[Poll] Customizing Multiclass Titles

[blotter]

The question came up during this Q&A Josh Sawyer and Bobby Null and they mentioned that they aren't currently planning to enable customization for multiclass titles. However, they did mention that they welcome further suggestions (which can be added to Heijoushin's existing thread - http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/91412-care-to-guess-the-names-of-the-other-multiclasses/ - if you're so inclined) and that they might reconsider if there's enough of an outcry against the titles that Obsidian comes up with.

 

I assume that they might also reconsider if forum-goers express enough interest in the feature, so I've decided to dump another poll into these boards and see where that takes us.

Edited February 23, 2017 by blotter

[Heijoushin]

Hey Blotter! Thanks for the thread referemce!

 

To be honest though, I don't have a terribly strong opinion on this matter. More options are always good, but its not a dealbreaker.

 

It doesn't seem like it would be such a difficult feature to implement though. Just need one more little "rename" button on the IU somewhere.

[blotter]

Fair enough. They've been pretty hit or miss for me, and I agree that it seems like a relatively simple feature to implement, but I definitely wouldn't claim it's the most pressing issue out there either.

 

Still, I figure I'll be spending enough time looking at character sheets in-game that having a bit more control over what I see there would be most welcome.

[Karkarov]

No, it would be very very dumb to do so.  If you are going to let me name my multiclass combo whatever I want, why can't I change fighter to "Warrior".  How will I be able to tell when I am fighting a multi class character since only I have this name?

 

Just no.  If you are going to give them fancy class names they need to be consistent throughout.  Either that, or don't give them fancy class names at all.

[Heijoushin]

No, it would be very very dumb to do so.  If you are going to let me name my multiclass combo whatever I want, why can't I change fighter to "Warrior".  How will I be able to tell when I am fighting a multi class character since only I have this name?

 

Just no.  If you are going to give them fancy class names they need to be consistent throughout.  Either that, or don't give them fancy class names at all.

 

Well... the players aren't stupid. Even if you've named your mage/fighter a spellsword, when you come across a battlemage, you'll probably get the general idea, right?

 

I see this as being one of those features that if you hate it, you're free to ignore it.

[blotter]

 

If you are going to let me name my multiclass combo whatever I want, why can't I change fighter to "Warrior".

 

It's interesting that you bring this up, actually, given that during Sawyer's CalloftheCthulu interview, he actually mentioned a user complaining about having to be called a wizard instead of a sorcerer and identified the significance of class/multiclass names in developing a character concept (or the perception thereof). Given that providing further options for characterization is one the main ideas for multiclassing, and multiclass titles in particular, I don't see how the customization we're talking about here is out of line with that regardless of the standards for base classes.

 

 

How will I be able to tell when I am fighting a multi class character since only I have this name?

 

It doesn't necessarily follow that customizing a character's multiclass title would obscure the identity of any multiclass enemies. Beyond that, though, Pillars has already shown an inclination to provide unique class-based identifiers for enemies that don't line up with those used by your own characters: Skaenite ciphers were called soul reavers or something, for example, and the temple of Ondra similarly had class-based enemies under faith-specific names. If we could figure those out then, I don't seem why it would be any different in this case.

[Karkarov]

It's interesting that you bring this up, actually, given that during Sawyer's CalloftheCthulu interview, he actually mentioned a user complaining about having to be called a wizard instead of a sorcerer and identified the significance of class/multiclass names in developing a character concept (or the perception thereof). Given that providing further options for characterization is one the main ideas for multiclassing, and multiclass titles in particular, I don't see how the customization we're talking about here is out of line with that regardless of the standards for base classes.

Tell you what.  When Sawyer says he is going to open renaming your class period, regardless of single class or multi, to the game I will say fine whatever.  But if single classes can't be renamed (and why should they be???), why should multiclasses be renamable?

