Should multi-classing be more limited?

[KDubya]

Should multi-classing be limited like it was in AD&D 2nd Ed?

 

Specifically:

• certain classes like Paladin, Barbarian, Ranger and Monk either blocked or limited to a few choices such as Ranger/Cleric.
• No multi-classing two melee types such as Barbarian and Paladin

I've had a lot of fun mixing classes looking for the most powerful synergy but I'm starting to think that maybe its too much. A Paladin/Berserker is just flatout better than either a Paladin or a Berserker, so much so that anything else would be handicapping myself.

 

For the sake of game balance should the total freedom of everything mixes with everything be curtailed to a few specific blends?

[blotter]

Should multi-classing be limited like it was in AD&D 2nd Ed?

 

Specifically:

• certain classes like Paladin, Barbarian, Ranger and Monk either blocked or limited to a few choices such as Ranger/Cleric.
• No multi-classing two melee types such as Barbarian and Paladin

I'll cast my vote against both ideas as I think the game has enough artificial constraints as it is and this change, in particular, would eliminate much of what personally made me excited about Deadfire in the first place. The change may also look pretty bad more generally, considering how prominently they've featured multiclassing and the flexibility it affords in character building throughout their promotion of the game so far.

 

If the respective benefits of single vs multiclassing need more effective balancing, then I'd prefer that they approach this via the scaling of higher level abilities/the benefits of power levels gained and tying the progression of abilities' power more closely to power level in general; a lot of things have ended up being flat bonuses in the beta despite earlier claims to the contrary, and this connection was originally intended to play an important role in balancing the options (albeit back when they were aiming for 3e style multiclassing).

Edited January 13, 2018 by blotter

[dunehunter]

melee class just need to be more scaled with power level, then it will be fine imo.

 

Now power level has almost 0 impact on melee classes except monks, whose fist power is tied to power level.

Edited January 13, 2018 by dunehunter

[KDubya]

Perhaps after some balancing it'll be different, but based on how things currently are I'm starting to believe that multi classing of two powerful melee classes effectively breaks the game.

 

In PoE single classes had trade offs; Paladins were very strong defensively while Barbarians were very strong offensively. Now I can combine both and have none of the drawbacks, I'll have great defenses and great offense.

 

They've already took away the minor malus that Paladins had, my hopes that they'll somehow manage to balance the classes are diminishing. 

[hilfazer]

I've had a lot of fun mixing classes looking for the most powerful synergy but I'm starting to think that maybe its too much. A Paladin/Berserker is just flatout better than either a Paladin or a Berserker, so much so that anything else would be handicapping myself.

 

Most players don't have beta access and they will not know it at release.

Most players are bad so they may never figure out optimal options.

Most players play games only once, not to mention only few finish them.

We don't know what high level abilities will be in full game.

Voted 'No'.

[theBalthazar]

If you nerf creativity = proof of bad concept.

 

For me, there must be MORE options of multiclassing. Like Monk + Druid. Not less.

 

But if you nerf this or this, you start a bad gearing.

 

Classes must be more subtly fitted.

 

Multiclasses is a fun concept. Except if your creativity is never rewarded.

 

Also, don't forget, we are hardcore gamer. We know all the possibilities.

 

Even in POE1, there was better classes than others.

 

It stay only one question for obsidian : Balance of viable/optimal.

 

But you will never have totally equal classes.

 

I will look at the side of "new options" for solo classes. Like :

- More empower globally.

- More empower by battle.

- More powerful empower. (or less powerful for multiclass if it is already too powerful)

- An etendard ability for each solo class. (like arcane assault, always available at the creation+evolution)

Edited January 13, 2018 by theBalthazar

[dunehunter]

Honestly I really like the changes they made to make battle more active than before. You can build a Paladin who is pretty active instead of passive, and feel awarded for micromanage.

 

The PoE 1 pal is very boring to play. Most time u just auto attack and tank. Purrr...

 

The multiclass makes it even better, you can multiclass a rogue to make your character more active, or more passive with Chanter, I’d be sad if they limit creativity and choices.

