One Word - Multiclassing!

[Ninjamestari]

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.

 

Care to elaborate on your logic here? I just don't see how "AD&D multiclassing would result with many more talents but none of the great ones", or maybe I'm just missing your meaning.

[hilfazer]

Instead of being lvl 16 you will be 11/11 (result of experience table). That is 22 levels so 22 talents/abilities. But you can't pick stuff that has minimal level of 12 or higher. Sure, there is some stuff below lvl 12 that is great but it depends on a class. The rule is "higher level = better talents".

 

Such a character would also have accuracy and 'saving throws' of lvl 11 character.

[Boeroer]

I don't like AD&D multiclassing. It's so boring.

 

I'm glad OBS is trying out something new that seems to lead to many interesting build options.

[illathid]

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

 

 

No, I've read your posts, I just don't find you're arguments very convincing. Not sure why you think I'm not acting with respect. If I wasn't respectful I'd have said something like your post are inane drivel not worth arguing against. But I'm arguing against them so obviously I'm not treating you with disrespect.

[kanisatha]

I don't like AD&D multiclassing. It's so boring.

 

I'm glad OBS is trying out something new that seems to lead to many interesting build options.

^This. And I'll go even further and say that for me AD&D 2e is a horrible system in every way. D&D 3e, 5e and other similar systems such as PoE1 and PoE2 are superior to 2e in every way. Thank God WotC won't allow the use of 2e in any future games.

[Micamo]

Not to go all Edition Wars here, but it should be pointed out I think that AD&D 2e isn't... bad, it's just designed with a very different set of principles than most modern games. The thing about tabletop RPGs is what determines whether you have fun or not is mostly determined by your chemistry with the other players and the DM. If you don't get along with your group then the best system in the world can't help you. If you get along really well with your group, then you can have a blast playing FATAL. Think of tabletop systems as a lubricant, working with the way your group plays the game to amplify the fun.

 

The problem with D&D edition wars is each edition from 2e and onward is designed for a very different type of gaming group. The type of group that gets the most mileage out of 2e will rub raw against 3.5/PF and 4e, and vice-versa. All of these group types are valid, the problem is WotC for marketability reasons wants "one edition to rule them all" that appeals to everyone.

 

It goes without saying that the ruleset for a video game has quite different design demands.

 

*Also, I think there are better systems than 2e for the group playstyle that game was meant for. I highly recommend ACKS for that, though I'm more a 3.P kinda gal where D&D is concerned.

[KDubya]

I'm quite worried about multiclassing being included. I'm trying to think of a game  where multiclassing wasn't the default best choice and I'm drawing a blank.

 

In AD&D (Baldurs gate 2) (where I started back in the early 80's) Kensai/Mage, Berserker/Mage, Ranger/Cleric and Kensai/Thief were all massively better than any single class spell caster or thief. All the disadvantages of the caster, low hit points and few weapon choices, were all mitigated through multiclassing. Now split classes like demihumans had were pretty balanced as it kept you from ever reaching the highest levels of power of either class.

 

Looking at NWN and NWN2 multiclassing became the norm. Adding in a level of Monk, or whatever single level wonder class for cheese became the default choice for all builds. NWN2 made it worse with allowing four classes.

 

If abilities are similar to PoE 1 then how can you possibly balance a Barbarian/Wizard using carnage and a summoned Citzal lance? Anything melee mixed with Barabarian for carnage or Chanter for chants or even Monk to get use of wounds is going to be nigh impossible to balance unless they make it so restrictive that it becomes worthless.

 

Building a multitude of characters that were both viable and unique in PoE was enhanced by the limitation of only having one class to work with. Overcoming a build's deficiencies by allowing multiclassing is going to remove the challenge of coming up with a good character build.

 

Take my Juggernaut Monk as an example; if you let me add carnage to it or focus gain and cipher powers what possible reason would there be to not do it?

 

If Tyranny is an example of how it will be then I'm quite justified in being worried. Character builds in Tyranny are extremely simple - make a tank mage, buff with illusion spells so that you are unhittable, retaliate with elemental enhanced attacks from Magic tree, add in riposte and you can solo the game. There aren't any deep discussions on character builds on the Tyranny forum because there aren't any, while the PoE boards are still active with new builds and discussions.

