What PnP classes would be a good fit for PE?

[anameforobsidian]

I was thinking about new classes, because really almost everyone's shifted into PE2 mode.  And in PE2 everything is possible and there are no real world constraints to consider.  If they added new classes (and it's possible they shouldn't), the logical place to look is Pen and Paper games.  What classes do you really like in PnP that would be a good fit for PE?

 

So far I've come up with:

Spellthief,

Artificer,

Dragon Adept,

Wu Jen (giving druids an elemental theme would be cool),

4e Assassin

 

Also, various tomes having metamagic effects would be a nice touch for wizards.  It would make tome-switching more important.

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I'd honestly prefer they go classless for the next one. The issue is that pretty much every conceivable archetype allowed by PoE lore should be available with the current classes, such as Spellthief(Wizard with mechanics and stealth) or Assassin(sneak attack heavy rogue), but are clunky due to clumsily designed "multiclass talents" and locking most abilities based on class. Giving players several talents at each level they are able to select abilities with would be a better way to establish a Spellthief than creating a new class that is just a gestalt of wizard and rogue.

[PrimeJunta]

I don't think it's likely though, it would be too big a change.

 

However I do hope they fix the half-baked cross-class talents and give us true multiclassing. There's a lot of room for stuff within the classes already, allowing players to mix them up would give scope for further creativity.

 

But please, no more classes. There are arguably too many already; Obsidian does a heroic job of keeping them distinct but they're struggling -- the druid and wizard are effectively interchangeable with the differences mostly in flavour, and the rogue and barbarian could be dumped altogether without anything much of value being lost.

[DreamWayfarer]

But please, no more classes. There are arguably too many already; Obsidian does a heroic job of keeping them distinct but they're struggling -- the druid and wizard are effectively interchangeable with the differences mostly in flavour, and the rogue and barbarian could be dumped altogether without anything much of value being lost.

 

The rogue and barbarian may be currently underpowered, but dumping them would remove two interesting classes, so unless you wish to merge them into the fighter somehow...

 

As for new classes, I think we need a proper shapeshifting especialist with multiple forms that give unique buffs and debuffs, unlike the druid who is primarily a caster with a very lacking shapeshifting side.

[PrimeJunta]

Yeah, I'd merge them into the fighter. Keep the interesting talents, and allow the fighter to pick them on level-up.

 

Edit: and also, make Constant Recovery optional. That way, you could build the Pillars rogue or barbarian within the fighter paradigm, while allowing for more creative builds, and without the clunky cross-class talents.

 

Edit edit: one of the very first feedbacks I gave on the BB -- and I wasn't alone -- was on the fighter: I wanted the class blown wide open. It was, mostly. In its original conception, it had lousy ranged accuracy and got all the "tanky" abilities automatically. It was basically an on-rails role-locked tank. I thought it was rather boring and am glad they did blow it open. It could use even more of that.

Edited December 24, 2015 by PrimeJunta

[DreamWayfarer]

Yeah, I'd merge them into the fighter. Keep the interesting talents, and allow the fighter to pick them on level-up.

 

Edit: and also, make Constant Recovery optional. That way, you could build the Pillars rogue or barbarian within the fighter paradigm, while allowing for more creative builds, and without the clunky cross-class talents.

Maybe to restrict AoE sneak attacking immortals, the sneak attack and carnage could be divided into master, greater and lesser versions, so you would have to use more talents to get to maximum power.

[PrimeJunta]

Also, sneak attack should not affect carnage. Main attack only.

 

Yeah it's a bit more complicated than just making all the talents available to everyone, some of them would certainly need tuning.

[Sedrefilos]

Classless is a very good option when the game is focused on one main player character imo. Like it is you alone or maybe one companion at the time. And it is 1st or 3rd person 3D etc. When the game is party based, class-based is a better way to go.