Edited January 13, 2018 by dunehunter

[theBalthazar]

Same here.

 

Never used Paladin in the first game POE1. Because after a few tests, it did not suit my style of play.

 

Now he is much better balanced.

Edited January 13, 2018 by theBalthazar

[AndreaColombo]

I voted no, even though I agree that single-classed characters should be competitive vs. multi-classed ones.

 

melee class just need to be more scaled with power level, then it will be fine imo.

 

Now power level has almost 0 impact on melee classes except monks, whose fist power is tied to power level.

 

I believe you hit the nail on the head right here.

 

Let me elaborate.

 

Single-classed characters have three things going for them:

 

• They unlock new power levels sooner.
  Doesn't seem to make a tremendous difference in the portion of the game we're playing, but it may matter more in the early stages where your tactical options are more limited. It may also matter at higher levels when facing more powerful foes. At present, only the devs know.
• They have access to 8th- and 9th-level abilities.
  We do not know how powerful those are and how desirable the end-game content makes them, so it's hard for us to tell how big of a selling point this is.
• They are 1-2 points of power level ahead (depending on character level.)
  As shown in the table in this post.

 

Presently, the third point doesn't really mean much. As noted elsewhere while discussing the effects of Empower (which basically adds +10 power levels to its target ability), power level is very inconsistent in its application: While some spells (e.g. Minoletta's Bounding Missiles) benefit greatly from an increase, others (like most melee classes' abilities) only get extra duration.

 

Furthermore, power level only grants very small increments per point (e.g. +1 power level adds a fraction of a penetration point, a fraction of an extra projectile, etc.), which means the benefit of being 1-2 points of power level ahead is pretty marginal—and would remain so even if the application of power level was more consistently good across spells, powers, and abilities.

 

In order to make single-classed characters more compelling, IMO we should start exactly from this:

 

• Make power level more consistently good for all spells and abilities.
• Make the impact 1 power level more significant (and nerf Empower accordingly as needed to avoid making it OP.)

 

In other words, make that 1-2 power level gap between single- and multi-classed characters mean something.

 

Two more things:

 

• Casting times being as they are, single-classed casters aren't a very compelling choice. Right now, you're generally better off combining casters with melee classes to use a Wizard's self-buffs on a Fighter or a Monk's abilities on a Druid's Spiritshift. Fixing casting times would ameliorate this, giving single-classed casters more appeal.
• Casters in general (and Druids in particular) would benefit greatly from a wider array of passive talents to select from at level-up. Right now, if you want to focus on Spiritshift you're better off combining a Shifter with a martial class because the Druid's talent tree doesn't really offer much in the way of specializing on Spiritshifting, for example. Appreciate this would probably take more development time than Obsidian can spare at this time, but you know ... food for thought.

Edited January 13, 2018 by AndreaColombo

[Erik-Dirk]

I brought this up in the non-beta thread earlier:

• Why do multiclass characters get additional ability points at character creation
• Why do multiclass get additional points at level up

Seems to me that at creation:

• Single class characters should get 2 ability points.
• Multiclass should only gets 1 as they have already bought their rank 0 abilities.

Multiclass should only get one ability point at level up like single class.

 

Pretty sure they're still going to be very imbalanced however the current ability point system simply makes things worse.

[theBalthazar]

They have access to 8th- and 9th-level abilities.

We do not know how powerful those are and how desirable the end-game content makes them, so it's hard for us to tell how big of a selling point this is.

 

 

3 possibilities :

 

1)  Power like POE1 = not worth it. I choose Multiclass.

 

2) Crazy power. Like a relentless storm with 50-60 damages, +10 accuracy, fast action speed. Everybody Will go with soloclass (even Train again to take only one class when the group is level 17~...)

 

3) Average+.  I say Multiclass. because the associations will always be better. Except if we go beyond a certain interrest. And as we saw in point 1, Obsidian is not a fan of overpower gaming. As the levels 13 to 16 of POE1 have shown us...

