Subclasses - Questions/Concerns

[Quillon]

So at first what I understood from subclasses was there'll be 2 subclasses per class and we'll choose one of them. But now I learn that there'll still be a base class. I'm not familiar with "kits" or whatever so how will this work? It was easy to grasp when I thought a subclass is basically abilities/talents grouped together under 2 different concepts but base class' continuing existence is confusing me. 

 

So that was kinda the question and my concerns are:

 

a) Wouldn't a class be spreading too thin over these base & subclasses?

b) What does general/base class consists of? A bit from each subclasses? Why not drop it and make a third subclass instead? or drop it and make the 2 subclasses more distinct?

[mumbogumshoe]

So at first what I understood from subclasses was there'll be 2 subclasses per class and we'll choose one of them. But now I learn that there'll still be a base class. I'm not familiar with "kits" or whatever so how will this work? It was easy to grasp when I thought a subclass is basically abilities/talents grouped together under 2 different concepts but base class' continuing existence is confusing me. 

 

So that was kinda the question and my concerns are:

 

a) Wouldn't a class be spreading too thin over these base & subclasses?

b) What does general/base class consists of? A bit from each subclasses? Why not drop it and make a third subclass instead? or drop it and make the 2 subclasses more distinct?

I don't think we know exactly how it will turn out yet but here's what I think. For all intents and purposes the base class is a third subclass, albeit a 'generalist' one. The other two subclasses develop specific aspects of the base class. So you might have a rogue who does all the roguey things rogues do in PoE, sneak and mechanics, sneak attacks, dodging and darting across the battlefield. That's the base class. It plays very similar to the rogues we already know. And you might have two subclasses, Assassin and Swashbuckler (this is not based at all on any information from Obsidian). The Assassin subclass gets special abilities to enhance sneak attacks, use poison, become invisible and so on but sacrifices some of the rogues ability to move around the battlefield and if she's caught in a one on one fight, she's dead. The Swashbuckler gets a dodge and parry mechanic that increases her survivability, gets even better at doing crazy acrobatics to move around the battlefield and be exactly where she's needed but sacrifices some of her ability to spike damage.

 

This is just an example of how I personally think it might work out. You have a generalist base class and two sub-classes who each emphasize one aspect of the base class at the expense of another.

Edited February 3, 2017 by mumbogumshoe

[JerekKruger]

a) Wouldn't a class be spreading too thin over these base & subclasses?

 

Possibly. It depends on the class and on the creativity of Obsidian I guess.

 

b) What does general/base class consists of? A bit from each subclasses? Why not drop it and make a third subclass instead? or drop it and make the 2 subclasses more distinct?

 

 

 

Perhaps it's worth giving some examples of kits in BG2 to give some idea of how this might work. BG2 had the Fighter class, and the generic Fighter had all the abilities of a Fighter with no bonuses or penalties. You could then pick one of three kits: Berserker, Kensai or Mage Slayer (or Hunter, I can't remember). The Berserker got an additional ability that the base Fighter didn't called, unsurprisingly, Berserk, which temporarily gave a buff to combat ability and immunity to various afflictions. In exchange for this, the Berserker was prohibited from raising their proficiency in ranged weapons past the lowest level.

 

The Kensai was a little more complicated. It gained a passive bonus to accuracy and damage every X levels, and a special per rest attack that did huge damage, but in exchange for this it couldn't wear any armour or use several different categories of items.

 

So what does this tell us about subclasses in Deadfire? Possibly nothing of course, but my guess is the following. Each class's base version will be fairly similar to their current incarnation in PoE. Each subclass will then give various bonuses and penalties (for example there's a ranger subclass that doesn't have a pet, but my guess is they'll be better with their ranged weapon as a result). On top of this, I suspect certain class abilities will be off limits to each subclass (the petless ranger won't be able to take pet improving abilities obviously) and perhaps will have some new, subclass unique ability choices to replace those they lose access to (BG2 didn't really have this because most classes didn't get many abilities at all).

[draego]

I do think though they are going to attempt the make the base class on par with the sub classes unlike BG. So all three feel like they fill a role in the game. 

[Ganrich]

I do think though they are going to attempt the make the base class on par with the sub classes unlike BG. So all three feel like they fill a role in the game.