 

Tbh I believe that the game has already enough classes, though new and more are always welcome. Then again I usually never replay rpgs and maybe that's why I say it has enough. 'Cause I played them once. And didn't mix and match many combinations. So what do I know. Anyway I'm off the thread; I just wanted to comment about classless sequel that's all

Edited December 24, 2015 by Sedrefilos

[why]

I wouldn't go with standard PnP classes.  I would rather see something specific to the game world, like a soul hunter who is kind of the anti-animancer/cipher class or some such.  Explore the unique aspects of soul magic or the peculiar nature of artificial gods.

[DreamWayfarer]

I wouldn't go with standard PnP classes. I would rather see something specific to the game world, like a soul hunter who is kind of the anti-animancer/cipher class or some such. Explore the unique aspects of soul magic or the peculiar nature of artificial gods.

Agreed, many traditional fantasy concepts, like True Names or demon summoning don't work very well with the estabilished metaphysics of Eora, while others like casting from endurance or some limited shapeshifting work well with the way souls work.

 

I myself would like to see the implications of different planes and "travelled souls", since those are mentioned briefly in the codex and seem to go beyond the more mundane aspects of the world into the more alien. Maybe those are just other aspects of Eora that only some souls interact with, instead of other universes, considering that the Wheel is adra-bond.

[evilcat]

Better explain what you mean by each name tag, since not everyone have background with DnD.

There is also issue that some of present classes could be expanded with new talents or abilities to fill some other archetypes (2 builds for one class).

 

For example:

Edricht Knight is popular archetype, but Paladins could have set of all out offensive tallents to be eldrich knight.

Spellduelist, potencially Cipher could use melee weapons and cast close  range powers, however there is not much reason to go frontline over range on cipher, so there could be made a reason.

Chanter could potenciall be build for "Summoner", maybe with ability to summon at the begininin of the combat, or have 2 summons, or be able to bind summons for longer.

 

Are we going for gameplay gimmicks or fluff?

In some other topic there was suggestions for:

Gameplay gimmicks:

Health as Mana - using abilities gives character "strain" small dot of row dmg on ourselves. Keeping casting stacks DoTs and prolonges them So there is a choice to either go all out nova and literally burn ourselves or wait for dots to fade before casting again.

Fresh Corpses - being able to animate corpses, but only after they die in battle.

 

From fluff themes:

Animancy - creatin vessels of various kind, and interacting with enemy vessels (stuning, harming, banishing, controling)

Fleshbending - like druid shapeshift but in monsterous form, like hentai tentacles to graple, tail to trip, wings to jump, venom galnds, carpace armor and spikes.

Artificer - someone who makes little devils of caroc or suspisious soul machine. Potencially using runes or power words

Edited December 24, 2015 by evilcat

[DreamWayfarer]

Spellduelist, potencially Cipher could use melee weapons and cast close range powers, however there is not much reason to go frontline over range on cipher, so there could be made a reason.

 

Melee has inherently highter base weapon DPS, allowing for more focus than ranged.

[why]

I can see doing a lot with different planes of existence.  It would be interesting and even daring to make soul magic peculiar to the exact plane in which Pillars of Eternity is set.  The idea of artificial gods would become a truly confusing but rich and interesting proposition if there are greater and lesser powers throughout the planes, some of whom might be genuine deities and some of whom might be truly godlike in scope but don't fit into the category of 'deity.'  The classes relationship with these entities and sould would be a good starting point.  When I see words like 'archtype,' I shudder.  If they're going to create pigeon holes with tons of splat book options that amount to nothing more than straight-jackets where you have to select these exact classes with these exact skills and perks just to have the 'freedom' to play this exact 'prestige' class, I'd rather they scrap the whole system and just go classless.

[DreamWayfarer]

However if souls can travel throught those planes before reincarnating at the regular plane, and the only things a lost soul can do are to wander in the ethereal side of this plane or enter adra to try to reincarnate, then the other planes are linked to adra and are only different aspects of Eora, and probably share its gods.

 

 

EDIT:

 

To make my own class suggestion, based not on pen and paper, but my own ideas, I'd like to present the Soulshifter, a shapeshifter that attunes their soul to different aspects of reality to take a number of exotic forms, either animal, spirit or elemental based.

