One Word - Multiclassing!

[Fardragon]

I assume power level with grant access to higher level class abilities, but you will still choose a new class abilities when you gain an ond numbered level in a class. e.g. a 3/3 Fighter/Rogue would have have 2 abilites in each class, up to level equivelent 4 in each class.

 

But what about talents? Are they skill gained at even numbered class levels, or even numbered total character levels? i.e. would a 1/1 character gain a talent?

[theBalthazar]

In terms of 75 %, it is ok.

 

But the ultimate question :

 

There is an access to others abilities/class talents when you switch to sub-class.

 

Eg :

 

Ranger 3

 

Barbarian 4

 

With the fourth level of ranger, do I take "talents/abilities" of barbarian 4 ?

 

If not, there is the NWN 2 effect, and take another level stop access of the other class. (Feat)

 

It is interessting if there 2 abilities in barbarian at level 4 wich can be interresting for exemple.

Edited February 17, 2017 by theBalthazar

[Ninjamestari]

A lot.

 

Fair points. Don't get me wrong, what I've seen thus far is a definite improvement over third edition multi-classing, I just think they should have taken the AD&D approach and built up from there instead. That system wasn't perfect either you know. The thing that really bugs me about picking your levels while playing is that the leveling becomes entirely divorced from the fantasy. How does my barbarian suddenly learn how to cast complicated wizard spells after killing a few xaurips with an axe? How does my Goldpact Knight suddenly develop Cipher abilities in the middle of a dungeon run? With the seamless AD&D approach, a fighter/mage begins their journey as a fighter/mage, they have both martial training and magical education in their background. The whole system is so much cleaner than the "pick your levels" mess.

 

I do have faith in Josh, from what I've seen he seems like a guy who does have vision which is a rare trait in this industry, but I still think that he could better spend his talents improving a system that delivers more seamless game-play and a stronger fantasy. I hate playing a character that becomes the character I envisioned only after I've beaten half of the game. The AD&D approach also avoids the 17/1 build pitfall and it doesn't have to provide game-changing abilities at max level, which is also something that I find rather distasteful in gaming, and it doesn't easily bend into increased level caps either.

 

The freedom to choose your classes level-by-level introduces a lot of problems, not only from a game-play standpoint but from a design standpoint as well. The AD&D model of multi-classing is a lot easier to work with, which translates directly into less work on the core system and more room for polishing. It also translates directly into less flaws. A forgotten virtue in all software development is that a simple and eloquent solution is usually the superior one, and this is especially true in games.

 

The point is, the choice to go with 3rd edition style multi-classing has unavoidable negative consequences. From a design standpoint, there are so many things you can do with the AD&D approach without having to worry about breaking the game balance with some gimmick-build in the process, where as the 3rd edition approach places so many restrictions on things like the level at which certain abilities are accessible, how powerful can certain abilities be, can they scale with a percentage at all etc etc. The AD&D approach doesn't affect the class design process that much, but the 3rd edition approach does turn everything around on their heads.

 

EDIT: also, an AD&D style multi-classing is something they could also easily introduce into the first PoE via a patch without ruining the existing experience, helping with the continuity.

Edited February 17, 2017 by Ninjamestari

[MaxQuest]

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%?

Because:

- it's a way to brainstorm the balance of presented system (basing on the information we currently have). It is sort of feedback for the devs to gauge our approach for finding weak, breaking-points in the presented mechanics. It might help them fix some balance issues they have potentially out-looked, before PoE2 goes live in the worst case; or even before encounters were designed in the best case.

- it's also a pleasure in itself) 

 

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

He told that multiclasses will be at 75-85% power level of single class. But we don't know if he referred to all multi-class options or only to equal splits 8/8 (10/10).

From his power_source_points to power_level progression, it was seen that 17/1 and 16/2 can achieve power_level 9 of a 18/0 character.

Edited February 17, 2017 by MaxQuest

[theBalthazar]

For me :

 

75 % =

 

4 level of ranger Pure = 3 level of ranger Multiclass.

 

Concrete exemple :

 

16 levels of ranger Real

4 level of barbarian Real

 

=

 

12 level of ranger Multiclass

3 level of barbarian Multiclass

= 15 effectives levels.

 

I think it is that.

Edited February 17, 2017 by theBalthazar

[MaxQuest]

The thing that really bugs me about picking your levels while playing is that the leveling becomes entirely divorced from the fantasy. With the seamless AD&D approach, a fighter/mage begins their journey as a fighter/mage, they have both martial training and magical education in their background. The whole system is so much cleaner than the "pick your levels" mess.