[FlintlockJazz]

I'm with Karkarov.  I also like that by taking two classes you become something specific, not just two classes but something that can be recognised by the world.  Grim Dawn does this, and I enjoy looking up the different combinations to see what they make.  Plus, if you enable renaming, then it'll be harder for them to implement responses to what you are ingame since you might rename a combination to something vastly different in concept.  No, I love the combination names and I hate the idea of renaming them.

[Sedrefilos]

Just let them do their game people. I've played games with way more ridiculous names and didn't gave a crap. Why do you like to make devs think extra for superficial **** like these?

 

Jeez... gaming people are so selfish...

Edited February 23, 2017 by Sedrefilos

[Heijoushin]

Just let them do their game people. I've played games with way more ridiculous names and didn't gave a crap. Why do you like to make devs think extra for superficial **** like these?

 

Jeez... gaming people are so selfish...

 

C'mon Sedy. We're on this forum because we love discussing PoE. If you were a game dev, wouldn't you want people passionately discussing your game? Nothing selfish about it (until we start calling people names and throwing tantrums)

[Leeuwenhart]

Just let them do their game people. I've played games with way more ridiculous names and didn't gave a crap. Why do you like to make devs think extra for superficial **** like these?

 

Jeez... gaming people are so selfish...

 

Correction:

People are selfish

 

 

[Karkarov]

Just let them do their game people. I've played games with way more ridiculous names and didn't gave a crap. Why do you like to make devs think extra for superficial **** like these?

 

Jeez... gaming people are so selfish...

You are forgetting it is the dev's who decided to give multi classes unique names to begin with.  Also you are acting like coming up with a name takes a ton of dev time?  It takes like 2 minutes.

 

That said I would be fine if a Wizard Priest was just a "Wizard/Priest".  Being able to name your class whatever you want seems silly however.

[Leeuwenhart]

Im gonna name all my classcombos to Rockbands

 

 

First one:

 

JUDAS PRIEST (chanter/priest undead summon)

[Madscientist]

I chose no, but I am unsure between no and "you should not have names for class combos to begin with". I have never seen a class based RPG, where players can select the name of their class. There were some games where you could create a custom class, but there the class only defined your starting stats and you could do whatever you want from there.

[Sedrefilos]

Well yeah, we're here to discuss but is this matter so important as to put pressure (because that's what we do when overdiscuss something) on devs for something so, imo, unimportant? There's so many aspects of the game that are crucial to the experience that we can discuss (not yet - speculating sucks - when they're introduced in detail over time) and give feedback. Come on... the names of multiclasses?... If I was a developer and have designed SO many great feature to make the sequel as great as it looks now, I'd be "ah, come on! Do I have to break my head over this now? Isn't all the multiclassing, better graphics, better exploration, better roleplay etc enough for them?!?!".

Seriously, I don't get the customer mentality - at all. If they promise something and don't deliver It's not OK on their end. Demanding stuff just because is not ok on ours.

That's how I see it.

[pi2repsion]

I'm with Karkarov.  I also like that by taking two classes you become something specific, not just two classes but something that can be recognised by the world.  Grim Dawn does this, and I enjoy looking up the different combinations to see what they make.  Plus, if you enable renaming, then it'll be harder for them to implement responses to what you are ingame since you might rename a combination to something vastly different in concept.  No, I love the combination names and I hate the idea of renaming them.

First, I am against renaming classes in general whether base classes or combinations- seems a bit silly, but no big skin of my notice if it is possible.

 

Second, I'm not sure the world can see the difference between a Paladin 20 and and a Paladin 19/Fighter 1. Insofar as it is possible for anybody in the world to recognize such characters by their deeds, one is clearly a Paladin... and so is the other.

 

If we assume it makes sense for the world to recognize a person by class in the first place, it makes absolutely no sense to me that the world would start to recognize a character as something different merely by the smallest of changes.

 

Which is why I am against composite class names in the first place, unless they are allocated more restrictively for people where one class doesn't clearly dominate. As an example, one could choose as a rule than none of the classes be at least twice as high level as the other, which would come to:

 

A player with class A is known to the world as class A.

