Random thoughts about class system

[MaxQuest]

I really liked the resource management idea for the martial classes, explained recently by JS, here. But looking at 3-3-5 class separation, can't help but think of class symmetry. That and the ranger/barb power sources.

 

That's why I am curious on your thoughts on:

1. Ranger power source name.

Which is Bond. James Bond.. 

Ranger starts combat at full bond, and spends it in order to use his abilities. Personally I find that it sounds a bit strange. Plus if there will be an archery-specialized/pet-less ranger sub-class, 'bond' will become out of place.

Maybe there is a better name for it? For example focus. It's quite natural that in order to aim well, archer should be focused. And at the start of combat one is usually more focused, than when someone has charged him in melee. Thus it is natural to start combat with full focus, and end with less.

Currently focus name is used for cipher resource. But basically what he generates is psychic energy. So it could be just that, energy.

 

2. Barbarian resource pool/generation. 

From one point of view I like that barb will start the combat at full rage.

From another - feel a bit conflicted, as rage is an intense and growing form of anger. Isn't it?

For some reason I have the following associations:

- barbarian starts at 'm' rage and can generate more.

- while it's berserker sub-class can start at full rage, but losses the ability to generate it.

 

3. Class symmetry.

I already like were it's going. But keep imagining what if classes were separated a bit differently, specifically in groups of 3:

 

 

Of course, such classification and class separation is not required to make them fun. Through I find some charm in it. Plus it feels natural for barb and rogue to be able to generate resources? I am not saying that they should, I trust whatever way Josh chooses to (simply because I liked NWN2 and POE1); so that's just my personal opinion.

 

P.S. As for class X, it could be left blank, or added later in some expansion. A class with spell/spell-like-ability progression table, generation of resources, all spells being available without picking (like priest or druid, not like wizard/cipher/chanter), and as a bonus: ability to 'summon' (but without overlaping with chanter). There is a class matching perfectly this description. 10 internet points to the one who gets it

Edited May 8, 2017 by MaxQuest

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

1. Precision. Clunky, but better than bond.

 

2+3. I think it's fine how if is. We've currently got a 3/3/5 split in resources and I don't see any of the 5 working as a class that has to build up resource. Maybe Ranger builds off Pet damage but that seems clunky.

 

Personally my biggest issue with classes is the values for accuracy, deflection, and stamina. Those should be determined by attributes and level, especially with a multiclass system to avoid dips for accuracy and deflection boni and certain permutations having higher stamina (all other factors equal).

[smjjames]

1. I agree that it doesn't quite 'fit' the class, not in the same way as say, zeal does for Paladin or rage for barbarian.

 

2. Yeah, seems logical to me that rage would build up as combat goes on, meaning that it would be more useful in longer combat or when engaging multiple enemies rather than a quick fight where it wouldn't be needed.

 

3. Class X would be bard? Though, Chanter is bard-like. Actually, the way Kana puts it, Chanters are basically the bards of the PoE universe.

Edited May 8, 2017 by smjjames

[rjshae]

This isn't particle physics, so I don't see a need for the designers to skew to some symmetrical class relationship. I'd rather see them improve and enhance the current classes.

[smjjames]

This isn't particle physics, so I don't see a need for the designers to skew to some symmetrical class relationship. I'd rather see them improve and enhance the current classes.

 

Particle physics, lol.

[DigitalCrack]

1. I like focus. If it HAS to signify "connection" of some sort, "Synergy" would be better than "bond"..

[AndreaColombo]

Personally my biggest issue with classes is the values for accuracy, deflection, and stamina. Those should be determined by attributes and level, especially with a multiclass system to avoid dips for accuracy and deflection boni and certain permutations having higher stamina (all other factors equal).

IIRC Josh said all classes will have the same starting values in Deadfire. Can't recall the source, however; might be one of the Q&A videos.

[MaxQuest]

1. Precision. Clunky, but better than bond.

Better indeed. But makes me think of accuracy)

 

Personally my biggest issue with classes is the values for accuracy, deflection, and stamina. Those should be determined by attributes and level, especially with a multiclass system to avoid dips for accuracy and deflection boni and certain permutations having higher stamina (all other factors equal).

Afaik they are still experimenting with it:

 

 

Q: How do class power sources interact with the growth of secondary stats that were class dependent in Pillars 1? Like Accuracy, Health, and defenses.

JS: That's something that we're still trying to figure out, to be honest. That's something that the system designers and I have had various debates about but we're not settled on anything yet, 'cause it is a tricky thing to figure out.

Source

 

As there are at least 3 ways to implement it, with no option were you could say: that is obviously the best one.

 

2. Yeah, seems logical to me that rage would build up as combat goes on, meaning that it would be more useful in longer combat or when engaging multiple enemies rather than a quick fight where it wouldn't be needed.