Hmm. I didn't even consider the system from RP point of view. I agree that such approach would help immersion.

But, how to put it lightly... PoE1 had enough immersion breakers for me; to shift my personal source of pleasure into mechanics department. So I am more concerned with those) Hell, I have spent twice more time testing stuff, than actual playing) 

 

The freedom to choose your classes level-by-level introduces a lot of problems, not only from a game-play standpoint but from a design standpoint as well.

Yes, there will be problems. But all solvable. Even class-related stats, can be increased according to special conversion formulas or tables; or simply in NWN2 style (like they did with hit die).

 

For me : 75% is 4 level of ranger Pure = 3 level of ranger Multiclass.

Well, yeah. According to that ^ you can have:

- A 20/0 ranger who has access to rank 10 spells/abilities | i.e. power_level 10

- Or 10/10 ranger/x who has access to same spells/abilities a 15/0 ranger would | i.e. power_level 8 (and same with 2nd class)

 

Although according to the presented conversion table:

 

 

Points	Power Level
0-2	0
3	1
8	2
14	3
20	4
26	5
32	6

Conversion table source: link

P.S. If the sequence continues with the same step 6, then the formula is:

power_level = power_points < 3 ? 0 : Math.floor[(power_points + 4) / 6]

 

 

A 20/0 character would have 60 power_source_points | which corresponds to power_level 10.

A 10/10 character would have 40/40 power_source_points | which corresponds to power_level 7/7. (i.e. not eight)

 

Concrete exemple :

 

16 levels of ranger Real

4 level of barbarian Real

 

=

 

12 level of ranger Multiclass

3 level of barbarian Multiclass

= 15 effectives levels.

I am not sure I understand your example.

Do you compare 16/0 ranger with 12/4 ranger/barbarian?

Or 20/0 ranger with 16/4 ranger/barbarian?

Edited February 17, 2017 by MaxQuest

[Ninjamestari]

Solving those problems isn't that simple. Let's take the current class system as a base and have a fighter 17 / cipher. How do you solve that problem without creating new ones or removing essential class abilities, such as the soul whip? If you add a super-ultimate level 18 ability for fighters, what happens if and when the level cap is raised? If you scale the effects of soul whip with class power level, how do you make sure that low level ciphers still feel like they're worth playing?

 

The thing about problems of this kind is that there are no silver bullets, an eloquent, perfect solution doesn't exist, which means the designer has to make compromises. Another thing about problems of this kind is that solving them takes time as new systems need to be designed around them, which bloats the overall design and not only takes time that could have been used more productively elsewhere, it often introduces a whole new host of unforeseen problems.

 

Game design is difficult, which is why you really want to stick with relatively simple systems, and I'd rather that Josh spent his time coming up with new and interesting abilities and talents rather than wasting time trying to create workarounds for the numerous issues caused by a system that is a complete nightmare to balance in any way.

 

EDIT: I take your point on immersion though, immersing into a PoE character with all the soul-stuff and attributes that are completely divorced from reality takes a ton of effort.

Edited February 17, 2017 by Ninjamestari

[MaxQuest]

Solving those problems isn't that simple. Let's take the current class system as a base and have a fighter 17 / cipher. How do you solve that problem without creating new ones or removing essential class abilities, such as the soul whip? If you add a super-ultimate level 18 ability for fighters, what happens if and when the level cap is raised? If you scale the effects of soul whip with class power level, how do you make sure that low level ciphers still feel like they're worth playing?

Agreed, it's not simple.

If I was to balance such a system, I would probably start from the end. One needs to know exactly what he wants to achieve first (could be some axiomatic sentences) and then work back from there, adding variables, and arriving to formulas for power_levels, damage coefficients and spell uses amount.

 

"Axioms" or rather starting points could be our expectations:

- 1. we want multi-class characters to be picked (55 possibilities)

- 2. we want a pure class characters to be picked too (11 possibilities)

- 3. we want the picking to be based on rule of cool or personal preference, rather than how powerful they are.

- 4. we want to take into account that a 19/0 character at level up; has to decide between 20th level (and respective goodies) in class x, or 1st level in class y. Both options should be approximately equally desirable. Because if one is clearly better than other - it kills diversity, and partially the point in having such a big amount of class combinations.

- 5. we want to take into account that 1/0 character at level up; has to decide between 2nd level (and respective goodies) in class x, or 1st level in class y. And in a balanced environment both options should be approximately equally desirable. 

 

These could be rewritten further:

- 1. a level max/0 class x character should not be stronger in [utility + damage_output] than the most optimal combination of x/y.

- 2. a level max/0 class x character should be somewhat equally strong in [utility + damage_output] as other optimal combinations of x/y.

