Should multi-classing be more limited?

[theBalthazar]

There is already a side effect of slow learn.

 

Single class learn faster than multiclasses...

[Erik-Dirk]

There seems to be a lot of comments about how "balance is really hard" and "this combination is broken" but not a lot of suggestions on how to balance the classes.

 

The way i see it is there are three options to balance the classes.

 

Option 1: Identify the Key class abilities and create another ability of equal value. SIngle class can pick both, Multi-class will be locked out of the other.

I,e, Say Barbarians could have a rather high drain ability with carnage at level 1 (drain only applies to the primary hit), a multiclass can never have both

 

Option 2: Halve every passive for multiclass, This comes out with a slight advantage to multiclass when there is synergy, We could get rid of power levels and perhaps reduce the restricted access to only the highest tier.

 

Option 3: Higher Tiers should always be better: At the moment a fighters level 1 "constant recovery" is 5hp/s. Veterans recovery (tier 4) is 2hp/s
If obsidian are relying on access to higher tiers to balance the classes they need to get over the aversion of smaller base ability, larger upgrade. This aversion only makes sense for active abilities. I can see no logical reason to the numbers above

Edited January 15, 2018 by Erik-Dirk

[Tzjien]

Multi-classing should only be limited if one class is in violation of the other.

 

There shouldn't be a way to be an evil priest & a paladin following a goodly god even RP wise, you'd be in conflict w/ yourself! While I have no issues w/ 2 melee classes as a multi, story wise, would it make sense? The only way the above scenario works is if dual-classing is also introduced into the game (i.e. You level up as an evil priest to level 3-5, then switch to your new paladin class & can only use your old abilities after surpassing your old level w/ your new class. It works on paper, in a videogame, there's more complications).

 

Story wise, it is classic to have a formerly evil (or good) hero/villain to experience something & have them flip on their previous role.

 

In the old D&D rules of dual-classing. Multi-classing in the old 2nd Ed, maybe even 3rd Ed. rules would have had only non-humans could multiclass due to longevity of life but dual classing was available to humans.  Balancing the game is easier as someone previously stated since this isn't a multi-player game. But then that brings up the way multi-classing is implemented. Should there be dual-classing in addition to multi-classing? Since this is an alternative world not subject to Gary Gygax's rules, it's up to the developer to define what multi-classing is & the rules for it.

 

I have no idea what newer edition rules are regarding multi-classing but the old games (IWD, BG, Torment, etc.) that we love are based on those generation rules. From what little I've seen of the newer rules, it just dumbs down the rules to open it to more people.

 

Great discussion, now if I can only get past character creation to play the game! (keep crashing to desktop =/)

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Raenvan]

Since power levels are intended to balance single and multi-classes as of now, they should ideally apply for melee types as well. A fourth, partial solution might be based on power levels, if innate abilities and at least low-level passives were linked to them. For example, the Berserker's penetration bonus would be capped at his power level (and increase on relevant level-ups), and the Paladin's defense bonuses shouldn't be higher than an appropriate multiple of his power level. In this way, multi-class characters would advance somewhat slower than single-classes.

[AndreaColombo]

As mentioned earlier in this thread, I agree that any rebalancing of single vs multiclass should start from making power levels matter.

[Madscientist]

I voted no, I do not want more restrictions.

I think the class system is perfect as it is.

Some talents or numbers might be changed for balancing, but the general concept is fine.

 

The restrictions in ADnD were completely arbitrary.

- Why could some races only have some classes or class combinations?

- Why could some classes be combined but others not?

- Why did you have stat requirements at all, especially when dual classing?

- Dual classing was extremely restricted. For beginners it was very hard to understand what is required for this and when is the best time to do it.

