Sub Specializations for classes

[Ulquiorra 108]

Yeah whats your opinion on this topic.

 

We know that we will propably be able to custimize our character but what yo think about those type of specialization like hunter for ranger, assasin for rogue etc.

[NerdBoner 302]

you mean like bg2 kits?

 

i think the classes will be flexible enough that it will allow for your interpretation of what an assassin or a hunter is...but a "type in the name of your sub-class here"   option would be cool.

 

I doubt there will be BG2 like kits though.

[Ulquiorra 108]

xxx

Edited July 11, 2013 by Ulquiorra

[Ulquiorra 108]

 

 

you mean like bg2 kits?

 

 

Yeah i whoud prefer them but i seen mor types of specs in other games so i whoud like to know your opinion about this subject :D

 

i think the classes will be flexible enough that it will allow for your interpretation of what an assassin or a hunter is...but a "type in the name of your sub-class here"   option would be cool.

 

I doubt there will be BG2 like kits though.

 

hehe ... Morowind class creator ... ahhhh that was awsome .....

Edited July 11, 2013 by Ulquiorra

[Sacred_Path 489]

needs a "none" box

 

My answer is no across the board. I've been wondering lately if P:E maybe just should have stayed with the "core four" classes; while I tend towards saying "no", I don't think the game would have been any worse for it.

[mcmanusaur 550]

In my opinion, there should either be a consistent system with a relatively equal number of specializations to choose from for each class, or they should just make the classes specialized enough that there's no need for sub-classes.

[Lephys 5,078]

I really don't see how a specialization in submersible operation would help anyone out in P:E, regardless of class. o_o

 

[Sheikh 56]

Fundamentally I am not against subclasses for adding variety to character creation, but one thing I dont like is a subclass representing more or less a hybrid of its basic and another basic class. So I think the NWN prestige classes are the most reasonable option in terms of that.

[RedSocialKnight 219]

I'd pick a NWN-like system not so much for the prestige classes (which in themselves didn't interest me much) as for the flexible level-mixing, broad choice of feats regardless of class, and so on. Love me some 3.X/Pathfinder - it's one of the few systems that is great both in tabletop and video games.

[Pshaw 187]

I'm all for sub-classes but I'm tempted to say save it for an expansion. We've already got a ton of classes to choose from and I'd rather they work on each one of those classes feeling unique rather than try and add specilzations right now. If they find they have time and they've got ideas for specialzations that aren't limiting then I'm all for it, for every class. I personally like the idea of unlocking specilizations though strictly through the DA:O method. I felt learning them through NPCs was a bit too simplistic as was purchasing a training manual. Some of the other ways to unlock it, like the bloodmage, seemed fitting and I would like to see specilaztions unlocked through how you play rather than what you pick at the character creation screen.

[Sensuki 9,773]

In Project Eternity, specialization comes through choice of Talents.

[IndiraLightfoot 5,714]

I voted all, ALL! "I want it all!" (Add Queen choir). The last poll I picked NWN-style, because I really like 3rd ed D&D.

[Jarmo 804]

In Project Eternity, specialization comes through choice of Talents.

 

And that sounds just fine and dandy to me.

Voted for "yes" and "other".

 

I liked D&D 3.x style feats, but disliked the idea of prestige classes.

Especially as you pretty much choose the prestige class in order to be able to choose the feat you really wanted.

 

Much rather choose from a pile of feats and build your own prestige class.

(Actually I'd rather a classless system where you pick feats to build your own class).

[Ulquiorra 108]

needs a "none" box

 

My answer is no across the board. I've been wondering lately if P:E maybe just should have stayed with the "core four" classes; while I tend towards saying "no", I don't think the game would have been any worse for it.

 

In Dragon Age yo have only thre classes mage, rogue, fighter. This system works ... but even they have specializations

[quechn1tlan 102]

Why on earth do you clump wizards and ciphers together? In a case we have(no multi-classing, so no prestige classes either), I voted for BG\IWD kits, but while a wizard is a prime candidate for a number of different kits, cipher, imo, is not.

[Ulquiorra 108]

Why on earth do you clump wizards and ciphers together? In a case we have(no multi-classing, so no prestige classes either), I voted for BG\IWD kits, but while a wizard is a prime candidate for a number of different kits, cipher, imo, is not.

 

Mayby becouse i dont have place for both ? duhhhhh

 

limit for posiblitis for question is 10 and class are 11. Ciphers more risemble mages etc then other for example barberian

Edited July 11, 2013 by Ulquiorra

[quechn1tlan 102]

 

Why on earth do you clump wizards and ciphers together? In a case we have(no multi-classing, so no prestige classes either), I voted for BG\IWD kits, but while a wizard is a prime candidate for a number of different kits, cipher, imo, is not.