Josh has already said he doesn't want subclasses to make base classes obsolete, but to give a few different flavors of the class. So, don't expect brokenly good subclasses, but a nudge here or there to make them stand out.

[Orillion]

[...]

So what does this tell us about subclasses in Deadfire? Possibly nothing of course, but my guess is the following. Each class's base version will be fairly similar to their current incarnation in PoE. Each subclass will then give various bonuses and penalties (for example there's a ranger subclass that doesn't have a pet, but my guess is they'll be better with their ranged weapon as a result). On top of this, I suspect certain class abilities will be off limits to each subclass (the petless ranger won't be able to take pet improving abilities obviously) and perhaps will have some new, subclass unique ability choices to replace those they lose access to (BG2 didn't really have this because most classes didn't get many abilities at all).

Is there a ranger subclass that doesn't get a pet? Josh was talking about a ranger whose pet died, but he still gets the pet--as a spirit he can temporarily summon (so it's probably a bit stronger and you can deploy it behind enemies without needing to position ahead of time).

[JerekKruger]

Is there a ranger subclass that doesn't get a pet? Josh was talking about a ranger whose pet died, but he still gets the pet--as a spirit he can temporarily summon (so it's probably a bit stronger and you can deploy it behind enemies without needing to position ahead of time).

 

Oh that was the subclass I was talking about.

[hilfazer]

 

b) What does general/base class consists of? A bit from each subclasses? Why not drop it and make a third subclass instead? or drop it and make the 2 subclasses more distinct?

 

or drop subclasses altogether and make classes flexible and powerful enough to support different playstyles.

 

 

I don't need such handholding.

[Fardragon]

I imagine "subclasses" are basically equivelent to kits in Baldur's Gate.

[PrimeJunta]

Priests and paladins already have subclasses. All the others will get them too. Unlike with priests and paladins, it may not be mandatory to pick one for all of them. In that case I'd just expect that the base class and subclasses are all designed to be variations on a theme but equally strong, and the designers designate one of them to be the base class.

[JerekKruger]

Do we know for certain that a Paladin's order and a Priest's deities will be their subclass? If not, then I actually doubt that's the route Obsidian will go.

[Archaven]

So this class combination will end up as 1 class.. eg. Fighter/Mage = Battlemage. I'm wondering how this works...

 

Let's say Fighter advanced to Warrior and Mage advance to Archmage?

 

so Warrior / Archmage will end up as = ?? 

 

Then this combination could actually create a whole new classes and abilities that only exclusively available for both? (Well maybe this will be in PoE3 or PoE2 expansion )

[Lamppost in Winter]

Do we know for certain that a Paladin's order and a Priest's deities will be their subclass? If not, then I actually doubt that's the route Obsidian will go.

 

 The Fig update refers to Paladin orders and Priest deities as "required subclasses". I just wonder if they're similar to the PoE deities/orders, and have the extra two subclasses, or if they preclude further subclassing but are more varied than PoE.

 

Both classes may have subclasses, though certain paladin orders or priest deities (both of which are required subclasses) may lightly restrict multiclass options.

Edited February 4, 2017 by Lamppost in Winter

[Seari]

I feel like multiclass and subclasses combined will be too complicated. Maybe only have subclasses for single class characters or at least only the first base class you pick can have a subclass.

[PrimeJunta]

Do we know for certain that a Paladin's order and a Priest's deities will be their subclass? If not, then I actually doubt that's the route Obsidian will go.

Josh said so somewhere just recently. Sorry, can't remember where. Maybe on SomethingAwful?

 

Edit: found it, it was in the Fig update #7: "certain paladin orders or priest deities (both of which are required subclasses) may lightly restrict multiclass options."

Edited February 4, 2017 by PrimeJunta

[JerekKruger]

Josh said so somewhere just recently. Sorry, can't remember where. Maybe on SomethingAwful?

 

Oh that's a shame, I quite like the idea of having something like Sanctifier (vessel slayer) as a Paladin subclass, then being able to choose an order on top of that.

[Caeyrii]

My suggestion is not to wrap our pretty little heads around the ideas too much right now. We only have baseless theorycrafting right now and that might detract from actual game experience when it's out because you might have set your minds on concepts we don't have actual facts of.

[Ganrich]

I feel like multiclass and subclasses combined will be too complicated. Maybe only have subclasses for single class characters or at least only the first base class you pick can have a subclass.

