One Word - Multiclassing!

[Boeroer]

I never said it's a problem. But OBS might feel that it all gets quite boring if every char who gets his hands on weapons like Redeemer or Steadfast etc. picks at least one level of barb just to get carnage for more procs.

Edited February 5, 2017 by Boeroer

[Fardragon]

I'm pretty sure Carnage will work differently. There are some class abilities that you wouldn't want to trigger off it too. I expect it will be set to do only base weapon damage, with no chance of procs or special abilities triggering.

[Ganrich]

I'm pretty sure those core abilities (Carnage, Ranger Pet, etc) will scale via the classes power level. The power level (bond in the Ranger's case) would increase accuracy, damage, deflection, dr, etc for the Pet. So, a high level Ranger will have a stronger pet vs a multiclassed character with a single dip level in Ranger. A barbarian's rage level could increase the base AoE of carnage, and perhaps its accuracy, penetration, and the like. The problem is that if you are too heavy handed with that scaling mechanic then it may not be worth it to dip one level into a class, but that might be the point. I expect a handful of levels will be more optimal, but we need details on the classes and their abilities, spells, and when they come during the level up of a class to be sure what is optimal.

[Doppelschwert]

I never said it's a problem. But OBS might feel that it all gets quite boring if every char who gets his hands on weapons like Redeemer or Steadfast etc. picks at least one level of barb just to get carnage for more procs.

 

I'm sorry, but I was replying to the reasoning you started in this post:

 

I'm a bit curious how OBS wants to solve obvious problems like:

 

Everybody who wields a weapon with spell chance will take at least 1 level of barb in order to get carnage - in order to pimp the proc chance. Damage of carnage will not matter, it's just about the amount of hits you generate per swing. It would gimp you if you didn't and stay true to your class.

 

Every weapon with spell chance cries for things like Carnage, Torment's Reach, Blast, Twinned Arrows and/or Driving Flight.

 

I'm agreeing that from a balancing point, this could be a problem in the setting of PoE. From a logical point of view, spells should not trigger on AoE (I think twin shot is valid though). But as others already said, you can still do this as a single class barbarian there, so it looks like its fine to them. And as josh already pointed out in SA, carnage, sneak attack and all the other low-level constant-benefit passives from PoE will be turned into abilities that scale with class level in PoE2, so the one-level dipping is already kind of moot. This implies to me that those effects are constructed from the original attack, so there likely won't be any procs.

 

However, I'm not agreeing with the logic that even if it was like in PoE, everyone would suddenly grab a single lvl in barbarian. There are tons of players out there that stick to their character concept, then there is probably the majority of people that only play through once and miss out on these combos due to lack of planning (how can you going in blind?). There are also people like me that just ignore some mechanics on purpose to have a different experience.

 

I think your complaint is justified in that build variety for min-maxing might suffer due to things like this, but making sweeping generalizations of the playerbase seems wrong to me. And just to clarify, I don't really want to agonize you in particular. I think you are a clever guy that contributed a lot to the build section, and I appreciate that.

Edited February 5, 2017 by Doppelschwert

[Archaven]

I'm not sure anyone aware of this. But I like to thank Obsidian for making this possible.

 

Fighter/Chanter = Dragonborn

 

Fuuus Rohhh Daaa

[MaxQuest]

Guys, I am interested in your opinions and gut feelings on the following:

1. Would you like 17/1 wizard/x to have access to rank 9 spells?

2. Should a 1/17 wizard/x have access to rank 3 or 4 of spells?

3. Should a 9/9 wizard/fighter have access to rank 5, 6 or 7?

4. What about a 15/3 wizard/fighter?

5. Should a 18/0 wizard deal slightly more damage with wizard spells than a 17/1 variant? (don't take in consideration any passives from second class)

6. How powerful would you want Empower to be for damaging spells? A 20% dmg bonus? 30%? 50%?

7. In PoE1, did you feel that Monk's wounds gain speed was accelerating towards the end game? Was that ok for you?

 

But OBS might feel that it all gets quite boring if every char who gets his hands on weapons like Redeemer or Steadfast etc. picks at least one level of barb just to get carnage for more procs.