- The restrictions for the classes felt arbitrary too. Clerics could only use blunt weapons because they do not want to spill blood. Even if they serve the god of war. And smashing skulls with a hammer is definitely not a bloody mess ;-)

 

DnD3 ( like in NWN2) was better. But character creation remained science. You had requirements for prestige classes and taking one level from one class would make you much more powerful (cleric domains, shadow dancer, . . .) while one level from another class would be useless.

 

PoE (version 3+) is much better in terms of game mechanics than any IE game ever was.

 

PoE2 has the best class system I have ever seen, though I dislike the new penetration/armor mechanics.

[Bazy]

I'm not a huge fan of the amorphous "power level" system, it doesn't play nicely with many abilities. It also only really only buffs active abilities, which currently are very weak compared to passives. Would rather they not force this to apply to melee as well. Game is already rather convoluted and a tooltip nightmare. 

 

Wondering why they didn't go for a Baldur's Gate/DND system where:

 

Single class = faster leveling (less experience needed) and higher max character level. 

Multiclass = slower leveling and lower max character level 

 

Such that a single class character could max out at level 16, a multiclass toon would max out at 14ish.

[Erik-Dirk]

Reducing actual level probably would work too, however I suspect that we'd run into problems like perception HAS to be maxed, and accuracy boosting items equipped if you want to hit. (I.e. all attribute builds are the same)

 

Reducing level is kinda the idea of restricting access to highest tier abilities. Problem is that most of the really powerful abilities are either low tier, or at best equally distributed between tiers.

Problem is that this means that at level 20 a multi-class will have access to:

• 14 tiers of unique class skills
• 7 extra ability points to spend on these skills
• Opportunity for greater versatility/synergy with abilities.

(Single class only has access to 9 tiers)

 

Perhaps multi-class should only ever have access to tier 5, which still gives a slight advantage (+1 tier of options as well as starting abilities)

Perhaps also make it that you unlock your first class, then two levels later the second so that level up remains interesting.

Personally I prefer 1/2 value to passives, or make the higher tier abilities significantly more valuable. 

[dunehunter]

How u gonna play a caster multiclass combo if can only access to tier 5 powers?

 

There are class that doesn’t have passive level zero ability, what about them ?

Edited January 16, 2018 by dunehunter

[Erik-Dirk]

If spells actually scale well with level then it'd still work quite well, you still have access to 10 spells/encounter, about 40 choices of spells and what is your other class doing?
Alternatively maybe pure casters should be treated differently.

The extra passive level zero ability is something that makes multi-class better than single class, not equal. Also presumably the classes without passive level 0 abilities have better active abilities so I don't see the problem (If this is not the case then it is a problem with the whole class, not multi-classing)

 

But as I said, I believe there are better solutions. 
 

P.s. There will be pros and cons for all solutions, I think relying on power level alone to fix the gap isn't going to be sufficient as many of the passives are just too powerful. 
Not many solutions are being put forward and not many people are offering constructive criticism to improve the faults they find, I admit that there are shortcomings to every solution I offered, however I'm pretty sure they'd all result in a much more balanced system than is currently in place.

[dunehunter]

If spells actually scale well with level then it'd still work quite well, you still have access to 10 spells/encounter, about 40 choices of spells and what is your other class doing?

Alternatively maybe pure casters should be treated differently.

 

The extra passive level zero ability is something that makes multi-class better than single class, not equal. Also presumably the classes without passive level 0 abilities have better active abilities so I don't see the problem (If this is not the case then it is a problem with the whole class, not multi-classing)

 

But as I said, I believe there are better solutions. 

 

P.s. There will be pros and cons for all solutions, I think relying on power level alone to fix the gap isn't going to be sufficient as many of the passives are just too powerful. 

Not many solutions are being put forward and not many people are offering constructive criticism to improve the faults they find, I admit that there are shortcomings to every solution I offered, however I'm pretty sure they'd all result in a much more balanced system than is currently in place.

 

I don't know if you have played beta or not, but you understand that if you can only access to tier 5 spells, then it means in most part of the game you will only have access to spells from 1 to 3 level. So in most of time u will only be able to throw one fireball per encounter with a lower power level.