[Fardragon]

I've never met a game where having more options at character creation and leveling up didn't make it more enjoyable than having fewer options.

 

I have never played a game where your character wasn't more powerful if you carefully selected your options rather than chose the default.

 

I have never played a single player game where it mattered if your character was the most powerful option possible or a Wizard Slayer.

 

 

 

And no, we already know that abilities aren't going to be the same in PoE1, and Carnage isn't going to work with procs/focus/any other ability.

Edited February 19, 2017 by Fardragon

[KDubya]

I've never met a game where having more options at character creation and leveling up didn't make it more enjoyable than having fewer options.

 

I have never played a game where your character wasn't more powerful if you carefully selected your options rather than chose the default.

 

I have never played a single player game where it mattered if your character was the most powerful option possible or a Wizard Slayer.

 

 

 

And no, we already know that abilities aren't going to be the same in PoE1, and Carnage isn't going to work with procs/focus/any other ability.

 

To matter choices need to have consequences. If the multiclassing is like NWN then there will be no consequence to taking a few cheese levels of whatever ends up being the cheesiest. That is what ruins class balance and with that also character building beyond who can be the most extreme min maxing cheese fest like NWN.

 

If Barbarians get Carnage as an innate ability how is it not going to be the easiest choice in the world to take at least one level of Barbarian for Carnage with any melee character? The same for taking a level of Monk to get use out of wounds, I mean you're going to take damage anyway why not get something out of it? Ciphers and focus will fall into the same trap, if any low level Cipher powers are useful to spam why not take a level?

 

People at first complained about how worthless the cross class skills were in PoE but soon enough most every build incorporated one or more of them, even with their watered down strength. If you can get the pure full strength class innate abilities with a single level up it'll totally distort any sort of character balance.

 

Balance matters in a single player game as much as in a multiplayer game. I've replayed PoE many times because of the large number of viable character builds that all fundamentally play different from each other.

 

If in PoE2 we can make a MoPherArian who attacks in AoE, converts incoming damage into outgoing powers and outgoing damage into psionic power how can that monstrosity be balanced against any plain jane class? If building monsters like that are possible then they will dominate the 'learn to plays' and guides and people will quickly become dissatisfied with such an easy game.

[Ninjamestari]

Guys, this isn't a debate, and this isn't about opinion. There's a distinction. I'm simply trying to communicate an idea and describe the causal connection between certain design decisions and certain sets of problems. I know I prefer the AD&D approach because of its simplicity <- that's an opinion, and that most of you prefer the 3rd edition approach because of the freedom it gives you <- another opinion.

 

That is not the point at all, the whole point is that AD&D is easier to implement without reworking the whole system, and it also allows the DESIGNER more freedom when it comes to core class design. There is a huge opportunity cost to the 3rd edition approach if you're trying to balance it properly, not to mention the host of other problems it introduces, like the whole 17/1 scenario, which will then require band-aid solutions that will likely have a negative effect on the game overall. This is not an opinion, it's a fact. Whether or not one thinks the difference of fun between the two systems is worth the difference of trouble introduced on the other hand *is* an opinion, and it's not the same opinion as "which system is more fun".

 

These distinctions are important. To be quite honest, when going for the 3rd edition style approach, I'd prefer if multi-classing was imbalanced rather than have those band-aid solutions, but there are people who want a challenge from their games and to whom balancing is important <- this is another fact, which means there is a strong incentive for the designer who goes for the 3rd edition approach to start applying those different band-aid solutions, which means that this approach is likely going to lead to one hell of a mess that'll eventually bite everyone in the ass one way or another.

 

Design decisions like this aren't isolated, they have consequences that affect every single other area of the game in subtle and sometimes insidious ways.

[hilfazer]

 

 Please, delete this post.

Edited February 19, 2017 by hilfazer

[Micamo]

I don't get it. You all must surely know that there's a limit of max 2 classes per character, right? If you're worried about Barbarian/Class2 being the strongest combo, then you realize you can do that with AD&D style multiclassing, right? It's not actually going to fix your supposed issue.