Josh mentioned that carnage will not generate focus for ciphers or at least it won't be an issue. 

I wouldn't be surprised if carnage would also stop proc'ing weapon effects.

 

Although, maybe there is another solution in mind. It could become chance based, and scale with power level.

E.g. 1 power_level carnage: your weapon swing has a 20% to hit everyone in AoE. 2 power_level carnage: 30%, 9 power_level: 100%.

Edited February 6, 2017 by MaxQuest

[Ninjamestari]

I still think that they should just go for the AD&D style multi-classing. The whole concept of 17/1 would require so many tweaks to discourage that the aftermath of introducing multi-classing as proposed might just ruin the feel of many classes. Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS). A simple eloquent solution to multi-classing is so much easier to balance that the amount of collateral damage would be reduced immediately. Too non-restricted systems lead to exploitable holes, which in turn lead to band-aid solutions, which in turn severely restrict what the developers can do with single classes.

 

In essence there are only two types of multi-class characters that only have two classes. The balanced characters that go for something around 9/9, and the non-balanced where the character picks the minimum amount of levels in the other class he needs to in order to get ability x. The balanced build is more fun to play with the AD&D style system where both classes level simultaneously and seamlessly, and the non-balanced build I think is something that causes more problems than it's worth.

[hilfazer]

Guys, I am interested in your opinions and gut feelings on the following:

1. Would you like 17/1 wizard/x to have access to rank 9 spells?

2. Should a 1/17 wizard/x have access to rank 3 or 4 of spells?

3. Should a 9/9 wizard/fighter have access to rank 5, 6 or 7?

4. What about a 15/3 wizard/fighter?

5. Should a 18/0 wizard deal slightly more damage with wizard spells than a 17/1 variant? (don't take in consideration any passives from second class)

6. How powerful would you want Empower to be for damaging spells? A 20% dmg bonus? 30%? 50%?

7. In PoE1, did you feel that Monk's wounds gain speed was accelerating towards the end game? Was that ok for you?

1. Yes, less spells / less slots, but yes.

2. Yes, less spells / less slots, but yes.

3. Yes, less spells / less slots, but yes.

4. Yes, less spells / less slots, but yes.

5. Yes, damage scaling with caster level keeps low level spells useful and accuracy is likely going to scale with character lvl.

6. Depends on how bad spells are going to be but not less than 50%.

7. Can't say how it felt, but since monk abilities did not scale with level (or did they? i haven't play after 3.0) wound acceleration was fine.

Edited February 6, 2017 by hilfazer

[Boeroer]

7. It was not scaling, no. But you had a lot more endurance while the wound threshold was still at 10 (or 8 with talent). You could accumulate a lot more wounds than in the early game without getting knocked out due to low endurance or health.

 

You could accelerate wound gain by dropping deflection and DR without too much risk because your health pool and maybe also the healing in the party was alot bigger/more potent.

Edited February 6, 2017 by Boeroer

[Micamo]

Guys, I am interested in your opinions and gut feelings on the following:

1. Would you like 17/1 wizard/x to have access to rank 9 spells?

2. Should a 1/17 wizard/x have access to rank 3 or 4 of spells?

3. Should a 9/9 wizard/fighter have access to rank 5, 6 or 7?

4. What about a 15/3 wizard/fighter?

5. Should a 18/0 wizard deal slightly more damage with wizard spells than a 17/1 variant? (don't take in consideration any passives from second class)

6. How powerful would you want Empower to be for damaging spells? A 20% dmg bonus? 30%? 50%?

7. In PoE1, did you feel that Monk's wounds gain speed was accelerating towards the end game? Was that ok for you?

1. Yes

2. Actually I'm gonna say rank 5

3. 7

4. 8

5. Yes

6. Depends on how encounters are balanced and the amount of resting available but if start at 50% and adjust from there

7. Dunno, literally never touched the monk class in any of my playthroughs. I only messed with Zahua to do his quest.

[Doppelschwert]

Josh said this on SA:
 

Empowering is the equivalent of gaining 3 power levels in the related Power Source.