 

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

 

So... Solo classes are definitely behind, except if you create crazy spells/crazy abilities (It will be necessary against a multiclassed)

 

Except if you create a start of interrest. At the creation. Like an ability. A totally new ability. Fresh, only for solo class. An ability like arcane assault. A skill will evolve over time, since the beginning.

 

They unlock new power levels sooner.

 

 

Not really. With two classes, we have also more choice (panel x 2) ? And more ability points. And often two powerful effects can be found at lower levels.

 

They are 1-2 points of power level ahead (depending on character level.)

 

 

True. But 3/4 of the game you have a gap of 1 pt. Plus, objectively the difference is not crazy ...

 

So, there actually 2 things in this game that are catastrophic :

 

- Cast-time + Recovery of casters.

- Single classed.

Edited January 13, 2018 by theBalthazar

[Erik-Dirk]

The problem is really that melee multi-classes have access to two rank zero abilities which are in themselves equal to what can be found in higher tiers.
I.e.  Cipher/Fighters get both "Constant Recovery" and "Soul Whip"

 

The pure Fighter will need to unlock tier 3 to use "veterans recovery" before having access to relatively equal passives. (by which time the multi will have access to draining whip so be ahead in passives again)

If we want to balance multiclass we need one of the following options

• The higher tiers are always better (e.g. soul whip is 15% draining whip is 20%)
• Multiclass receives even more ability points however every passive ability is halved, while opening up the highest tiers to multiclass.
• Give solo classes access to a unique ability/passive at every second tier

[theBalthazar]

The higher tiers are always better (e.g. soul whip is 15% draining whip is 20%)

 

In the thread of analysis I have found an interesting thing :

 

Obsidian hate the upgrade. He create the better option first. Upgrade is never better than the base effect. (Chanter, Fighter etc. There is a lot of examples)

 

Concrete exemple (actually) :

 

Recovery of fighter = 5 HP by 3s.

 

Upgrade = 2 HP by 3s.

 

If I was in command (: p) I could be propose an other dividing :

 

Recovery of fighter = 3 HP by 3s

 

Upgrade = 4 HP by 3s

 

After = better.

 

There is a good effect : viable and optimal. Obsidian do that for avoid bad builds (= non viable). With base ability with the actual system of Obsidian, I have always a good "base" of general efficiency. 

 

There is a downside effect : Improvements are often not useful. (Exalted focus ? etc.)

Edited January 13, 2018 by theBalthazar

[AndreaColombo]

 

They unlock new power levels sooner.

 

Not really.

 

Why do say "not really"? It's even in the post I linked: "However, multiclass characters get access to each power level later than a single-class character and their abilities progress in power at a slower rate.  A wizard has access to Fireball at 5th level, but a battlemage (fighter/wizard) does not gain access until 7th level."

 

Ultimately I don't see how what you wrote would be in contrast with what I wrote. Single-classed characters unlock new power levels sooner—e.g. in the beta a multi-classed Priest cannot cast Devotions for the Faithful, arguably one of the best buffs in the game—but how much of an impact this has throughout the game remains to be seen. In the portion we're given to play in the beta, it doesn't make enough of a difference to make single classes appealing; but then again, one of the key design advantages of single-classed characters is doing nothing, which brings us to...

 

They are 1-2 points of power level ahead (depending on character level.)

 

True. But 3/4 of the game you have a gap of 1 pt. Plus, objectively the difference is not crazy ...

 

 

That was the entire point of my post, wasn't it? The gap is there by design, but if it doesn't have an impact on actual gameplay, what is the point? I say, let's make it matter. Once it does, we may determine whether more intervention is needed to make single-classed characters appealing. At least, that's my take on the matter.

 

 

Seems to me that at creation:

• Single class characters should get 2 ability points.
• Multiclass should only gets 1 as they have already bought their rank 0 abilities.

Multiclass should only get one ability point at level up like single class.

 

I disagree. Multi-classed characters get an extra talent point on levels where they unlock a new power level, which I believe makes sense. If they didn't get the extra talent points, they'd often find themselves stretched too thin—a single-classed character would have the same number of talent points to distribute on a much narrower pool, and multi-classed characters would have a hard time taking advantage of the synergies they were built for.