So thought I. A barb is more likely to fully enrage when fighting to the death, rather when stumbling upon a lone xaurip.

 

But basically rjshae is right, there are more important stuff to do first. Immersion improvements can be done latter, if there is time or barb ability re-balancing comes naturally to mind.

 

3. Class X would be bard? Though, Chanter is bard-like. Actually, the way Kana puts it, Chanters are basically the bards of the PoE universe.

No, bard would indeed clash quite hard with chanter.

I was thinking of...

 

 

Warlock:

- [check] a class that is also a spell-caster in a way

- [check] is ok with a limited amount of spells/invocations, but learns all rank spells, like priest or druid

- [check] is similar with chanter and cipher, which belong to the same quadrant, without overlapping

- [check] cipher can 'summon' illusory phantoms and mental images that confuse the target; chanter can temporary summon multiple creatures; warlock could summon a single minion

- [check] it's quite easy to imagine/create 3 unique sub-classes that would play differently.

 

And a few quick spells that this class could have:

- the canonical [Life Tap] - convert part of own health into essence adding to resource pool

- another canonical [Life Drain] - a beam spell that siphons enemy health and gives it to warlock

- [shadow Storm] - deal heavy corrode/raw damage to all enemies around warlock (including warlock himself) each second for x seconds. Damage received by enemies heals the warlock.

- [Entrall] - gain complete control over a soul-less creature (e.g. vessel, maybe oozes and spores too). Spell cost is [target's level - 4] (with maximum resource pool being 11). Spell has to crit in order to succeed; otherwise enemy is confused instead.

- [summon][Dissmiss] - summon/banish entralled creature

- [Dark Vision] - targeted ally ignores the negative effects of Blind for the duration. Target also gets a bonus to accuracy.

- [Torment] - deals damage over time to a single enemy. Dealt damage forms a shield around warlock that increases his DR and enables retaliation.

and so on.

 

 

Edited May 8, 2017 by MaxQuest

[Boeroer]

 

 

IIRC Josh said all classes will have the same starting values in Deadfire. Can't recall the source, however; might be one of the Q&A videos. 

I also heard this in one of the twitch streams. Can't remember which.

 

"Bond" sounds a bit weird, I have to agree. How about "Objective".

Edited May 8, 2017 by Boeroer

[Gromnir]

we got a bit of experience with fighting and sports.  build up emotion before a fight is easiest, 'cause impossible to maintain such for long.  most fights is actual brief, which is good 'cause fighting and/or contact sports is exhausting-- physically and emotionally.  best coach speech ever is gonna get you up for a few minutes.  sure, is gonna be moments or events in combat which reinvigorate, but am actual believing the proposed poe2 approach to barbarian rage is more in keeping with our experience.

 

bond don't bother us as is a ranger thing, and the animal companion, whether utilized or not, is the class-defining feature o' the poe ranger.  focus is already a poe resource and is kinda generic in any event.  bond won't bother us, but for a hunter kinda class, we likes marrow as an evocative kinda descriptor.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[smjjames]

The only thing marrow evokes is the stuff inside your bones, which doesn't evoke ranger at all.

 

I'm fine with the use of 'bond' since it matches the animal companion thing, even if it sounds a bit wierd and doesn't quite meld in the same way the other powersource names do.

Edited May 8, 2017 by smjjames

[Gromnir]

The only thing marrow evokes is the stuff inside your bones, which doesn't evoke ranger at all.

 

I'm fine with the use of 'bond' since it matches the animal companion thing, even if it sounds a bit wierd and doesn't quite meld in the same way the other powersource names do.

stuff inside the bones evokes ranger for us, but more important is actual definition 

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marrow?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld

 

works on multiple levels

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Piero]

I like bond

 

I have asimilar assosiation: starting with rage and can generate more but he rage generated is reduced each time, as general rule. i like exceptional cases.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Piero

[Baltic]

I think the association is meant to be less 'barbarian starts full of rage and gets less angry as he uses his abilities' and more 'a level 10 barbarian can get more power from their rage than a level one barbarian'.

[anameforobsidian]

Warlock wouldn't match the setting.  There's no evidence of other realms, and no evidence of non-constructed intelligences without a physical presence.  Animancer on the other hand....

 

Also, there are a couple other ways to divide classes.  One is Melee vs. Ranged.  I know Pillars blurs the lines but:

 

Priests, Rangers, and Ciphers are predominantly ranged, with specialized melee builds.

Wizards and Druids favor ranged, but have melee abilities.

Rogues and Chanters favor melee, but have ranged abilities.

Paladins, Monks, Barbs and Fighters are almost purely melee.

 

That suggests room for another ranged character.