 

I'm confused about the terminology at this point, but making it procedurally scale seems like the right thing to do, since they won't need to balance empowerering separately.

[Ganrich]

I still think that they should just go for the AD&D style multi-classing. The whole concept of 17/1 would require so many tweaks to discourage that the aftermath of introducing multi-classing as proposed might just ruin the feel of many classes. Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS). A simple eloquent solution to multi-classing is so much easier to balance that the amount of collateral damage would be reduced immediately. Too non-restricted systems lead to exploitable holes, which in turn lead to band-aid solutions, which in turn severely restrict what the developers can do with single classes.

 

In essence there are only two types of multi-class characters that only have two classes. The balanced characters that go for something around 9/9, and the non-balanced where the character picks the minimum amount of levels in the other class he needs to in order to get ability x. The balanced build is more fun to play with the AD&D style system where both classes level simultaneously and seamlessly, and the non-balanced build I think is something that causes more problems than it's worth.

I think build diversity should outweigh balance in this regard. With the 3rd edition system I can make a Chanter and focus on it with a few levels of Ghost Heart Ranger and have a pseudo necroranger. While focusing on Chanter mostly I will lean toward spell casting, but be competent with ranged weapons and my pet summon will be ok. If I go the other route, I'll have less spell casting, but have much better ranged attacks and my pet will be better.

 

With the AD&D system it will always be an even split, and at that point the only thing that will change the Multiclass's forte will be attributes and maybe gear. The 3.0 system will add more build diversity, and that to me means it will increase replayability by a greater margin. That's a good thing. Especially in an RPG.

 

Does every permutation of a Multiclass need to be equal? No. As long as the design goal of being viable is still reached then it is fine if one combo is lesser than another. If one combo outshines another... then it really doesn't matter since it's a single player game. Most games of PoE I don't care if I'm 100% optimized, but that the build is fun and viable.

 

Edit: Another perk to the 3rd edition way of doing things is if I want a 50/50 character... it's still an option.

Edited February 6, 2017 by Ganrich

[Ninjamestari]

I don't think free multi-classing is the right way to bring about build diversity. More diversity in skills, talents and spells would be the better way of doing that in my opinion. The difference between an even split and a slight leaning on one class or another isn't enough to justify the loss of the seamlessness, like I said, and the 17/1 character causes way too many problems.

 

The thing is that with AD&D style multi-classing you don't have to do all that level-scaling abilities thing, you can have all the early punch you had in PoE 1 for your stuff without breaking the balance as badly.

 

That being said, the scheme that was proposed doesn't seem nearly as horrible as 3rd edition D&D, but still, if your multi-class character gains 3 power levels of the primary class and 1 power level of the secondary class every time you level up, then you'll end up only losing two thirds of a level in terms of power in your primary class for making that 17/1 build, and you'll gain 19 power levels of that secondary class, effectively ending up as a 17/6 character. No one in their right mind would stay single class under such conditions I think. 

[Ganrich]

I doubt 17/1 will be very viable. I expect talents that are locked to having a Max power source (discipline, rage, etc) in a class. Those will make that single dip much less appealing.

 

AD&D had scaling for some spells. Magic Missile, Fireball, etc all scaled. So, lower level casters that multiclassed had spells that weren't as good if they multiclassed.

 

We don't know how scaling works. We just know its there. It's throwing the baby out with the bath water to say any multiclass build is better than a pure at this point. We have zero information.