 

As I find multi-classed characters fun to play in their current state, I would rather give something to single-classed characters than to take something away from the former (but I will admit to a bias as described by Josh in one of the latest Q&A streams: Once I'm given something powerful, I find myself reluctant to let go of it.)

[dunehunter]

 

The problem is really that melee multi-classes have access to two rank zero abilities which are in themselves equal to what can be found in higher tiers.

I.e.  Cipher/Fighters get both "Constant Recovery" and "Soul Whip"

 

The pure Fighter will need to unlock tier 3 to use "veterans recovery" before having access to relatively equal passives. (by which time the multi will have access to draining whip so be ahead in passives again)

If we want to balance multiclass we need one of the following options

• The higher tiers are always better (e.g. soul whip is 15% draining whip is 20%)
• Multiclass receives even more ability points however every passive ability is halved, while opening up the highest tiers to multiclass.
• Give solo classes access to a unique ability/passive at every second tier

 

 

I do agree with you here.

 

Let's ask a very basic question, how to make my character stronger?

 

Since every class has same accuracy/defense at level 1 now. The answer is 1) how many abilities (active/passive) I have. 2) How strong are my abilities.

 

For answer 1, a multiclass usually start with 2 passive compare and two active abilities at level 1 and get an extra abilities per 2 level, while a single class can pick 1 ability per level.

 

In generally speaking, a multiclass is stronger than single class at level 1, and of course he has more diversity and flexibility because he has more abilities.

 

For answer 2, a single class can pick stronger abilities and grow power level faster so his abilities benefit more from power level. Which means a single class character grows faster than multi class character in power.

 

So a multi class start with more power but grow slower, a single class starts with more limited choices but grow faster.

 

The problem is:

 

1. Some class doesn't have level zero abilities. So a wizard/priest starts with a very slight advantage over a pure wizard, but will be exceeded in early game because single wizard grows much faster in power. 

 

2. Some class like barbarian and paladin starts with very strong zero abilities. So a multiclass makes them have huge advantage over single class. So even a single class grows faster in power, he cannot exceed a multiclass in power until very late of the game.

 

3. The assumption that a single class grows faster may not be valid. There a lot abilities are not affected by power level, so I'm not even sure if these single class grows faster in power, specially when multiclass can pick more abilities = more power. And I ignored the factor that there are synergy between abilities, which make multiclass stronger when level up.

Edited January 13, 2018 by dunehunter

[Erik-Dirk]

 

The higher tiers are always better (e.g. soul whip is 15% draining whip is 20%)

 

In the thread of analysis I have found an interesting thing :

 

Obsidian hate the upgrade. He create the better option first. Upgrade is never better than the base effect. (Chanter, Fighter etc. There is a lot of examples)

 

Concrete exemple (actually) :

 

Recovery of fighter = 5 HP by 3s.

 

Upgrade = 2 HP by 3s.

 

If I was in command (: p) I could be propose an other dividing :

 

Recovery of fighter = 3 HP by 3s

 

Upgrade = 4 HP by 3s

 

After = better.

 

There is a good effect : viable and optimal. Obsidian do that for avoid bad builds (= non viable). With base ability with the actual system of Obsidian, I have always a good "base" of general efficiency. 

 

There is a downside effect : Improvements are often not useful. (Exalted focus ? etc.)

 

There's no logic to this stance though, large or small, a passive ability will always be useful.

Smaller upgraded abilities only makes sense for active abilities, as cast time/resource cost will usually remain the same

 

3. The assumption that a single class grows faster may not be valid. There a lot abilities are not affected by power level, so I'm not even sure if these single class grows faster in power, specially when multiclass can pick more abilities = more power. And I ignored the factor that there are synergy between abilities, which make multiclass stronger when level up.

 

Lets be clear now. More passive abilities=more power.

