One Word - Multiclassing!

[MaxQuest]

What's the disadvantage of making everyone for example a 1st level fighter/15 else with 20 extra beginning points of accuracy and regen? Are class abilities gonna get nerfed then?

We currently lack information. I could think of couple of reasons, but these would be just speculations:

- classes have the same starting acc/deflection.

- classes have the same starting acc/deflection, but gain a bonus acc/deflection on each levelup, based on what class you just selected.

- classes have different acc/deflection (as it is now), but there are more powerful dual-class combinations than fighter-x.

 

Josh may come up with some kind of bonus for unused virtual points in order to not disadvantage pure classes and to avoid sweet spots. We'll learn more soon.

Indeed. Also it could be that a pure-class gets access to a bonus/deeper specialization, or has access to lets say a third subclass.

 

---

Looking at video, we now have the full list of power source names:

 

Barbarian - rage

Chanter - spirits

Cipher - psionics

Druid - nature

Fighter - discipline

Monk - mortification

Paladin - zeal

Priest - faith

Ranger - bond

Rogue - guile

Wizard - arcane

 

Also looking at Josh' board, we can notice that:

- abilities improve through power_level

- he keeps experimenting with power_points to power_level conversion.

 

On 0:47s it is:

0-2 points -> 0 power level
 3 points -> 1 power level
 8 points -> 2 power level
14 points -> 3 power level
20 points -> 4 power level
26 points -> 5 power level
32 points -> 6 power level

Which corresponds to power_level = Math.floor[(power_points +4) / 6], past 3 points

And we used power_level = [Math.floor(power_source / 3)]

 

Hmm, will have to check the video again to understand the difference between power points and power source.

 

 

Edited February 4, 2017 by MaxQuest

[Messier-31]

Chanter - spirits

 

And a bottle of rum.

[theBalthazar]

I think pure class will be better than multi-class.

 

I smell it...

 

With 5 characters, I prefer that each guy do the best. 100 % and not 75 %.

 

Josh has in mind balancing way, but like as presented, I think pure class stay better than multi.

 

In this game, each of 5 characters do his job. There is no place generally (for me) for 36 000 actions (All battles close in 15 seconds max in PoE). So I prefer widely 5 pure class character, accurate and powerful...

 

Multi-class become totally useless with this system.

Edited February 3, 2017 by theBalthazar

[Gromnir]

I think pure class will be better than multi-class.

 

I smell it...

 

With 5 characters, I prefer that each guy do the best. 100 % and not 75 %.

 

Josh has in mind balancing way, but like as presented, I think pure class stay better than multi.

am agreeing... sorta.  there will be exceptions.  unforeseen gearing, talent and ability synergies will result in a few no-brainer multi-class combos.  perhaps a priest/paladin will be balanced, unless he/she has a particular helm equipped and your party has at least one cipher with access to _________.   is so tough to predict such stuff, and poe has so many customization options. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Blarghagh]

I think pure class will be better than multi-class.

 

Isn't that the intended trade-off? Access to two sets of skills on one character compared to being better with one set of skills on the other. For example: If the fighter/mage doesn't lose out on deflection compared to a pure fighter of the same levels, then the fighter/mage casting stoneskin before the fight is always going to be the better option for tanking, isn't it? Either multi-classes need to sacrifice something for their versatility, or they make pure classes obsolete.

 

But then, I still don't see the need for perfectly balanced power levels in a single player game. Again, viable is good enough for me, I don't need optimal. My balance concerns are "can I make my way through the game with it", not "can I make my way through the game with it easier than anyone else". The only one forcing you to pick the optimal path instead of the path that seems more interesting is you. Especially in PoE, where the difficulty difference between classes seems to be "my Watcher is godlike" and "my Watcher is even more godlike".

Edited February 3, 2017 by TrueNeutral

[mothra]

Often the system on paper works but then items/potions/buffs get introduced and throw the balance way off.

Will have to wait and see.

Although I have no problem with lower power just so I can roleplay my rogue+cipher concentrating only on single target abilities.