 

Honestly currently single wizard is > multiclass wizard in terms of power. Because how spell power scales, spells scales steeper than abilities, and power level has big impact on spell effectiveness.

 

For the question of lvl zero abilities, Monk's lvl zero ability is Transcendent Suffering, half it will have no impact on Monks if u choose to use a weapon instead of fist. Pet is considered as Ranger lvl zero ability, half it = make it totally useless and which also means you ranger pet related abilities are useless.

Edited January 16, 2018 by dunehunter

[Erik-Dirk]

I don't know if you have played beta or not, but you understand that if you can only access to tier 5 spells, then it means in most part of the game you will only have access to spells from 1 to 3 level. So in most of time u will only be able to throw one fireball per encounter with a lower power level.

 

Honestly currently single wizard is > multiclass wizard in terms of power. Because how spell power scales, spells scales steeper than abilities, and power level has big impact on spell effectiveness.

 

1. If we further restrict the tiers then maybe we won't require any reduction of power level i.e. Casting that one fireball is exactly half as good as a single class wizard with 2, you can then say autoattack and/or do what your other class is designed to do.
2. Pure casters could potentially be treated differently.
3. A druid/wizard would have access to exactly the same number of spells/potential casts, you can equip items with per encounter abilities, or use self buffing spells to synergize with your other class.

 

For the question of lvl zero abilities, Monk's lvl zero ability is Transcendent Suffering, half it will have no impact on Monks if u choose to use a weapon instead of fist. Pet is considered as Ranger lvl zero ability, half it = make it totally useless and which also means you ranger pet related abilities are useless.

 

This is another solution but for Transcendent suffering i'd say this is an exception, the skill is fine as it is as it just makes a weapon viable, possibly slightly under powered, definitely should scale with level rather than power, (I didn't mean that we blindly have to halve passives)

I had already thought of pets but there's a pretty simple solution; Full health/defense, however damage, bonus and penalties are all halved. (Pet healing should probably remain the same too, and perhaps the pet does 100% disengagement damage. (of single class) 

 

As I said, no one has, or is likely to come up with a perfect solution for balance. We just need to find one with promise, examine the problems and potential work around. 

 

P.s. dunehunter I wasn't specifically talking about you but some of the objections people seem to have are relatively minor problems compared to the current multiclass discrepancy. I think people should be obliged to put forward their preferred solution when objecting, unless the proposed solution is actually worse or too hard to implement.

 

(Even every 3rd or 4th objection was accompanied by, "I think power levels will eventually be sufficient" we'd have an answer)

Edited January 16, 2018 by Erik-Dirk

[dragubaba]

One of the most vocal critisism hurled towards PoE was "why are you rigorously balancing a single-player game?!?". And to an extent they had a point. So how about we not try to completely screw this one up because multi-classing is one of the main selling points of Deadfire. Cutting half of it just before launch will bring a sh*tstorm of epic proportions.

[tinysalamander]

There shouldn't be a way to be an evil priest & a paladin following a goodly god even RP wise, you'd be in conflict w/ yourself!

 

You don't have to follow god's favored dispositions in PoE. You don't even gain power from gods.

[KDubya]

One of the most vocal critisism hurled towards PoE was "why are you rigorously balancing a single-player game?!?". And to an extent they had a point. So how about we not try to completely screw this one up because multi-classing is one of the main selling points of Deadfire. Cutting half of it just before launch will bring a sh*tstorm of epic proportions.

 

An unbalanced single player game is just as bad as an unbalanced multiplayer game.

 

Things should not be equal but balanced. Currently dual wielding does 50% more dps than any other fighting style. Is that a problem? In my opinion yes as it highly incentivizes you to dual wield as anything else is self gimping.