Since most active abilities are tied to a resource they just increase versatility not power (spells are included as they wont run out mid-late game)

Edited January 13, 2018 by Erik-Dirk

[dunehunter]

3. The assumption that a single class grows faster may not be valid. There a lot abilities are not affected by power level, so I'm not even sure if these single class grows faster in power, specially when multiclass can pick more abilities = more power. And I ignored the factor that there are synergy between abilities, which make multiclass stronger when level up.

 

 

Lets be clear now. More passive abilities=more power.

Since most active abilities are tied to a resource they just increase versatility not power (spells are included as they wont run out mid-late game)

 

 

That is not necessarily true, self-buff abilities Frenzy and Swift Flurry not only increase versatility, but also increase power.

 

Some offensive abilities will increase power too, like Wounding shot, FoD.

[Erik-Dirk]

 

3. The assumption that a single class grows faster may not be valid. There a lot abilities are not affected by power level, so I'm not even sure if these single class grows faster in power, specially when multiclass can pick more abilities = more power. And I ignored the factor that there are synergy between abilities, which make multiclass stronger when level up.

 

 

Lets be clear now. More passive abilities=more power.

Since most active abilities are tied to a resource they just increase versatility not power (spells are included as they wont run out mid-late game)

 

 

That is not necessarily true, self-buff abilities Frenzy and Swift Flurry not only increase versatility, but also increase power.

 

Some offensive abilities will increase power too, like Wounding shot, FoD.

 

This is true, however they will still consume resources and/or some time to activate. They may still cause multi-class to be more powerful but not to the same extent as the passive ability to do carnage damage or chants buffing/de-buffing everyone.

 

Sworn enemy and especially marked prey could be problematic though as they don't really consume the resource.

It's ok if a well designed multiclass is superior through good choice of abilities. Just not the current system where most combinations are obviously superior.

[theBalthazar]

In the face of reality, be realistic, Obsidian has created few "trump cards" in almost all classes. That's what makes the balance difficult (analysis etc.). You have to admit 1 or 2 trump cards and become hard with the rest.

For example, the disciplined strike, objectively speaking, is totally OP. But if you put him back into the warrior path, that's his asset. If we do not see it like that, we can not understand the distribution.

[KDubya]

I'd like to hear the Devs comment on how they seek to balance multi-classes.

 

The more I look at it I just don't see how it can be accomplished. Sure its a single player game but balance still matters. If some combinations are massively more powerful it sort of ruins the experience.

 

Since cancelling multiclass is non-starter, maybe they'll disallow subclasses or a few specific classes from multiclassing. 

[Wormerine]

Absolutely not. Even if the balance will be way off, adding those weird constrains just goes against the multiclassing.

 

They should work and it and make is as best as they can. While not great, even if it’s a bit broken it won’t hurt the game all that much - it ain’t multiplayer. If it won’t be good enough for release, they will still be able to do some work on it with expansions.

[AndreaColombo]

I second that. I’ll take nerfs over arbitrary restrictions any time.

[bonarbill]

While balance is important in any game (whether single player or multiplayer), I think it's obvious that they can't easily balance over 100 of different multiclass combinations.

 

IMO, as long as you can beat the game with any combination of classes, then I'm good for now.  They can keep balancing with patches over time.  I'm sure they'll think of something to equalize multiclassing option with single class option

Edited January 15, 2018 by bonarbill

[JerekKruger]

I voted for the third option, although it doesn't accurately represent my view. My real answer would be "I don't know". I want multiclassing to remain as flexible as it is now as I like the options it provides, but as it is right now I think it's going to be hell to balance. I don't mean perfect PvP style balance, I simply mean making it so that players don't feel like their choices are bad in comparison to others.  It might be that the only way to achieve this balance is to limit multiclassing.

[Osvir]

More experience to level up? Makes sense to me (two doctrines being practiced at the same time)

Doesn't AD&D have some sort of variant of this? IIRC Aasimar and Tieflings level up slower. And classes requiring different experience to level up (I recall from BG- and Icewind Dale-experiences).

Edited January 15, 2018 by Osvir