 

Honestly it seems like the real problem here is some of you don't like the idea of one level dips being possible for conceptual reasons which to me is just... Why? Seriously I don't get the objection to it. You might as well complain that you're "dipping" a single rank of survival skill to get that free bonus DR every time you rest in PoE1. Taking a single level in a class to get that one benefit you care about is no different.

[Ninjamestari]

So taking a single point in a skill to get 1DR that is exclusive with other resting bonuses is the same as dipping into a cipher for example that would grant you 20% flat more damage, more against creatures with high DR, and incredibly powerful utility abilities to boot?

[Micamo]

So taking a single point in a skill to get 1DR that is exclusive with other resting bonuses is the same as dipping into a cipher for example that would grant you 20% flat more damage, more against creatures with high DR, and incredibly powerful utility abilities to boot?

 

Yes. Once you understand that the system is a coarse point-buy, where your currency is entire character levels, you can see that they're kinda equivalent. The only real difference is the opportunity costs involved: To balance a system like this you need to make sure every level of every class is "worth" the same as every other level of every other class. That means not front-loading all of a class's strongest abilities at the first couple of levels. But once you understand how the system works it's easy to design around this.

 

Also, you're assuming that Soul Whip will work the same as PoE1. Most likely it'll scale, with the full 33% buff from PoE1 what we'll get at level 20.

[Ninjamestari]

That would mean exponential power growth per level, which makes encounter balance completely bonkers. Also, if the 33% bonus is at max level, then low level ciphers will just kinda suck.

Edited February 19, 2017 by Ninjamestari

[Micamo]

Quadratic growth, actually, and that assumes that statistics scaling will work the same as PoE1.

[Ninjamestari]

Nope, having access to blind for example has a mutiplicative effect on your character's ability to take punishment, which in turn leads to exponential growth for the level that gave you access to this ability.

[Boeroer]

Yes - great, isn't it? Can't wait to try those things out.

[tinysalamander]

Also, you're assuming that Soul Whip will work the same as PoE1. Most likely it'll scale, with the full 33% buff from PoE1 what we'll get at level 20.

 

Not necessarily 20. Somewhere between MAX_LEVEL/2 + 1 and MAX_LEVEL is fine as well.

[MaxQuest]

There is a huge opportunity cost to the 3rd edition approach if you're trying to balance it properly, not to mention the host of other problems it introduces, like the whole 17/1 scenario, which will then require band-aid solutions that will likely have a negative effect on the game overall. This is not an opinion, it's a fact.

Hmm, what if it would be possible to balance such a system, without post-release band-aids?

Also, yes, JS is aware of the potential 17/1 problem. So at least he is looking for a solution. Maybe we could propose something as well:

 

 

 

 

 

Looking at the thresholds in the video, 20 Discipline would reach Power Level 4, which would be the abilities a single-classed fighter would get at level 7. That is hopefully enough to provide a little utility and flexibility, but probably would be underpowered in various aspects when doing level 18 content.

 

I assume that reaching that final level gives you something specific and useful (although by the listed progression Power Level 9 at 50 points would be the end, unless of course the pattern breaks at the end), which would provide room to balance the single-class purist against someone that single level of multiclassing (which might happen somewhat often, given that players might use it to in effect shift the classes of the fixed companions).

That's a good question and one of the major potential fault lines for min-maxing, as it was in 3E. If you only took one level of a class, you'd only have the foundation abilities/spells of that class, albeit with 20 points/4 levels in the Power Source. You'd reach 9th level abilities a level later in your main class (18th instead of 17th), but you'd still get access to them with 9 levels in that Power Source. Still, you'd have one fewer 9th level ability because of that lag. I think a lot of it will depend on the relative power between a level 1 ability scaled up to 4th level and the inherent power of a 9th level ability/flexibility of having two 9th level abilities. It's definitely one of the main things we're keeping an eye on since we don't want to make the maxed-out single class character obsolete.

 

Still sounds like one of those early alpha things that you scrap and talk about later on in a video saying "yeah we had this awful clunky system before we came up with X"

 

Well, what would you like out of multiclassing? We can regulate multiclassing in a much cleaner fashion if you're willing to give up flexibility. Multiclassing at CC (AD&D style) would be relatively clean and easy because everything could be advanced according to a simple formula. We could also do something where you always start with a base class and then at a specific level, you gain the option (only then) to multiclass, progressing the joined classes in tandem, e.g. fighter into battlemage, so there's a heavier emphasis on the fighter side.

