maximum, you begin taking full damage (if I'm not mistaken), PLUS the damage-over-time from the Wounds, so long as they go un"spent." So, you only get damage mitigation from Wounds so long as you have some empty Wounds available into which the damage can be diverted. Again, the multi-enemy example. If you have 3 Wounds, and you get hit once by 6 enemies, and the first 4 attacks fill your three Wounds, then the last 2 attacks do full damage. Whereas, in that exact same scenario, with armor, it might just take all 6 attacks to fill your same three Wounds (and not go over). Boom. You've filled your Wounds in the exact same amount of time, AND took less damage, total, from the 6 foes, AND will continue to take lessened damage (from the armor) if your Wounds stay filled and you continue to be attacked.

 

As Greensleeve pointed out to me, the Monk will have passive abilities that provide benefits so long as Wounds are maintained. So, whereas an unarmored Monk could focus on filling Wounds as quickly as possibly, then spending them as quickly as possible, you could have a more passively-built Monk who focuses on maintaining Wounds and increased survivability.

[Aldereth]

Depending on how other spells and mechanic works, the armored monk could turn out to be the best tank.       Slap all the damage reduction (physical and all element) gear on him.   Use poison item on oneself or have your team put DoT on the monk so that he got almost max wound.   Charge in the mobs, Convert wound to high damage, unleash holy hell damage to get agro.    If the enemy is not pumping enough damage to "recharge" his wound, your teammate can throw DoT or AOE DoT on you.  Repeat. Profit

Edited May 9, 2013 by Aldereth

[JFSOCC]

Depending on how other spells and mechanic works, the armored monk could turn out to be the best tank.       Slap all the damage reduction (physical and all element) gear on him.   Use poison item on oneself or have your team put DoT on the monk so that he got almost max wound.   Charge in the mobs, Convert wound to high damage, unleash holy hell damage to get agro.    If the enemy is not pumping enough damage to "recharge" his wound, your teammate can throw DoT or AOE DoT on you.  Repeat. Profit

that's easily fixed by having a timeout for wounds after they're used. so, use ability, wound can't reload for x seconds. higher levesl means faster recharge.

[mstark]

I personally hate the "make everything viable" school of thought, and prefer clear class separation. If you want to play a monk as you would play a fighter, why dilute the monk until it feels like a fighter, rather than playing the fighter and leaving the monk alone, as a unique class? If you want to RP a monk in armour, just name your fighter "Brandon the Monk", or something. Many games have gone so far as to remove a class system entirely, allowing you to turn your character(s) into anything you like during your journey, and it works for some games, but I wouldn't like to see it in an IE style game.

 

That said, Project Eternity seems to be going in a very good direction, where classes remain unique in their abilities and play styles, but never immediately too punished with limitations in what they can do (eg. "sorry, this stick doesn't fit in your hand because you're not a stick wielder").

Edited May 9, 2013 by mstark

[Stiler]

I personally hate the "make everything viable" school of thought, and prefer clear class separation. If you want to play a monk as you would play a fighter, why dilute the monk until it feels like a fighter, rather than playing the fighter and leaving the monk alone, as a unique class? If you want to RP a monk in armour, just name your fighter "Brandon the Monk", or something. Many games have gone so far as to remove a class system entirely, allowing you to turn your character(s) into anything you like during your journey, and it works for some games, but I wouldn't like to see it in an IE style game.

 

That said, Project Eternity seems to be going in a very good direction, where classes remain unique in their abilities and play styles, but never immediately too punished with limitations in what they can do (eg. "sorry, this stick doesn't fit in your hand because you're not a stick wielder").

 

For freedom? For choices?

 

In a single player rpg taking a class and making them unique is one of the most fun aspects to me, especially if its' allowed.

 

Take for example the Recent PAth of Exile game, while not exactly like PE it has a very open skill system that allows you to build your character in a TON of different ways, there's so many ways you can build each character class that you can have two people that are the same "Base" class but play completely differently.