 

Mayby becouse i dont have place for both ? duhhhhh

 

limit for posiblitis for question is 10 and class are 11. Ciphers more risemble mages etc then other for example barberian

 

Well, excuse me for not being a poll-making guru and knowing their limitations, just seemed strange, is all

[Sacred_Path 489]

 

needs a "none" box

 

My answer is no across the board. I've been wondering lately if P:E maybe just should have stayed with the "core four" classes; while I tend towards saying "no", I don't think the game would have been any worse for it.

 

In Dragon Age yo have only thre classes mage, rogue, fighter. This system works ... but even they have specializations

 

In Dragon Age, I would argue that "magic" was a dump stat for fighters. I hope something like this will be avoided in P:E. Also I don't think Rogues and Mages can tank in DA; it's still a pretty traditional DnD setup.

[Karkarov 3,693]

Every class should have "specializations" but that doesn't mean stupid extra class name or multi classing.  Two level 20 fighters in PE should not be the same fighter, you should have options for stats, different abilities you can acquire, combat styles, skills that have out of and in combat purposes, maybe even passive bonus perks.  Every class should have enough depth to it that you can build them to be unique and effective at what you want them for.  Like a mage who is good at controlling, or one who is pure massive damage.  Or a rogue who is king at killing one enemy but another who actually specializes in ranged fighting with status effects.

 

That's all the game needs.

[ravenshrike 73]

I would like prestige classes in a game with a higher level cap. So maybe introduce them in the expansion or in PE2. But with only 10-12 levels in the first game, it doesn't make much sense.

[Ulquiorra 108]

 

In Dragon Age, I would argue that "magic" was a dump stat for fighters. I hope something like this will be avoided in P:E. Also I don't think Rogues and Mages can tank in DA; it's still a pretty traditional DnD setup.

 

 

Magic gaved only mind resistence, and extra piots drinking potions. if you where a temlar you don't need it becouse you get a bost to mind resistence and you mage killer besiacly.

 

I played dwarven fighter with berserer/(dark templar?) specialization and even then i killed every mage before he killed me besides in DAo we see prefect potion spawning when you can crate 100 potions i wery simple way ... i created them only 2 times and it was for whole game with DLCs

[motorizer 134]

I voted yes, purely because saying "I'm a kensai" sounds cooler than saying "I'm a fighter"

but to be honest I'd be happy with specialising through traits and abilities gained when levelling

[Ulquiorra 108]

I voted yes, purely because saying "I'm a kensai" sounds cooler than saying "I'm a fighter"

but to be honest I'd be happy with specialising through traits and abilities gained when levelling

 

Dwarven defender or weapon master also sound cooler then "fighter"

 

Also Elementalist, Pale maser or even strom lord sound cooler then simlpe wizard of druid

 

Besides this whole "name" more then just traits and abilitis is from role playing perpectiv.

 

For example it gives more athmosphere if you are playing assasin and somebody says "how many people have you killed" insed of guesing in cases of rogue "are you killing, stealing or hiding ?" i think that some classes exmecionaly figher and wizard and priest is to much general and at least with those thre classes everybody agree that priest of lathander is something waaaaaay difrent then pierst of baal/ cyric/ talona

[Eiphel 104]

In my opinion, there should either be a consistent system with a relatively equal number of specializations to choose from for each class, or they should just make the classes specialized enough that there's no need for sub-classes.

Exactly this - It's my preference that there not be named 'kit' style sub-classes at all, either, and you can just sculpt one through your choices.

[Ulquiorra 108]

 

In my opinion, there should either be a consistent system with a relatively equal number of specializations to choose from for each class, or they should just make the classes specialized enough that there's no need for sub-classes.

Exactly this - It's my preference that there not be named 'kit' style sub-classes at all, either, and you can just sculpt one through your choices.

 

 

Lets say you start as a fighter in normal d&d setting you get bons talets to all armors and weapons (beside egsotic). But we know that "fighter" is not only "guy with heaave armor and sword" There are guy not useing armor at all like kensai there are diftent styles of fighting like 2 swords, 1 2handed, 2daggerst, weapon and a shield... not mentioning all kinds of weaponry like spears, axes, swords, dagers etc etc ... so yo got 1 lvl of fighter and gain all there specialitys ?

 

Wizard, you chave difrent types of mages, and even in classical D&d mage who where specializing in 1 thing was better then one who was in all, besides being a mage who is destroing is diftent then baing ilusionist/tickster or healer/buffer ... if i play healer/buffer i don't want to see a sentence "wooow you mage teach me fire ball spell"..

 

Priest as i sad priest of good god (lathander) will be 100% difrent then pierst of evil god or devil ...

 

rogues, are you realy belive that one person can be perfecionist in traps, hiding, stealing, silent killlining etc ?

 

what about paladins or ranger ?

 

the term Ranger is combaining hunter, archer, wilderness expert etc ... and what if  want to be hunter only ?

 

paladins are not only fighter that buff team and comanders but also slayers of undead and darkness .. i mst be both if i want to slay undead and still be called "good comander ?" ...

Edited July 12, 2013 by Ulquiorra