 

 

Another is by team function: tank, healer, striker, controller, buffs, debuffs, summoner.  Of course these are arbitrary, so you can combine or add jobs.  Looking at these jobs there are a lot of tanks, controllers, strikers, and debuffers.  There are less buffers, healers, and summoners in that order.  By this metric, if there is a hole, it's for something like WoW's shaman.

[rjshae]

Huh, my priest was a melee character and my rogue was ranged. Go figure.

[smjjames]

Warlock wouldn't match the setting.  There's no evidence of other realms, and no evidence of non-constructed intelligences without a physical presence.  Animancer on the other hand....

 

The gods seem to have their own metaphysical realms (or maybe just reside on the same metaphysical plane with their own regions) and the frost-hewn breach seems to hint at other realms since it goes to Rymrgands realm. But, that's as far as PoE1 takes it and it comes really late into the game.

[MaxQuest]

Also, there are a couple other ways to divide classes.  One is Melee vs. Ranged. [...]

 

Another is by team function: tank, healer, striker, controller, buffs, debuffs, summoner.  Of course these are arbitrary, so you can combine or add jobs.  Looking at these jobs there are a lot of tanks, controllers, strikers, and debuffers.  There are less buffers, healers, and summoners in that order.  By this metric, if there is a hole, it's for something like WoW's shaman.

I was thinking of range, but no, in PoE every character can attack at both distant and melee range. And basically for every class (except barbarian and perhaps fighter) there is an optimal range and melee build.

 

As for shaman, he will clash a bit with chanter. As they both are spellcasters in a way, can provide healing; both chant/murmur when doing their stuff and deal with spirits.

 

Warlock wouldn't match the setting.  There's no evidence of other realms, and no evidence of non-constructed intelligences without a physical presence.  Animancer on the other hand....

I was thinking more of a witch archetype. Or think of WoW Warlock (from Burning Crusade times) combined with Necromancer specialization from DA:I.

It's not that much about summoning stuff from another planes. Rather about cc, high damage-per-action DoTs and health manipulation. With possible sub-classes being specialized around:

1). touch-spells, high-hp and drain-tanking (maybe someone remembers the old SL-SL warlock);

2). single-target magical dps;

3). summoning/animating/taking-control of stuff and spreading dots / make them explode on expiration.

Animancer could work too, but the approach would change. Instead of health manipulation it would be soul manipulation. And instead of magic there would be some kind of technology, because:

Animancers are scientists that specialize in understanding how souls work. They tend to be mechanical inventors and tinkerers since so much of animancy is only possible through technology. Most of them also advocate using technology to manipulate souls with various goals.

Although looking at Ydwin, it's quite likely that animancer will be a background in Deadfire.

 

"Bond" sounds a bit weird, I have to agree. How about "Objective".

Still not good

In a way that would mean that ranger has objective while others don't.

Few more random substitutes: aim, awareness, track, readiness.

Edited May 12, 2017 by MaxQuest

[Boeroer]

Yeah well, the "rangers have xy while other's don't" argument works with every term you can think of. Rangers have aim but fighters have not? Rangers have awareness but rogues have not? It's not like the other classes won't have it, it's just not their most prominent or defining property.

I just came up with objective because most rangers are rangers because they have one. Be it "scout there", "hunt this" or whatever rangers do. "Ranger" itself is more like a profession than for example "Barbarian" or "Fighter" is.

But honestly, I just threw "Objective" in there and didn't really think that it's fitting either. Most likely we'll end up with "Bond".

[MaxQuest]

Valid point)

 

And yeah, seems like Bond will stay. Inb4 there will be a build with pistols called 007  

[Boeroer]

 

 

Inb4 there will be a build with pistols called 007   

 

Or "Walther PPK"...

 

 

Wait... "Walther pee pee, kay?"... that sounds more like a 1 INT ranger who wants to go to the bathroom.

Edited May 12, 2017 by Boeroer

[MaxQuest]

1 INT would explain why Ranger keeps blinding himself via Powder Burns...)

[Boeroer]

ROFL

 

Too stupid to have winking reflexes. :D

Edited May 12, 2017 by Boeroer

[smjjames]

Yeah well, the "rangers have xy while other's don't" argument works with every term you can think of. Rangers have aim but fighters have not? Rangers have awareness but rogues have not? It's not like the other classes won't have it, it's just not their most prominent or defining property.

I just came up with objective because most rangers are rangers because they have one. Be it "scout there", "hunt this" or whatever rangers do. "Ranger" itself is more like a profession than for example "Barbarian" or "Fighter" is.

But honestly, I just threw "Objective" in there and didn't really think that it's fitting either. Most likely we'll end up with "Bond".

 

'Bond', at least, works in it's own way, even if it sounds a bit silly compared to the others.

[Guest Blutwurstritter]

Can we use 5 powerful rangers and their bonding skill to form a Megazord ? That would make the class certainly unique !

Or must we find the power sword beforehand ...