- 3. all remaining x/y combinations should at least be viable. But max/0 and and a few of x/y combinations should be optimal.

- 4. X20 ~= Y1 when making a choice at lvl 19->20

- 5. X2 ~= Y1 when making a choice at lvl 1->2

 

From 4 and 5, it is clear that stuff added by dipping in a 2nd class, should scale. Be it with character level, class level or both.

This scaling could linear or not; It could start at higher value but have lower increase with level; or vice-versa. So there are at least two axis to balance dipping. 

 

I understand that this is a simplistic approach. But the point is to rewrite and rewrite until you arrive from expectations to mathematical model.

 

In any case, now designer could take a look at other x/y splits than 19/1 and make tables of relative 'power'. I.e. he needs to decide and fill-in:

- to which spell rank every x/y feels natural to have access too

- to how much spell uses, every x/y feels natural to have access too

 

Taking into account how damage is going to be calculated; plus having these tables that represent dependency of [spell_rank_access], [spell_uses], [power_damage_coefficient] from character and class levels, he can get the final scalling formula. And in theory it should hold even if the level cap is increased, provided that it doesn't have breaking points.

 

EDIT: I take your point on immersion though, immersing into a PoE character with all the soul-stuff and attributes that are completely divorced from reality takes a ton of effort.

Immersing into a watcher and cipher was the easiest part))

I had problems with:

- might and resolve attributes.

- inability to enforce quarantine in Heritage Hill or at least inform that people should not go there, until watcher returns and properly inspects the machine.

- sometimes I was presented with A, B or C reply options, but as my character I would select neither.

- plus my eye couldn't help but notice that all "+x% attack speed" talents/enchants don't affect attack phase at all; (which brought me from immersed state and made me test stuff; cose I was thinking that something is deeply bugged; turned out to be wrong tooltip wording).

Edited February 17, 2017 by MaxQuest

[illathid]

You could justify the barbarian casting spells after killing a few xaurips the same way you did in tabletop: in the barbarian's down time they were studying magic and cantrips and upon level up they finally had enough power to cast a spell. You don't need to show it happening in the same way you don't need to show the characters defecating. 

Edited February 17, 2017 by illathid

[Leeuwenhart]

For me :

 

75 % =

 

4 level of ranger Pure = 3 level of ranger Multiclass.

 

Concrete exemple :

 

16 levels of ranger Real

4 level of barbarian Real

 

=

 

12 level of ranger Multiclass

3 level of barbarian Multiclass

= 15 effectives levels.

 

I think it is that.

 

Makes sense.

More options Less focus

[tinysalamander]

How does my Goldpact Knight suddenly develop Cipher abilities in the middle of a dungeon run?

 

His psychic powers awakened. Doesn’t seem that far-fetched.

[Ninjamestari]

And that mathematical model restricts class design, it restricts encounter design and it takes a lot of time and effort to tweak. To me the trade-off isn't worth it, because you really don't gain that much by having free reign over the levels. Class design should always begin with the fantasy first, and then creating mechanics that reinforce and represent that fantasy, not through a mathematical model just so the system can pretend to be fancy.

[MaxQuest]

And that mathematical model restricts class design, it restricts encounter design and it takes a lot of time and effort to tweak.

It indeed takes a lot of effort to tweak and balance. And JS acknowledges it.

 

To me the trade-off isn't worth it, because you really don't gain that much by having free reign over the levels.

Hmm, the trade-off is: (debatable ofc, but)

- power-builders delight, as being able to squeeze more out of your character, and plan at which levels to start multi-classing and which order, is also sort of a pleasure)

- JS personal preference for trying something new, in an attempt to push the genre further. And if the system turns out to be great, be the one who invented it.

 

Class design should always begin with the fantasy first, and then creating mechanics that reinforce and represent that fantasy, not through a mathematical model just so the system can pretend to be fancy.

That would be Witcher 2

[dunehunter]

Wondering that will flame of devotion + carnage turn it into an aoe ability? I always wanna build a zealot/berserker kinda character in crpg.

[dunehunter]

Maybe add more restrictions can solve the issue of 17/1 class combo? You know in AD&D a fighter/cleric is restricted to blunt weapons, so similarly if you wanna take advantage of 17/1 class combo over pure 18 class, u get some punishment by suffering both classes' restrictions, and you might reconsider if it worth to take 1 level into other classes.

[Fardragon]

Wondering that will flame of devotion + carnage turn it into an aoe ability? I always wanna build a zealot/berserker kinda character in crpg.

 

Very much doubt it. I expect Carnage to be changed to work off basic weapon damage only. No procs, no powers of any kind.