[Micamo]

One factor that needs to be taken into consideration is how power distribution actually works. Take, for example, Cipher powers. Taking a single-level dip in Cipher when you're at level 17 would give you access to 4th-level Cipher powers, but wouldn't necessarily let you pick all the powers a 7th-level Cipher would have access to. If it only lets you pick two, then that's much less useful. This would make Priests and Druids very strong secondary classes since they can cast any spell that they have access to, rather than picking their spell selection from a list. Wizards less so because they'd have to learn spells from enemy grimoires rather than getting them automatically.

 

Also, if power distribution works this way I can see retraining being very useful since it lets you shift your secondary class levels to the end, which means you get to trade out weaker abilities for much stronger ones.

Edited February 3, 2017 by Micamo

[morhilane]

What's the disadvantage of making everyone for example a 1st level fighter/15 else with 20 extra beginning points of accuracy and regen? Are class abilities gonna get nerfed then?

We don't know how everything scale off power level, so while that 1 level of fighter is going to increase your accuracy, it might not be by 20 points at all. The game is getting rebalanced with all the changes they are making so starting values are probably changing as well.

 

This would make Priests and Druids very strong secondary classes since they can cast any spell that they have access to, rather than picking their spell selection from a list. Wizards less so because they'd have to learn spells from enemy grimoires rather than getting them automatically.

Wizard don't work like that anymore. They always know the spell they learn at level up (you added 1 or 2 spells to your grimoire at level up in POE1) and they won't need to use a grimoire to cast them. They can use the spells in a grimoire when it is in their trinket slot as well.

Edited February 3, 2017 by morhilane

[MaxQuest]

 

I think pure class will be better than multi-class.

 

Isn't that the intended trade-off? Access to two sets of skills on one character compared to being better with one set of skills on the other.

 

It really depends on how damage is affected by power_level, power_source, or w/e

E.g. A level 18 cipher might have access to some new powers, but a 13/5 cipher/wizard could end up being a better crowd-controller, due to a faster focus generation because of his access to per-encounter DAoM and Kalakoth's Minor Blights which hits everyone in AoE.

[Boeroer]

I still wonder if there's still Citzal's Spirit Lance... and if it works with carnage (if that's still in the game)...

 

Anyways: multiclassing will solve a lot of problems I had with PoE rogues and fighters I guess.

Edited February 3, 2017 by Boeroer

[Ninjamestari]

I'd definitely prefer a 2nd edition style multiclassing, where you pick 2 classes at the beginning of the game and not all combinations are valid. Simple and eloquent and avoids all that hassle that comes when you can freely mix and match class levels. A needlessly complicated systems will only add problems and those problems will then add band-aid-solutions that negatively affect the rest of the game.

[Insidous]

I'd definitely prefer a 2nd edition style multiclassing, where you pick 2 classes at the beginning of the game and not all combinations are valid. Simple and eloquent and avoids all that hassle that comes when you can freely mix and match class levels. A needlessly complicated systems will only add problems and those problems will then add band-aid-solutions that negatively affect the rest of the game.

 

I get the feeling that Wael wants my priest to become a powerful rouge as well and you can justify really any combination roleplay wise. So no restrains for combinations please. If balancing becomes a mess 3rd edition style, then yes dual class from the beginning is fine

[IndiraLightfoot]

Multi-classing is overrated.

I usually have lots of fun with multi-classing in CRPGs, but this statement is very much true.

[Quillon]

So if my character is barb all the way with 1 level in Cipher, will my character be able to use Cipher specific options in conversations? Cos that could be the only reason I'd multiclass...

 

...tho I'd miss out on latest bad ass barb abilities, hmmmm...

[theBalthazar]

The problem is :

 

With a great team, you can do everything at 5. ( The true Reason to stay at 5 for Obsidian ?^^)

 

Indeed, with 6 characters, multiclass with this system is totally and even more useless.

 

Everything will depend on the level of weakness compared to pure class character as Max said.