 

I don't have any particular attachment to this system. I made it to give players a lot of options while addressing one of the major shortcomings of 3E multiclassing. That said, ProfessorCirno is correct that synergies are the things that can make individual combos insanely good or relatively bland depending on how the mechanics work together. E.g., no, Carnage won't ultra-boost Focus, but cipher self-buffs combined with barbarian powers could still be extremely strong.

 

Source

 

 

So taking a single point in a skill to get 1DR that is exclusive with other resting bonuses is the same as dipping into a cipher for example that would grant you 20% flat more damage, more against creatures with high DR, and incredibly powerful utility abilities to boot?

Afaik it was confirmed that class starting abilities will scale.

I was explaining the need in such scalling here.

Plus here is the confirmation from Josh: link

 

---

Building a multitude of characters that were both viable and unique in PoE was enhanced by the limitation of only having one class to work with. Overcoming a build's deficiencies by allowing multiclassing is going to remove the challenge of coming up with a good character build.

Good point. Possible counter-point could be: if in PoE1 we had viable and optimal builds, in PoE2 we could end up with optimal and very-optimal)

As long as there is possibility of squeezing more, I am happy)

 

Take my Juggernaut Monk as an example; if you let me add carnage to it or focus gain and cipher powers what possible reason would there be to not do it?

Opportunity cost.

Having a lvl 17 monk and hitting level-up screen, should bring thoughts about what else you could take instead. I.e. the benefits of taking:

- 1st level in barbarian

- 1st level in cipher

- 18th level in monk

should be approximatively the same; and just like in PoE1 depend mostly on our playstyle preference and character's niche in the group; without a clear winner for all possible party compositions.

 

If Tyranny is an example of how it will be then I'm quite justified in being worried. Character builds in Tyranny are extremely simple - make a tank mage, buff with illusion spells so that you are unhittable, retaliate with elemental enhanced attacks from Magic tree, add in riposte and you can solo the game. There aren't any deep discussions on character builds on the Tyranny forum because there aren't any, while the PoE boards are still active with new builds and discussions.

That saddened me the most about that game.

There is a single most-optimal build. 2-3 possible contenders. Aaand, that's all.

Plus there is no decent hard-cc.

 

If abilities are similar to PoE 1 then how can you possibly balance a Barbarian/Wizard using carnage and a summoned Citzal lance? Anything melee mixed with Barabarian for carnage or Chanter for chants or even Monk to get use of wounds is going to be nigh impossible to balance unless they make it so restrictive that it becomes worthless.

1 lvl dip in barbarian for carnage

1 lvl dip in chanter for chants

1 lvl dip in monk for wounds

1 lvl dip in cipher for 1st rank powers + dmg increase via whip

1 lvl dip in rogue for sneak attack

So far so good. As all above options are wanted. I.e. there is an opportunity cost.

 

Now there:

- will be added scaling to make pure class options also optimal (under certain conditions) or at least viable.

- and little bit of tweaking for stuff that gets too above or too low under the power curve.

 

Lets take for example carnage. We can immediately spot potential problems due to several synergies:

- cipher with poe1_carnage could potentially overflow with focus

- rogue with poe1_carnage could potentially transform in AoE killing machine, especially if also meets condition for Deathblows

- wizard with poe1_carnage could cause over-abundance of hits with Citzal Lance, and leading to enemies being insta-melted via combusting-wounds + blasts.

- plus - poe1_carnage limits design-space for weapons with on-hit/on-crit effects especially if they are chance bassed. (otherwise there would be no reason to nerf The Unlabored Blade proc rate)

 

As you can see there are 2 main problems:

- big damage increase

- hit count increase

 

Lets calculate how many hits would you deal due to carnage shenanigans:

- with a single auto-attack with carnage:
vs 1 target: 1 weapon hit + 0 carnage hits; Total = 1
vs 2 targets: 1 weapon hit + 1 carnage hits; Total = 2
vs 3 targets : 1 weapon hit + 2 carnage hits; Total = 3
vs 4 targets : 1 weapon hit + 3 carnage hits; Total = 4
vs 5 targets : 1 weapon hit + 4 carnage hits; Total = 5