[Boeroer]

- power-builders delight, as being able to squeeze more out of your character, and plan at which levels to start multi-classing and which order, is also sort of a pleasure)

 

This.

So many possibilities to find awesome combos. I will put even more hours into PoE2 than into PoE1. If that's even possible.

[JFSOCC]

Rogue-Cypher -Agent.

I wonder if Obsidian will consider creating 55 special skill syngeries.

 

As someone who argued for Multiclassing in PoE, I'm pleased.

[Ninjamestari]

I think you are all seriously underestimating just how many problems and how much extra work this sort of system brings with itself, all the while severely overestimating the amount of freedom it would truly give you.

 

All in all, I hope they emphasize the cool-factor rather than balance, as what I've been trying to say all the time is that trying to solve the balance issues that 3rd edition style multi-classing brings with itself will eventually create more problems than it solves. I'd rather have the issue of dominant 17/1 builds than some weird balancing scheme that butchers the fun out of the entire system.

 

All that said, I'd still prefer they wouldn't waste time trying to patch a broken idea and would just adopt the seamlessness of AD&D multi-classing and spend the time and money saved this way to design more variety within classes, more interesting abilities, talents and skills. Not only would this preserve the balance of the game better, but it would also preserve the integrity of the fantasy much better.

[illathid]

I think you are all seriously underestimating just how many problems and how much extra work this sort of system brings with itself, all the while severely overestimating the amount of freedom it would truly give you.

 

All in all, I hope they emphasize the cool-factor rather than balance, as what I've been trying to say all the time is that trying to solve the balance issues that 3rd edition style multi-classing brings with itself will eventually create more problems than it solves. I'd rather have the issue of dominant 17/1 builds than some weird balancing scheme that butchers the fun out of the entire system.

 

All that said, I'd still prefer they wouldn't waste time trying to patch a broken idea and would just adopt the seamlessness of AD&D multi-classing and spend the time and money saved this way to design more variety within classes, more interesting abilities, talents and skills. Not only would this preserve the balance of the game better, but it would also preserve the integrity of the fantasy much better.

 

See, I'd prefer they wouldn't waste on implementing a broken idea like 2e D&D multiclassing and would just focus on the mechanical superiority of Josh's new system and spend the time and money saved this way to design more variety within classes, more interesting abilities, talents and skills. Not only would this preserve the balance of the game better, but it would also preserve the integrity of the fantasy much better.

 

Funny how opinions work.

[Ninjamestari]

Whether or not 3rd edition multi-classing is broken isn't a matter of opinion sadly, since it's a damn mess. AD&D approach on the other hand works fine. Whether or not you think the trade-off between the systems is worth it one way or another is an opinion. What you just did is quite dishonest.

[hilfazer]

AD&D multiclassing in POE would result in characters with many more talents but none of the great ones. Whether would that work is a big question.

Personally i believe barring multiclassers from the best stuff is a recipe for a crappy multiclassing.

It would probably work for just some combinations and that's not good enough.

[illathid]

Whether or not 3rd edition multi-classing is broken isn't a matter of opinion sadly, since it's a damn mess. AD&D approach on the other hand works fine. Whether or not you think the trade-off between the systems is worth it one way or another is an opinion. What you just did is quite dishonest.

 

I'm not talking about 3e multiclassing, I'm talking about josh's brand new deadfire multiclassing system. So even if 3e multi-classing system is broken (which i'm not actually admitting here), it does't matter as it's a completely seperate system. So until we see how the deadfire system works in it's entirety we can't say whether it's broken or not.

 

It's more dishonest to conflate the two system like you're trying to do.

[ArnoldRimmer]

I'm concerned about priests and paladins - their subclasses will be their  deity/order - they will actually be pretty similar to the PoE1 priests/paladins whilst all the other classes will get cool new options.

Edited February 18, 2017 by ArnoldRimmer

[Ninjamestari]

 

Whether or not 3rd edition multi-classing is broken isn't a matter of opinion sadly, since it's a damn mess. AD&D approach on the other hand works fine. Whether or not you think the trade-off between the systems is worth it one way or another is an opinion. What you just did is quite dishonest.

 

I'm not talking about 3e multiclassing, I'm talking about josh's brand new deadfire multiclassing system. So even if 3e multi-classing system is broken (which i'm not actually admitting here), it does't matter as it's a completely seperate system. So until we see how the deadfire system works in it's entirety we can't say whether it's broken or not.

 

It's more dishonest to conflate the two system like you're trying to do.

 

 

Then you haven't even read a single sentence of what I've written. Seriously, have some respect.