 

Most rpgs go with a strict system, classes are structured in a way where you pick the class and each is different from one another, mages wear robs, warriors wear plat earmour, rogues in leather, etc. This leads to classes feeling different, but also classes that feel stale/static.

 

It also takes choice away from the player.

 

I have long been a fan of the D&D style "multiclass" system because it allows people to think/make up some very interesting combinations of characters and how they develop them.

 

Many computer rpgs don't allow this and you are stuck on pre designed classes that offer little customization , at least to a great degree like others allow.

 

For example, one of my favorite styles of characters to play is a hybrid magic-melee fighter. In most rpgs this kind of class is non existant. You either have your generic mage that stands in the back in robes looking like gandalf firing fireballs or you have a fighter wearing plate standing in the front taking damage.

 

When rpgs allow classes to be opened, built differently and to have the freedom to use what they want that allows people like me to make up classes we enjoy, even if the game itself doesn't offer it as a "base" class.

 

This can sometimes work and sometimes doesn't. One way it doesn't work is when the choice/freedom is offered to you to do one thing (IE wear armour) but at such a huge penalty that it's not really viable.

 

That's why I like things such as this to be "viable."

 

You mention viable as though I want all classes to be the same, and that's about as far from it as you can get. A monk wearing plate armour should not function like a warrior who wears plate armour, that kind of defeats the point of that "choice." When I mention viable I mean that the choice you make comes with both reasons for/against it, but not at the cost of making one choice clearly the "right" choice and the other one the "Wrong" choice, rather one where you can make the choice and through careful planning build your character around that choice and develop them into something unique based on that that works and isn't nerfed/terrible to play as.

 

Logically if you take a monk, slap him in plate armour, over the course of his lifetime he would adapt, he'd train in it, learn how to use it, develop his own skills through that.  Doesn't that make more logical sense?  New skills/feats could open up which you can train to make that kind of play style "work" for that class, even if it's not following the stereotypical "cloth" wearing monk who uses his fist.

[Lephys]

 

Depending on how other spells and mechanic works, the armored monk could turn out to be the best tank.       Slap all the damage reduction (physical and all element) gear on him.   Use poison item on oneself or have your team put DoT on the monk so that he got almost max wound.   Charge in the mobs, Convert wound to high damage, unleash holy hell damage to get agro.    If the enemy is not pumping enough damage to "recharge" his wound, your teammate can throw DoT or AOE DoT on you.  Repeat. Profit

that's easily fixed by having a timeout for wounds after they're used. so, use ability, wound can't reload for x seconds. higher levesl means faster recharge.

 

 

Not to mention that only a % of damage is converted to Wounds. So, your Monk would be taking most of the DOT damage the whole time, THEN the DOT damage from Wounds, gradually, (as you "held onto" the Wounds to keep your passive bonuses from the DOT status), then, once his WOUNDS were full, would be taking FULL damage from the poison, and all incoming blows, AND the Wounds.

 

I'm not really sure that's the master strategy you thought it was. I guess if you can keep him alive, that could work, but it still doesn't really seem very efficient. Lots of extra work kinda cancels out the benefits provided. It's work that could've just been spent more effectively in the first place (like putting the poison on the enemies you're trying to kill, and letting the Monk simply take some damage from enemy attacks, then hold onto his Wounds so that the DOT from those can fuel his passive "holy hell" unleashing).

 

*les shruggles*

[Aldereth]

 

that's easily fixed by having a timeout for wounds after they're used. so, use ability, wound can't reload for x seconds. higher levesl means faster recharge.

 

 

Not so much for fixing than balancing.   Sometimes, what was an exploit can become  a viable class variant with proper balancing.   It's a fine line.

[moridin84]

There is a difference between viable and equal. 

 

In Bioware RPGs I tend to pick my party members based on who I want to hang out with rather than party composition. This makes the game harder when I want to hang out with two rogues and a mage while being a mage myself. I think that's fine, as long as it's viable I don't need to be a just as strong as a party with a tank.