 

That said, I definitely want more talents and skills, but I think the AD&D system is akin to just too rigid. Let players experiment. Half the fun of PoEs system was neat builds, and carrying that tradition over to the sequel but cranking it to 11 is something that I think would be better. To each their own.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Josh said this on SA:

 

Empowering is the equivalent of gaining 3 power levels in the related Power Source.

 

I'm confused about the terminology at this point, but making it procedurally scale seems like the right thing to do, since they won't need to balance empowerering separately.

Yeah, that looks like a clever and clear solution to this. I really hope that it works out.

[PrimeJunta]

Josh has been pretty clear about his objectives in re multiclassing: he sees it as a tool for players to create the kind of character concept they have in mind.

 

I.e. multiclasses shouldn't outshine single-classes, but should remain fun and viable. Minmaxers will no doubt have fun making some amusingly broken builds (@Boeroer looking at you here) but overall they should be roughly equally powerful. 

 

I've done a little bit of arithmetic with those power sources, and it appears to me that the system is pretty robust really -- multiclasses from 17/1 to 8/8 ought to all be feasible, always depending on what you dip into/build. 

[Boeroer]

It will be so much fun. I'm ready to put on my dark under-eye circles...

[MaxQuest]

I still think that they should just go for the AD&D style multi-classing. The whole concept of 17/1 would require so many tweaks to discourage that the aftermath of introducing multi-classing as proposed might just ruin the feel of many classes. Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS). A simple eloquent solution to multi-classing is so much easier to balance that the amount of collateral damage would be reduced immediately. Too non-restricted systems lead to exploitable holes, which in turn lead to band-aid solutions, which in turn severely restrict what the developers can do with single classes.

Bobby Null left a really suiting reply in an adjacent thread. Especially relevant is point 3.

JS indeed has more practical experience in mechanics design than we do have combined. And in a way he indeed has the right to try new things in an attempt to move the genre forward or at least make it more diverse.

 

---

Tbh, I don't know how the AD&D style multi-classing system works. So I cannot comment on that.

But after fiddling with numbers around the presented by JS system, and trying to think what would I do in his place (with all those power levels, sources and so on), I strongly believe that a balanced multi-classing actually can be achieved. I.e. a system where for each 18/0 pure class there will be at least one x/y equally viable alternative for each second class.

 

In order to achieve such level of balance, I can imagine a designer to need 3 things:

1. ability to adjust to what spell/ability ranks a character of any x/y combination has access to.

2. ability to adjust spells/ability damage based on x/y and character level. I.e. scaling.

3. ability to adjust the linearity curve of the above points. This would be basically a lever that would swing the relative power between 18/0 and 9/9.

 

Each of the above balance-levers should have a variable attached. For example: 

1. Rank Level

2. Power Level

3. Power Source Points 

 

Tbh, power_source was a brilliant idea, as it's bassically a balance knob, where by rotating it left-right (i.e. changing the relative points gain) you can basically change the balance between pure-class and multi-class characters as you like. 

 

Another idea was making the system simpler, in accordance to KISS principle you have mentioned.

You have probably noticed, that in the last presented [power_source points to power_level conversion] table, JS made it such that power level ranges from 0 to 9. What a coincidence there are also going to be 9 spell ranks, as the maximum character lvl is 18. It looks like Josh decided to merge Rank Level with Power Level into a single entity. 

The good thing: the system is now simpler. 

The bad thing: he has severily restricted himself in fine tuning the [amount_of_spells a pure class vs multi-class has access to] versus [damage of <z> spell when cast by x/y character] separately from each other.

 

So Rank Level is now thrown away; and it leaves us with the following levers and axis for their use:

V1:

- 1. Power Level, used to determine which spell ranks any x/y combination has access to.

- 2. Power Source, used to determine spell and ability damage; linearity of it's scaling and power_level curve.

 

V2:

- 1. Power Level, used to determined which spell ranks any x/y combination has access to AND their damage.