 

The soulshifter is based on the idea of a shapeshifter that changes forms wildly as the combat goes, and can acess more alien forms as the fight goes while getting weaker in the cooldown humanoid periods. And may explode in raw soul energy sometimes.

 

This class uses strain points as a resource, representing the power accumulated in the shifter's soul as they attune to different to different energies. As the soul acvumulates energy, it gets moved further away from matter, making it harder to take more mundane forms. The only way to remove said strain is to discharge the energy on the envirorment.

 

Each form would have not only unique strenghts and weaknesses, but an unique backlash debuff after it is abandoned that lasts until the shifter takes a new form or uses the discharge skill.

 

When entering a form, the soulshifter gains x strain points, and the buffs and debuffs of both form and backlash scale with the number of strain points.

 

One can only leave a form after a minimum amount of time, after which there is an optional linger period, and there is a short cooldown between leaving a form and being able to shift again.

 

Each form adds a especific amount of strain, and there is a lower and a highter strain threshold for entering each form.

 

The only way to eliminate strain points during combat is by using the discharge skill, that deals to the soulshifter and all in a small radius an amount raw damage proportional to the soulshifter's strain. The discharge skill is automatically used after combat.

 

This class could have an interesting behavior in longer fights, getting more gamechanging strenghts and more crippling weaknesses as it uses its powers, and having to damage itself and potentialy its allies or foes to reset its state.

Edited December 24, 2015 by DreamWayfarer

[why]

I wouldn't say 'probably.'  I would say 'arguably,' which makes fine tension in the universe as a whole as people try to discern truths, and they always try, while trying to deny or disprove other people's truths.

[evilcat]

 

Spellduelist, potencially Cipher could use melee weapons and cast close range powers, however there is not much reason to go frontline over range on cipher, so there could be made a reason.

Melee has inherently highter base weapon DPS, allowing for more focus than ranged.

 

This is interesting. How often other people go for melee cipher?

For me pistol Cipher does enought dmg to power up, and cool power are anyway ranged so there is little reason to go melee.

[DreamWayfarer]

 

 

 

Spellduelist, potencially Cipher could use melee weapons and cast close range powers, however there is not much reason to go frontline over range on cipher, so there could be made a reason.

Melee has inherently highter base weapon DPS, allowing for more focus than ranged.

This is interesting. How often other people go for melee cipher?

For me pistol Cipher does enought dmg to power up, and cool power are anyway ranged so there is little reason to go melee.

Melee ciphers generaly use focus to debuff and leave the damage to their weapons. They also make good use of psychovampiric shield and can make better use of non-minmaxed stats, even if they can be minmaxed as well.

 

While I havent killed Thaos yet due to severe restart syndrome, I found they can be very sturdy for a caster without sacrificing much damage and CC, and less vulnerable to having your frontline broken after having just emptied their focus pool.

 

Althought I'd say correctly built rangers are better at switching between range and melee, nothing stops you from giving your sabre cipher a pistol for tight spaces or not dumping defensive stats on your ranged cipher for when the frontline breaks.

Edited December 24, 2015 by DreamWayfarer

[anameforobsidian]

I don't think it's likely though, it would be too big a change.

 

However I do hope they fix the half-baked cross-class talents and give us true multiclassing. There's a lot of room for stuff within the classes already, allowing players to mix them up would give scope for further creativity.

 

But please, no more classes. There are arguably too many already; Obsidian does a heroic job of keeping them distinct but they're struggling -- the druid and wizard are effectively interchangeable with the differences mostly in flavour, and the rogue and barbarian could be dumped altogether without anything much of value being lost.

 

Multiclassing would create a huge number of builds, and get rid of all but the most off the wall proposals (so, yay for multiclassing).