 

You are talking about : 

 

Either multi-classes need to sacrifice something for their versatility

 

 

Yes, but if I don't need versatility ?

 

With 5 characters you are already versatile.

 

My opinion :

"Average overall effect."

 

A Wizard / Cypher ? If this charac do 2 actions. I can do 2 actions of wizard. You know ?^^

 

So ^^ Finally, the ONLY thing that can change the deal is the passive bonuses. (The barbarian come to my mind first)

 

But the passives bonus seems to be referent of power scale. So Barbarian 1 / Fighter 19 = really bad. (If i understand the system).

 

Wait and see but... I have doubts.

Edited February 3, 2017 by theBalthazar

[draego]

i been thinking about multi-classing ranger and i feel like this class would be an example of a class you cant just take one level in as a multi option. Most ranger combinations will end up being ranger 17/ ? 1 - because of the animal companion. Its because i assume the animal companion will only level up significantly on the ranger level up and if you dont have your animal leveled sufficiently by the end of the game then they will be a nearly useless appendage that simply dies at the first fireball or will be crit stunned or paralyzed always.  

I guess this is where sub classes come in with one of the rangers subclass has no pet. but with pet its hard to see a lot of multi-class options that dont end in 17/1, 16/2 type stuff. However for me this wont be an issue if the other ranger subclass doubles down on the pet/ranger synergy. I prefer subclass to multi anyway.  

Edited February 3, 2017 by jnb0364

[Boeroer]

Maybe not. Even when leveling in the second class besides ranger the char gets 1 power point in Bond (instead of 3 if he would take a level of ranger). This means the animal companion (if it scales with power levels and not with character levels) will scale even if no ranger level is taken.

For example taking a few levels of paladin because of Lay on Hands and Reinforcing Exhortation may be very advantageous for your animal companion. Maybe it desn't have that much "passive" endurance and deflection then, but you will have more healing power and a deflection buff insteaed to prevent its KO.

 

I doubt we'll see a subclass of the ranger that has no animal companion - because the power source of rangers is named "Bond". But I would be happy if they would find a way around this. Like having a bond to a spirit-companion (companion died) or something like that. Or a subclass where the ranger consumes the companion in a ritual - or both merge or whatever. Surprise me please!

Edited February 3, 2017 by Boeroer

[draego]

Maybe not. Even when leveling in the second class besides ranger the char gets 1 power point in Bond (instead of 3 if he would take a level of ranger). This means the animal companion (if it scales with power levels and not with character levels) will scale even if no ranger level is taken.

 

I doubt we'll see a subclass of the ranger that has no animal companion - because the power source of rangers is named "Bond". But I would be happy if they would find a way around this. Like having a bond to a spirit-companion (companion died) or something like that. Or a subclass where the ranger consumes the companion in a ritual - or both merge or whatever. Surprise me please!

 

Josh said there was a petless ranger subclass on a post (i am sure all those ranger haters out there will love it). and yes i get the power level mechanic but for example a 17 ? / 1 ranger will have 20 ranger power level equal to level 4 ranger discipline. That would be a pretty crappy pet at level 18 content. Like i said it doesn't bother me because i dont plan to do this but i think it interesting to consider.

 

From update 1.

 

One of the most popular ranger subclasses on the team is the Ghost Heart Lodge.  All Ghost Hearts travel the wilds of Eora alone, their animal companions having died at some time in the past.  However, the bond between the ranger and their companion is so strong that the soul of the animal remains tethered to the ranger through the Between.  While a Ghost Heart does not have their companion available at all times, they may be summoned as a ghostly Spirit during combat for a short duration.  This companion is not considered a Beast, so spells like a druid's Charm Beasts and Hold Beasts will have no effect on it, but a paladin's Abjuration can badly damage or even banish it immediately.  WOLFFFYYYYYYYY! (not my pets actual name)

Edited February 3, 2017 by jnb0364

[Boeroer]

See? Spirit-companion. I'm clever & smart in one person.

No seriously, love the concept. Thanks for the info.