- 2. Power Source, used to determine the power_level curve.

 

That's why I have asked those questions:

1. Would you like 17/1 wizard/x to have access to rank 9 spells?

5. Should a 18/0 wizard deal slightly more damage with wizard spells than a 17/1 variant? (don't take in consideration any passives from second class)

 

I wanted to know if anyone would answer these two questions differently. But so far I've got two yes/yes answers, which match the V1 but contradict the V2 approach. Because according to V2 both 18/0 and 17/1 wizards would both have the power_level 9 AND the same damage as result. (while according to V1, 18/0 would deal 54/52, i.e. 3.8% more damage than 17/1)

 

At the same time V2 is the direction in which JS is moving. As he already hinted that power_level and not power_source_points will be used in damage calculations:

 

Empowering is the equivalent of gaining 3 power levels in the related Power Source.

 

---

There is one more thing that worries me. The relative gain from empowering your spells.

 

If power_level is going to affect spell damage, which it is; there are 2 variants for it to do so:

1. dmg = base_dmg * (1 + might_score + other_dmg_coefficients + power_level_coefficient)

2. dmg = base_dmg * (1 + might_score + other_dmg_coefficients) * power_level_coefficient

 

Where power_level_coefficient can be:

A. of wide range, where the difference between end points is very big. For example: power_level_coefficient = power_level / 9

B. of restricted range, where the difference between end points if smaller. . For example power_level_coefficient = sqrt(5 * power_level) / 9 

 

The 1st problem I see is: no matter how you do it (1A, 1B, 2A or 2B): empowering spells while having high power_level will give you a much, much less dmg increase, than using empower at low power_levels.

 

The 2nd problem I see is:

- there are spells affected only by power_level, might and usual damage coefficients like scion of flame for instance

- there are spells affected by those above AND intellect. I am talking about DoTs. 

The thing is, due to high coefficients, DoTs will scale way better and will have the potential to deal broken damage in the late game; OR if nerfed, will be useless in the early game.

 

P.S. Watching this increasing wall of text, I just hope you will understand what I mean, in the way I meant it. 

 

---

7. Can't say how it felt, but since monk abilities did not scale with level (or did they? i haven't play after 3.0) wound acceleration was fine.

They did scale, indirectly with wounds gain. And wounds gain... wasn't linear along all 16 levels. 

- At levels 3-4, you have around 80 endurance. And without healing you are limited at 8 wounds per encounter; with those xaurips poking you for low amounts of damage.

- While during during end-game boss fights, monk has high endurance; healing and lots of health. He can take lots of damage in a short amount of time, resulting in fast wounds gain, and thus much more damage coming from his abilities.

 

The reason I asked that question is: there are 11 classes. It's easy to balance the starting class-specific ability of 10 of them via scaling. But it's hard to balance it for... monk. Because:

- monk already is limited in taking wounds in early game. And he does accumulate them slowly. But he does accumulate them faster in late game. Hence it is already scaling. Applying a power_level to it, would make monks early game much weaker.

- any class in the late game, can take 1 level of monk; and get lots of free torment's reach casts.. which are full attacks, moreover in a cone. Without being limited by hp pool anymore; you can put a rogue in a situation where he takes a lot of beating, but he dosn't fall because of permanent healing. Now imagine the turret machine such a character can become.

Edited February 7, 2017 by MaxQuest

[Fardragon]

Josh said this on SA:

 

Empowering is the equivalent of gaining 3 power levels in the related Power Source.

 

I'm confused about the terminology at this point, but making it procedurally scale seems like the right thing to do, since they won't need to balance empowerering separately.

 

Say you have two classes, A and B. If you take a level in class A you are also granted 1/3 of a level in class B (for spell and ability progression, not new Abilities and Talents).

Edited February 7, 2017 by Fardragon

[hilfazer]

---

7. Can't say how it felt, but since monk abilities did not scale with level (or did they? i haven't play after 3.0) wound acceleration was fine.