 

However, I don't think sending whole classes into the realm of feats is the best way to differentiate characters.  Dragon Age Origins tried to do something very similar to its mages, and instead of creating a huge number of builds it made the builds feel samey.  Class strongly differentiates the gameplay of different characters in a way that truly classless systems have a hard time managing in combat characters.  Barbarians, rogues, and fighters feel very different from each other already, and folding them into the fighter class would be snapping defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

Furthermore, if classes are feeling too samey, the solution is to change the mechanics of one class.  That's what I was trying to get with the topic of this thread.  For example, Druids could be changed to have different spells available based on surroundings, or certain spells could get stronger based on an elemental focus of the druid at hand.  This is something that they did to a limited degree in NWN2.

 

Furthermore, Obsidian has not fully used all mechanics available.  Shapeshifting, characters that specialize in small summons, and characters that specialize in traps would be welcome additions to existing mechanics.

Edited December 25, 2015 by anameforobsidian

[rjshae]

I don't think they need to widen the class base or provide multi-classing. Some unique racial specialties would be welcome though.

[Tigranes]

I expect they'll have true multiclassing options this time. The cross-class talents in WM looked like a quick stopgap measure.

[PrimeJunta]

However, I don't think sending whole classes into the realm of feats is the best way to differentiate characters.  Dragon Age Origins tried to do something very similar to its mages, and instead of creating a huge number of builds it made the builds feel samey.  Class strongly differentiates the gameplay of different characters in a way that truly classless systems have a hard time managing in combat characters.  Barbarians, rogues, and fighters feel very different from each other already, and folding them into the fighter class would be snapping defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

Furthermore, if classes are feeling too samey, the solution is to change the mechanics of one class.  That's what I was trying to get with the topic of this thread.  For example, Druids could be changed to have different spells available based on surroundings, or certain spells could get stronger based on an elemental focus of the druid at hand.  This is something that they did to a limited degree in NWN2.

 

Furthermore, Obsidian has not fully used all mechanics available.  Shapeshifting, characters that specialize in small summons, and characters that specialize in traps would be welcome additions to existing mechanics.

 

I think druids have potential to become better differentiated, so I wouldn't get rid of that class.

 

But yeah I do find the way the fighter, barb, and rogue are currently differentiated to be both weak and artificial. I would prefer all the martial talents to be baked into one class, and let players differentiate by builds.

 

I emphatically do not believe that that would lead to samey builds. Why? Because there are several distinct combat roles a martial combatant can play in a party. To name three: the tank, the melee striker, and the ranged combatant. Then there are all kinds of entirely viable and interesting hybrids which combine characteristics of each of them. I'd prefer to be able to roll my own rather than have to struggle within a class's constraints if attempting to do something other than its designated role here.

 

Also note that I'm not proposing to ax the monk or paladin: they have genuinely different, useful, and fun abilities plus a strong in-world rationale for them. 

[Sannom]

But yeah I do find the way the fighter, barb, and rogue are currently differentiated to be both weak and artificial. I would prefer all the martial talents to be baked into one class, and let players differentiate by builds

 

I emphatically do not believe that that would lead to samey builds. Why? Because there are several distinct combat roles a martial combatant can play in a party. To name three: the tank, the melee striker, and the ranged combatant.

 

Also note that I'm not proposing to ax the monk or paladin: they have genuinely different, useful, and fun abilities plus a strong in-world rationale for them.

What about the ranger?

[DreamWayfarer]

 

But yeah I do find the way the fighter, barb, and rogue are currently differentiated to be both weak and artificial. I would prefer all the martial talents to be baked into one class, and let players differentiate by builds

 

 

I emphatically do not believe that that would lead to samey builds. Why? Because there are several distinct combat roles a martial combatant can play in a party. To name three: the tank, the melee striker, and the ranged combatant.

 

Also note that I'm not proposing to ax the monk or paladin: they have genuinely different, useful, and fun abilities plus a strong in-world rationale for them.

What about the ranger?

They are the animal companion class, two halves of a character that must be coordinated for great effect. While a good deal of their abilities are geared towards ranged, they have enough abilities that work on melee weapons to not be forced into ranged.