A player with classes A and B is known as class A if A >= 2*B, and as class B if B >= 2*A

A player with classes A and B is known as composite class C if none of the above apply, i.e. A < 2*B and B < 2*A.

 

Example, total class 10

 

10, 9/1, 8/2, 7/3 are known as A

6/4, 5/5, 4/6 are known as C

3/7, 2/8,/1/9 are known as B

 

Example, total class 20

20, 19/1, 18/2, 17/3, 16/4, 15/5, 14/6 are known as A

13/7, 12/8, 11/9, 10/10, 9/11, 8/12, 7/13 are known as C

6/14, 5/15, 4/16, 3/17, 2/18, 1/19 are known as B

 

 

That said, I'm not sure it makes sense for the world to recognize the player by class rather than deeds, looks, or renown in the first place in the vast majority of cases, but it does seem to be the convention.

[blotter]

 

 

Well yeah, we're here to discuss but is this matter so important as to put pressure (because that's what we do when overdiscuss something) on devs for something so, imo, unimportant?

 

At what point does this particular subject become over-discussed, though? This is the first poll I've seen addressing this particular issue, so your assertion here seems to be that this topic is over-discussed when it gets mentioned at all because you personally find it to be trivial.

 

If anything, that seems selfish to me, but it's probably more productive to frame this response in terms of the developers' stated intentions in two regards: a) multiclassing itself and b) the goals in developing multiclass titles specifically. In regards to the first, the developers have mentioned on numerous occasions that they consider multiclassing to a way for players to fine-tune character concepts beyond the constraints imposed by the choice of a single class: this obviously includes the pursuit of mechanical synergies between the chosen classes, but can easily extend to more thematic considerations of what it means to be a bit of one class and a bit of another as well. These thematic elements of the blending between classes can tie in with the naming of the combinations themselves, and during the aforementioned CalloftheCthulhu interview (https://www.twitch.tv/videos/124100834 - starting around 32 minutes in) Sawyer acknowledges this as something they're aiming for with multiclass titles to begin with. With these things in mind, I'm not really sure how this discussion is incidental or tangential to either of these goals; on the contrary, the option seems only to facilitate the goal of producing multiclass identities that players can favorably identify with.

 

Is it a ribbon? Sure. But it's no further beneath Obsidian's concern than other things that they've willingly taken upon themselves and deemed significant enough to implement already, like adding new mustaches or expanding the range of selectable palettes for determining the color a character's outfit. Actually, this seems like it might potentially entail considerably less effort than either of those examples.

 

 

 

Plus, if you enable renaming, then it'll be harder for them to implement responses to what you are ingame since you might rename a combination to something vastly different in concept.

 

I'll agree with pi2repsion in regards to class-based characterization in dialogue being something that the developers should employ sparingly if at all. Making Swashbuckler-centric dialogue, for example, could easily devolve into a slew of tropes and conceits that simply wouldn't apply to a range of ways in which characters with this multiclass combination can be played (e.g., Stoic and Honest or Shady and Rational fighter/rogues who have no use for the swaggering flair that's associated with swashbucklers, or even Passionate and Aggressive ones who would similarly dispense with the posturing and leap straight into battle). Further, these sorts of options would likely be better represented by skills and dispositions to begin with. Lore-wise there's more room for this sort of thing, but that's more in relation to particular groups which are more likely to have names that differ from generic multiclass titles anyway (consider the aforementioned examples of class names differing in accordance with religious order, and also cases with monsters such as Xaurip champions and skirmishers).

[ushas]

I don't know I don't see much reasons to bother with multi-classing names. Ok fine just put them on the character sheet, whatever.

What is actually important is what Obsidian will do in game with that.

Personally, I like to think about classes like professions, or specializations. That they fulfill roles in the society, so have some recognizable core aspect. One can pretty much multi-specialize, no problem.