They did scale, indirectly with wounds gain. And wounds gain... wasn't linear along all 16 levels. 

- At levels 3-4, you have around 80 endurance. And without healing you are limited at 8 wounds per encounter; with those xaurips poking you for low amounts of damage.

- While during during end-game boss fights, monk has high endurance; healing and lots of health. He can take lots of damage in a short amount of time, resulting in fast wounds gain, and thus much more damage coming from his abilities.

 

Ok, but i still have no problem with that acceleration.

Doing more damage is desirable as enemies you fight late game are tougher.

Wound acceleration is needed to fuel higher level abilities as they cost more:

Torment's Reach - 1

Flagellant's Path- 3

The Dichotomous Soul - 8

It's similar to cipher's mechanics - your focus generation needs to accelerate to allow you casting higher level powers.

And there's a chanter who sucked precisely because of lack of acceleration and eventually got it with a talent.

 

Moreover some monk talents depend on stacked wounds. Wound cap is 10 and never changes. Acceleration will get you there faster, sure, but once you are there its benefit stops.

 

- any class in the late game, can take 1 level of monk; and get lots of free torment's reach casts.. which are full attacks, moreover in a cone. Without being limited by hp pool anymore; you can put a rogue in a situation where he takes a lot of beating, but he dosn't fall because of permanent healing. Now imagine the turret machine such a character can become.

Shhh... stop sabotaging my plan!

 

But don't worry about this - people will be busy 1lvl dipping those barbarians and rogues (:

[Doppelschwert]

Say you have two classes, A and B. If you take a level in class A you are also granted 1/3 of a level in class B (for spell and ability progression, not new Abilities and Talents).

Thanks for the clarification, but I'm aware of that much - I'm just confused at this point what the individual terms mean. There are points for progression in the classes that equate 1/3 of a level, there is the actual level of the class, and then there is somehow a number that determines how strong your abilities are and which unlocks new abilities, and I'm kind of fuzzy on which is called what now.

In particular, I'm not sure if adding 3 power levels on using empower means that you add 3 class levels or 3 thirds = 1 class level or if this goes into scaling yet differently.

I understood the concepts, but I think the names are not very intuitive. When I think about power levels, the first thing that comes to mind is 'it's over 9000'...

[hilfazer]

 

Say you have two classes, A and B. If you take a level in class A you are also granted 1/3 of a level in class B (for spell and ability progression, not new Abilities and Talents).

Thanks for the clarification, but I'm aware of that much - I'm just confused at this point what the individual terms mean. There are points for progression in the classes that equate 1/3 of a level, there is the actual level of the class, and then there is somehow a number that determines how strong your abilities are and which unlocks new abilities, and I'm kind of fuzzy on which is called what now.

In particular, I'm not sure if adding 3 power levels on using empower means that you add 3 class levels or 3 thirds = 1 class level or if this goes into scaling yet differently.

I understood the concepts, but I think the names are not very intuitive. When I think about power levels, the first thing that comes to mind is 'it's over 9000'...

 

 

3 power levels usually equal 6 class levels. Usually, because progression is not linear at the beginning.

One class level grants 3 power source. Power usually raises every 6 source.

Power level is by far the most important.

 

Also quote from Josh:

After your Power Source gets enough points, you ascend to the next Power Level and get access to additional abilities.

[prototype00]

Hmm, thought I'd ask, how does the level cap rising to 20 change the current wisdom concerning break points?

[Leeuwenhart]

Why you guys talking about breakpoints and opt builds when

 

1 you dont know if its the same lvling as poe1

2 you dont know how many levels we gonna get 18 or 20

3 josh said that multiclasses will be at 75% powerlevel of single classes.... or was it 85%?

Edited February 17, 2017 by Leeuwenhart

[prototype00]

Because the game doesn't come out for a while and you have to talk about something and I like speculating about the numbers?