Edited December 25, 2015 by DreamWayfarer

[anameforobsidian]

 

However, I don't think sending whole classes into the realm of feats is the best way to differentiate characters.  Dragon Age Origins tried to do something very similar to its mages, and instead of creating a huge number of builds it made the builds feel samey.  Class strongly differentiates the gameplay of different characters in a way that truly classless systems have a hard time managing in combat characters.  Barbarians, rogues, and fighters feel very different from each other already, and folding them into the fighter class would be snapping defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

Furthermore, if classes are feeling too samey, the solution is to change the mechanics of one class.  That's what I was trying to get with the topic of this thread.  For example, Druids could be changed to have different spells available based on surroundings, or certain spells could get stronger based on an elemental focus of the druid at hand.  This is something that they did to a limited degree in NWN2.

 

Furthermore, Obsidian has not fully used all mechanics available.  Shapeshifting, characters that specialize in small summons, and characters that specialize in traps would be welcome additions to existing mechanics.

 

I think druids have potential to become better differentiated, so I wouldn't get rid of that class.

 

But yeah I do find the way the fighter, barb, and rogue are currently differentiated to be both weak and artificial. I would prefer all the martial talents to be baked into one class, and let players differentiate by builds.

 

I emphatically do not believe that that would lead to samey builds. Why? Because there are several distinct combat roles a martial combatant can play in a party. To name three: the tank, the melee striker, and the ranged combatant. Then there are all kinds of entirely viable and interesting hybrids which combine characteristics of each of them. I'd prefer to be able to roll my own rather than have to struggle within a class's constraints if attempting to do something other than its designated role here.

 

Also note that I'm not proposing to ax the monk or paladin: they have genuinely different, useful, and fun abilities plus a strong in-world rationale for them. 

 

 

I think PE has done a better job differentiating the three in combat than almost any other crpg: barbarians rush to the center and engage in a dps race with everyone, running away when they get low; rogues skirt the edges of combat, and are really best when they can bypass the front line and get to enemy mages; fighters sit there like a wall, occupying masses of enemies while party members defeat the hordes.  They can be tweaked to have tankier rogues, more damage focused fighters, and more single-target barbs, but I would say there's quite a bit of differentiation there already.

 

I would have three worries removing them to feats:

1.  Player expectations.  A lot of players expect rogues.

2.  Players who stick to strong archetype would miss interesting and fun modes of gameplay.  I.E. it would narrow the player base of the game.

3.  Optimal builds.  Rather than having at least three optimal builds, it reduces down to at least one.  It very well could wind up that you would be stupid not to take carnage and enduring recovery for every fighter.  Instead of having two different classes, most people wind up with one class that does 3/4 of what the old classes did.  This is what happened in D:AO.  Unless you were terrible at the game every mage healed and knew storm of vengeance.  This is even a problem with multiclassing, because it's really common for fighters and paladins to multiclass until they get evasion.

 

Here are my options for making the classes more unique (which I'm not even sure is a problem):

I would say if you want to differentiate them more it would be that hard, you could take the base class and add the option to take their class features even further.

Make rogues more fragile, but give them more damage, and more dive into shadow abilities.  Then fighting enemy rogues becomes an interesting game of guessing where they went and keeping your casters moving.

 

Have barbarians go further into carnage.  Give them rages that alter their stats on top of normal rages, but also make them attack everyone.  Then you wind up with a fun sword of beserking situation, where you have to position around them.  It would be interesting gameplay for a barbarian to kill all the enemies next to a fighter, and then have the fighter knock them down while the stragglers are killed.  Or you could make them even more mobile, give them more hops and runs.  

 

Give fighters more trips and disables.  Put engagement back as a zone-based system that expands with larger weapons to make halberdiers.  Put in optional talents that gives them proficiency with most melee weapons.  Add talents that reduce the penalties for wearing armor.  Add options to improve the fighter role as a melee controller as well as a tank.

[PrimeJunta]

I think PE has done a better job differentiating the three in combat than almost any other crpg: barbarians rush to the center and engage in a dps race with everyone, running away when they get low; rogues skirt the edges of combat, and are really best when they can bypass the front line and get to enemy mages; fighters sit there like a wall, occupying masses of enemies while party members defeat the hordes.  They can be tweaked to have tankier rogues, more damage focused fighters, and more single-target barbs, but I would say there's quite a bit of differentiation there already.