To be fair PoE1 isn't primarily build like that. Classes are more than anything just part of the combat mechanic. So I wouldn't expect it changes extremely in Deadfire, moreover wouldn't expect narrative being build to heavily recognize all those possible class combinations as something specific in the world...

However, though I agree with the criticism above, I think classes should be recognized, it just needs to be done on each own basis. Developers  agreed that reactivity should be used if situations present themselves. So for example, it would be nice to have something to say as a priest of Eothas, etc.

 

 

​
I'm guessing three (or four) possibilities how class related reactivity may work:

1. Game checks for specific ability:
    The White March expansion came with a neat option to use class abilities in scripted interactions here and there. PoE2 seems to build upon that, as far as I recall. They used functions for that, something like "CharacterCanUseAbility". We know next to nothing how classes in the new system suppose to work. But what I've heard on the Wizard example - he will be limited not only by his level, but also by his memory or by equipped grimoire. So we really practically need just check whether the character has the required spell / ability at disposal, don't need to know anything about how he multi-classed. Which brings me to possibility, if an item grants that ability to the user. But itemization can be different this time.

 

​
2. Game checks for class power:
   As far as I understand from the multi-classing info, the strength of the class is now measured by his class power. So if the game designers want to check how much wizardy you are (perhaps when talking with fellow wizard, again it has to make sense), they may simply check how much wizard power source points you have accumulated. Note, that I don't need to know how much levels one gets in this class nor the other. For example you will never have 40 wizard power source points unless you invested into the wizard class. So it gives somehow a head on to pure classes, as they will be able to pass as great wizards earlier, but on the other hand, multiclassed characters have more options - perhaps they would be able to choose from lines of two classes at lower power level and have different abilities at disposal. Besides the game is supposed to be more open so one cannot presume specific levels anyway.

 

​
3. Game checks for basic knowledge or acquaintances expected from adepts of specific classes or subclasses / deities / orders:
    This is perhaps more important for Priests and Paladins, but I dunno, maybe some subclasses of other classes will have connections to factions in the world or so. As the reasons would be probably just narrative, it may be enough that you have taken the class, respective specific specialization.


4. Game checks for combination of classes:
This is probably the least probable? But I don't know with what developers plan to come. Perhaps there are some obvious class synergies. However, it can be practically done using the means above, checking for both classes' existences, powers or specific abilities.

​

​

[JerekKruger]

I voted "Maybe, if it doesn't divert attention from more important features." because hey, why not. I doubt I'd use it, but if others like the idea and it doesn't detract from the finished product then that's fine by me.

[KaiG]

In my opinion, they shouldn't let us rename, but they should make sure they come up with names which the majority of people like.

[mistermannindy]

Renaming could be tough. I envision the lore will reference these names. I also suspect dynamically changing the name to reflect customer changes will be more effort than it's worth.

[injurai]

Renaming could be tough. I envision the lore will reference these names. I also suspect dynamically changing the name to reflect customer changes will be more effort than it's worth.

 

​If they want the names to be integrated into lore, they should just use the base class names.

[JerekKruger]

Renaming could be tough. I envision the lore will reference these names. I also suspect dynamically changing the name to reflect customer changes will be more effort than it's worth.

 

Throughout Pillars of Eternity alternate names for classes are used. Defenders (Paladins), spellwrights (Wizards) are two that spring to mind, but I am confident that there are a lot more. If this doesn't cause confusion, I can't see why allowing the player to change the title for their multiclass combination should either.

 

Note: I don't suggest that, if I decide to rename my fighter/rogue "frogue" that every fighter/rogue in the game should be renamed. All I think should be allowed is that there should be a little "title" box on the character sheet and an option to edit it. I also totally support being able to rename uniclass titles too.

[tinysalamander]

As far as I’m concerned class is a meta level construct. Just give me an option to select profession/field of study or something.

[Skie Nightfall]

Naaa. If there's a really bad name, and the community comes with a better idea, I'm sure they'd patch it in.