 

Sorry, I edited while you where responding. See my paladin-ranger example. I think one can think of some combos where it would make sense to level in another class a bit if that class will give you any means to buff your animal companion.

 

The easiest way to prevent that the animal companion suffers from multiclassing is to make it so that its base stats like defenses, endurance, accuracy and so on scale with the char's level - no matter which class he takes. Only the active abilities would be influenced by Bond power points. I have a feeling that will be the case. Clever & smart you know.

Edited February 3, 2017 by Boeroer

[Ninjamestari]

The problem with the proposed multiclass system is the 17/1 build. If the 17/1 build is worth doing, it'll be leagues better than a pure 18 always. If the 17/1 build is not worth it, then it'll be just worse and no one will make 'em, and people will end up making more balanced multiclass builds, in which case why bother with 3rd edition style free levelups at all, just have a 2nd edition style dual-classing.

 

And seriously, no dropping to 5 party members. That road leads to casualization, which will lead to Obsidian becoming faceless men with suitcases, which in turn will lead to the very same problems they were trying to escape by crowdfunding a game instead of relying on a producer whose agenda is to make money instead of a great game.

[draego]

See? Spirit-companion. I'm clever & smart in one person.

No seriously, love the concept. Thanks for the info.

 

Sorry, I edited while you where responding. See my paladin-ranger example. I think one can think of some combos where it would make sense to level in another class a bit if that class will give you any means to buff your animal companion.

 

The easiest way to prevent that the animal companion suffers from multiclassing is to make it so that its base stats like defenses, endurance, accuracy and so on scale with the char's level - no matter which class he takes. Only the active abilities would be influenced by Bond power points. I have a feeling that will be the case. Clever & smart you know.

 

Ye so i agree with the first part the best use of multi with ranger will be the 17 RANGER / 1? or 16 ranger/ 2? because level 4 priest, paladin, whatever could give lots of utility. But the other way around doesnt seem to work but to your point about leveling the pet based on character level that seem a little op dont you think. So if i take 17 wizard / 1 ranger i get a tank ranger pet with little consequence to my wizard or any class. I guess this is a catch 22 situation but its an interesting exercise. 

[evilcat]

What is wrong with power level 4 spirit companion? It is also distraction we can put behind enemy lines, also some cipher abilities need friendly body, and having some always avaiable is good enought.

 

As for MC always good. They will probably balance it out at some point.

Fighter healing is nice, and if you r player prefering ease of use go for it.

But if you r not, then potions and 1 healer will be as good (not to mention extra power points for tought fights)

[draego]

What is wrong with power level 4 spirit companion?

 

I am specifically talking about the regular animal companion not the spirit. Yes a summon would be fine because it just a bonus spell to distract but a regular animal companion has consequences for dying and will die from the first hit on level 18 content if you say took 1 levels of ranger if the pet only scales on the rangers power level i would think. That is why i think most multi class rangers will end up being the sub class without the pet for this reason which is fine for all those animal companion haters out there. 

 

 

Actually now that i have thought about it the 9/9 ranger would be at 7 discipline level so that prob isnt bad for pet. but the 17 ? / 1 ranger stuff would be kinda janky at 18 maybe the bond could be really week at this multclass split so there is no really consequence to the pet dying even though the pet would be pretty week at level 4 ranger discipline. I believe i misunderstood the discipline level thing when i wrote my earlier post

Edited February 3, 2017 by jnb0364

[Aotrs Commander]

 

And seriously, no dropping to 5 party members. That road leads to casualization, which will lead to Obsidian becoming faceless men with suitcases, which in turn will lead to the very same problems they were trying to escape by crowdfunding a game instead of relying on a producer whose agenda is to make money instead of a great game.

 

I... What? Can you follow me that logic though, as you've lost me there.

[JerekKruger]

I... What? Can you follow me that logic though, as you've lost me there.

 

I wouldn't try to understand. The extreme anti-5 character party crowd have gone way past explaining why they don't like the reduction and moved onto doom saying.