- with a single auto-attack with carnage + citzal lance:
vs 1 target: 1 weapon hit, 0 carnage, 0 blast; Total = 1
vs 2 targets: 1 weapon hit -> 1 carnage hit, 1 citzal hit (from main) + 1 citzal hit (from carnage); Total = 4
vs 3 targets : 1 weapon hit -> 2 carnage hit; 2 citzal hits (from main) + 4 citzal hits (from carnage); Total = 9
vs 4 targets : 1 weapon hit -> 3 carnage hit; 3 citzal hits (from main) + 9 citzal hits (from carnage); Total = 16
vs 5 targets : 1 weapon hit -> 4 carnage hit; 4 citzal hits (from main) + 16 citzal hits (from carnage); Total = 25

- with heart of fury with carnage (with 2H weapon) (or x2 if DW)
vs 1 target: 1 * (1 weapon hit + 0 carnage hits); Total = 1
vs 2 targets: 2 * (1 weapon hit + 1 carnage hits); Total = 4
vs 3 targets : 3 * (1 weapon hit + 2 carnage hits); Total = 9
vs 4 targets : 4 * (1 weapon hit + 3 carnage hits); Total = 16
vs 5 targets : 5 * (1 weapon hit + 4 carnage hits); Total = 25

- with heart of fury with carnage + citzal lance:
vs 1 target: Total: 1
vs 2 targets: Total = 8
vs 3 targets : Total = 18
vs 4 targets : Total = 64
vs 5 targets : Total = 125

And for comparison:

- Golden Gaze + Blasts
vs 1 target: 2 * (1 weapon hit + 0 blast hits); Total = 2 * 1 = 2
vs 2 targets: 2 * (1 weapon hit + 1 blast hits); Total = 2 * 2 = 4
vs 3 targets : 2 * (1 weapon hit + 2 blast hits); Total = 2 * 3 = 6
vs 4 targets : 2 * (1 weapon hit + 3 blast hits); Total = 2 * 4 = 8
vs 5 targets : 2 * (1 weapon hit + 4 blast hits); Total = 2 * 5 = 10

- Minor Blights + Blasts
vs 1 target: 1 * (1 weapon hit + 0 blast hits); Total = 1 * 1 = 1
vs 2 targets: 2 * (1 weapon hit + 1 blast hits); Total = 2 * 2 = 4
vs 3 targets : 3 * (1 weapon hit + 2 blast hits); Total = 3 * 3 = 9
vs 4 targets : 4 * (1 weapon hit + 3 blast hits); Total = 4 * 4 = 16
vs 5 targets : 5 * (1 weapon hit + 4 blast hits); Total = 5 * 5 = 25

 

 

Keeping in mind that there will be scaling, both problems could be mitigated in the following fashion:

V1.

- scaling damage: carnage dmg coefficient ranges either from -0.90 to -0.34 (additively); or from 10% to 66% multiplicatively; depending on class or power level

- tweaking a): carnage hits do not proc on-hit/on-crit effects AND carnage does no longer trigger citzal's blast-like aoe

- tweaking b): same as above, but also do not generate focus (although this would make barb useless for a cipher)

note: scaling damage won't be a problem because low-level carnage will still deal somewhat decent damage, with DR being substituted by Penetration system.

 

V2.

- instead of scaling damage, we could scale carnage proc rate: i.e. on each swing barbarian has a chance to deal cleave damage to a ll enemies around the target.

and this chance would scale with power level from x% to 100% (linearly or not)

- tweaking: not needed; as hit rate is already reduced.

 

Tbh I like V2 more, as it keeps the current spirit of barbarian (a character who is able to apply weapon effects to many enemies simultaneously). Plus it doesn't kill Combusting wizard/barb from the straight-go.

And even if you would take 7/11 wizard/barb for Citzal lance + carnage, it would not be such an issue anymore, because:

- 1. carnage would not have a 100% proc rate, rather closer to 70%. So much less hits. (specifically down from 125 to ~95 vs 5 targets; versus 50 hits while dual-wielding)

- 2. your wizard spells would deal damage based on power_level 6; not 9; Maybe cc + self-buffs would also have shorter duration;

- Citzal's lance is a summoned weapon, it's damage could scale as well

- 3. your barbarian abilities would deal damage based on power_level 6; not 9

- 4. your general dps output would be somewhat equal to a pure wizard who just spams spells. And potentially even less vs a single target.