 

Not enough in my opinion, and I can't think of ways to do it without going full jRPG which IMO doesn't suit the setting or the style of the game..

 

I would have three worries removing them to feats:

1.  Player expectations.  A lot of players expect rogues.

Can't argue with that, except with what I said before -- sometimes giving people what they ask for isn't giving them what they actually want or need.

 

2.  Players who stick to strong archetype would miss interesting and fun modes of gameplay.  I.E. it would narrow the player base of the game.

How so? If you merged the classes, you could build just as strongly-archetypical a rogue or barbarian as you can now, you'd just be doing it from a base that would be shared with the fighter.

 

3.  Optimal builds.  Rather than having at least three optimal builds, it reduces down to at least one.

I don't think so, because you would still have distinct and different combat roles for martial builds. There would, at the very least, be an optimal tank, an optimal striker, and an optimal archer. That's your three optimal builds right there.

 

It very well could wind up that you would be stupid not to take carnage and enduring recovery for every fighter.

Why would you take those for a ranged fighter?

 

Instead of having two different classes, most people wind up with one class that does 3/4 of what the old classes did.  This is what happened in D:AO.  Unless you were terrible at the game every mage healed and knew storm of vengeance.  This is even a problem with multiclassing, because it's really common for fighters and paladins to multiclass until they get evasion.

True. These are all balancing problems though: if some abilities or ability combos are overpowered, nerf them. If some are too weak that they're never taken, buff them. This is true for the game regardless of what the classes, abilities, or combinations are -- and very much so for Pillars.

 

As to DA:O, I thought the class design in it was overall pretty terrible, so I'm not sure what lessons we can learn from it other than "cooldown-based gameplay gets dull really fast." (Some of the spell combos were p. cool though, I'll give you that.)

 

Here are my options for making the classes more unique (which I'm not even sure is a problem):

I would say if you want to differentiate them more it would be that hard, you could take the base class and add the option to take their class features even further.

Make rogues more fragile, but give them more damage, and more dive into shadow abilities.  Then fighting enemy rogues becomes an interesting game of guessing where they went and keeping your casters moving.

Per-encounter in-combat stealth would be cool, yes. As to more fragile... nah. Dump the defensive stats and it's a one-hit wonder already. Problem is, some of the ninja abilities they already have -- Shadowing Beyond f.ex. -- is pretty far in to jRPG land already; give them more of that and they won't be a rogue anymore, they'll be more of an arcane trickster, shadowdancer, or similar. Which brings us right back to "player expectations" again.

 

Have barbarians go further into carnage.  Give them rages that alter their stats on top of normal rages, but also make them attack everyone.  Then you wind up with a fun sword of beserking situation, where you have to position around them.  It would be interesting gameplay for a barbarian to kill all the enemies next to a fighter, and then have the fighter knock them down while the stragglers are killed.  Or you could make them even more mobile, give them more hops and runs.  

 

Give fighters more trips and disables.  Put engagement back as a zone-based system that expands with larger weapons to make halberdiers.  Put in optional talents that gives them proficiency with most melee weapons.  Add talents that reduce the penalties for wearing armor.  Add options to improve the fighter role as a melee controller as well as a tank.

Ehhh... you know, I somehow really dislike this approach. It's the same beef I had with the fighter in the first BB -- I wasn't in charge of the build anymore, I was playing a dedicated, predesigned tank. This is my main issue with D&D character classes as well: they're very much on-rails, very much what the game designers made for you, and leave you very little scope for creativity.

 

IMO Pillars' biggest strength is that it really does allow creative yet still effective builds (as @Boeroer and @Torm have demonstrated). IMO the martial classes are especially well-suited to this kind of creativity, and merging them would allow more of it. Making the classes "like they are but more so" would get us back to "the fighter is a tank, the rogue is a striker, the barb is a raging carnager, full stop." I find that dull.