It will be complicated, but I still want to be able to combine subclasses. It would really allow for interesting combinations if the subclasses are varied enough. At least I would wait until we learn about more subclasses before making the judgement. We only know of about 5 of the subclasses: a Druid that focuses on Spiritshift, Assassin (rogue), Black Jacket (fighter), Nalpazca (monk), and the Ghost Heart (Ranger).

 

As we learne more we may find really interesting combos.

[JerekKruger]

I feel like multiclass and subclasses combined will be too complicated. Maybe only have subclasses for single class characters or at least only the first base class you pick can have a subclass.

 

There'll still be the option of not multiclassing or not taking subclasses, so I don't see the problem with the system being complicated and I can say with some confidence that complication will be a feature for a small subset of players.

[Fardragon]

The more complicated the better so far as I am concerned. PoE1 was far to limited in terms of character options.

[Caeyrii]

Might not be. We don't have anything about it other than it existing.

[anameforobsidian]

I honestly have a hard time thinking of a class that sub-classes wouldn't be good for.  Most of the classes have a dual-nature already in the game.  One area could be strengthened over the other fairly effectively in most of them:

 

Barbarian - One subclass could focus on carnage and damage, the other could get even more health and shouts

Chanter - Chants vs. Summons

Cipher - Melee Cipher vs. Mage Cipher

Druid - Transformation vs. Spells

Fighter - Engaging tanks vs. melee DPS

Monk - Active wound user vs. Passive tank

Paladin - AoE focus, healer focus, leader focus, or tank

Priest - Damage vs. Buffs vs. Healing

Ranger - Arrows vs. Pet

Rogue - Lots of DPS and Fragility vs. sturdier vs. lots of tricks

Wizard - Control vs. Direct Damage vs. Gish

[JerekKruger]

Whilst I agree with you anameforobsidian, I do hope that Obsidian will find interesting ways to achieve these distinctions. For example, the Black Jacket Fighter subclass fits your "melee DPS" idea, but it does so in an unusual way. I think it would be a shame if the other Fighter subclass was called, say, a Shieldbearer and simply got extra deflection when using a shield.

[SaruNi]

Whilst I agree with you anameforobsidian, I do hope that Obsidian will find interesting ways to achieve these distinctions. For example, the Black Jacket Fighter subclass fits your "melee DPS" idea, but it does so in an unusual way. I think it would be a shame if the other Fighter subclass was called, say, a Shieldbearer and simply got extra deflection when using a shield.

 

I agree; the ranger Ghost Heart subclass is another great example. The specialization already present within classes can already be achieved by choice of abilities. It's okay to have a few obvious, typical subclasses like Assassin (especially since PoE 1 was lacking in a good backstab rogue), but I'd also like subclasses which add to lore and either significantly expand strategies that people might not otherwise try (like the Black Jacket, who apparently focuses more on switching between different weapons for different opponents) or add new dynamics beyond what the classes can already do in PoE 1. (They're optional, after all.)

 

Sure, Ghost Heart might represent a "more powerful" pet, but since it has to be summoned during combat (and presumably can't scout ahead like other pets), and it's undead, it also changes the dynamics (and lore, and character concept) in an interesting way.

Edited February 5, 2017 by SaruNi

[Ganrich]

Whilst I agree with you anameforobsidian, I do hope that Obsidian will find interesting ways to achieve these distinctions. For example, the Black Jacket Fighter subclass fits your "melee DPS" idea, but it does so in an unusual way. I think it would be a shame if the other Fighter subclass was called, say, a Shieldbearer and simply got extra deflection when using a shield.

Maybe the other Fighter subclass could be a Reposte type character. It has a few defensive modals (lets say one for Deflection and Fortitude, and another for Reflex and Will), but a slower attack speed, but when the fighter is grazed or missed by an attack against the defensive stat the current modal protects against he gets an attack? Sort of like an Attack of Opportunity or an Engagement attack. You could even increase the accuracy/damage of the attack based on if it is a Crit/hit/graze/miss. Like a fit gives no bonus, but the bonus slowly gets higher if it's a hit, and higher still if it's a graze, etc. It may be a bit to similar to the Black Jacket, but it's a bit of an opposite concept to it as well. It could get a little silly too fast. So these attacks should be limited to characters the fighter is engaged with. Just an idea.

Edited February 5, 2017 by Ganrich