- 5. Heart of Fury has an AoE of 2m; and it does NOT scale with INT. Most of the time you are very unlikely to hit even 5 enemies with it.

 

-------------

 

Now, be it carnage scales according to V1, or be it according to V2.

If you are a lvl 1 fighter, you could:

- take 2nd level in fighter, for a fighter talent. Let's say Weapon Mastery which would add +0.1 to dmg coefficient

- take 1st level in barbarian, for carnage (at 10% chance or 10% dmg). Which would roughly increase your dmg vs single target by 0%; vs 2 targets by 10%; vs 3 targets by 20%, and so on.

- take 1st level in rogue; for +0.15 dmg coefficient from sneak attack

- take 1st level in cipher; for +0.1 dmg coefficient from soul whip

- and so on.

 

But these do scale. Imagine the same fighter at lvl 17. On next level-up he could:

- take 18th level in fighter, for a lategame talent/specialization

- take 1st level in barbarian, for carnage (at 30% chance or 30% dmg).

- take 1st level in rogue; for +0.45 dmg coefficient from sneak attack

- take 1st level in cipher; for +0.3 dmg coefficient from soul whip

 

If that lategame fighter's talent provides a benefit of +0.35 dmg coefficient magnitude (or it highly increases the base damage of some of fighter's abilities) than it might be worth it to go pure fighter. The idea is to make that choice to not be a no-brainer.

All we need is to go through all 55 combinations, consider all the op combinations, and find the common golden mean for scaling (plus tweak those that end up too weak or powerful)

 

P.S. Khm, looking at that wall, it ended up longer than expected.

Edited February 20, 2017 by MaxQuest

[hilfazer]

I could share my idea for multiclassing i'd use in my RPG but i need to know of Obsidian is allowed to 'steal' it.

Does anyone know?

I don't want $$ for it, i just want to be credited.

[Micamo]

I Am Not A Lawyer but generally, authors are advised not to read fanfiction of their own work, because if they do then fanfic authors can sue if official sequels are even broadly similar to the fic, even if the fic author expressly gave permission for the work to be re-used in an official sequel. The law is probably similar with game mechanics, but as far as I know such a thing has not actually been tested in court: The situation might be different though if the developers are openly asking for feedback and ideas and said ideas are being posted with the presumption that it might be used. Basically, we won't find out until someone actually sues someone else and the case goes to court.

 

If you're genuinely worried, then post it with Creative Commons Attribution Only license, which is the minimum copyright license that's held up in court.

[Leeuwenhart]

If they use it then credit you they would be putting themselves open to damages.

 

So no.

 

 

Its like putting their lawshield down and trusting the guy with the sword.

 

Share if you want to share for the sake of it.

Dont share if you want credit.

 

I understand the need for it.

 

But if in the best case they use something.

 

YOU will know.

 

Thats all that matters.

So what if theres a dozen letters in the end of a game spelling your name.

 

Doesnt matter.

(If there is no fin. gain involved like you said)

 

You made something good.

You made a difference.

You got confirmation you're capable.

 

Shaaaaaaarrrrreeee the preciouuuuussss

Edited February 20, 2017 by Leeuwenhart

[hilfazer]

Tomorrow i will share so you guys can tell me how bad it is

 

BTW everyone and his brother seems to worry about OP combinations stemming from multiclassing but nobody seems to be bothered by stuff that does not synergize that is potentially UP.

Could that be stuff nobody uses is not a problem?

[Doppelschwert]

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.

 

1) We already know that the priests spell list will depend on diety, so they certainly won't stay the same.

 

2) Your concern sounds extremly selfish:

Priests/Paladins were the only classes that had rich options in PoE1. You can't seriously complain that its unfair that the rest of the classes are brought up to par? They designed 17 paladin-specific talents in PoE, and you can get 7 of those in each order. The monk/chanter had 3/2.

Even without new options, the priests/paladins will still have 6 options over the 4 options for every other class, and it has been confirmed that some of them might not even be very drastic changes.