 

In PoE I self gimped on PotD by not using Priests and other Vancian casters and used four melee types using story companions. I'd rather not have to roll with single class only because multiclass just breaks the game.

 

Maybe they can change how powerlevels affect things to make them relevant. Also as suggested above having an upgrade add more than the base power would be a good start.

[JerekKruger]

As mentioned earlier in this thread, I agree that any rebalancing of single vs multiclass should start from making power levels matter.

 

And making sure that all abilities scale in a meaningful way with them *cough* summoned weapons *cough*.

[dragubaba]

An unbalanced single player game is just as bad as an unbalanced multiplayer game.

 

Things should not be equal but balanced. Currently dual wielding does 50% more dps than any other fighting style. Is that a problem? In my opinion yes as it highly incentivizes you to dual wield as anything else is self gimping.

 

In PoE I self gimped on PotD by not using Priests and other Vancian casters and used four melee types using story companions. I'd rather not have to roll with single class only because multiclass just breaks the game.

 

Maybe they can change how powerlevels affect things to make them relevant. Also as suggested above having an upgrade add more than the base power would be a good start.

I hear what you are saying. When something goes way off the curve it benefits no one. Just, let's see if there a better solution than hard restrictions. For once we are on the verge of having a game where a thing like corpse-eating ranger with a spirit pet is possible and I'd rather not give away that creative freedom in turn for practicality. Edited January 16, 2018 by dragubaba

[Soulmojo]

If everything remains the same then no. 

I wouldn't want even less space to build the character I want.

 

If they strip all generic passives from each class and bring back them as talents plus they come up with a bunch of new stuff then I'm all for it.

 

I really didn't like how they removed the generic talents and distributed them among the classes.

I know why, because then the low level ability trees would look very very empty.

I would say they were lazy regarding low level class design meaning  coming up with new stuff.

 

Wizard, fighter, cleric, druid, and cypher trees are basically a rehash of the first game versions bringing nothing new to the table.

As far as I can see instead they lost the all access talents from the first game, and have to multiclass for it to get it.

Edited January 16, 2018 by Soulmojo

[Wormerine]

Wizard, fighter, cleric, druid, and cypher trees are basically a rehash of the first game versions bringing nothing new to the table.

As far as I can see instead they lost the all access talents from the first game, and have to multiclass for it to get it.

Yeah, I don’t see the new system as an “expansion” but more as a redesign. Similar purpose but better communicated - you wanna cast spells? You are a mage. You wanna hit people with weapon? You are a fighter. You wanna cast spells and hit people with weapons? You are a battle mage.

 

It’s not a terrible idea, though it does have serious setbacks, like not being able to “soft multiclass” as you could in PoE1, while staying single class + not being able to create quite the same character anymore.

[clouseau64]

i think that in addition to make power level matter much more for speels and ability ( typically spell acuracy and damage need to scale much more with power ) you also need to modify level zero abilities and bonus and make them scale with power. classes strength are too front loaded which makes passing up on multi classing bonuses too much of a sacrifice.

 

for instance sneak attack could be 30% damage +5% per power level, paladin deep faith could be 10 +1 per power level....

[Raenvan]

i think that in addition to make power level matter much more for speels and ability ( typically spell acuracy and damage need to scale much more with power ) you also need to modify level zero abilities and bonus and make them scale with power. classes strength are too front loaded which makes passing up on multi classing bonuses too much of a sacrifice.

 

for instance sneak attack could be 30% damage +5% per power level, paladin deep faith could be 10 +1 per power level....

 

It's definitely the good direction, although still front-loaded since multiclasses lag behind only 1-3 power levels (something like 10% difference in deep faith).

 

I'd advise linear scaling, say +2 deep faith per power level. An alternative stepwise approach could grant some basic innate bonus (say +6 deep faith), and offer remarkable selectable upgrades upon reaching certain power levels (+6 on power level 4, +8 on 8 ).

 

I'm starting to believe that single vs. multiclass balance might be easier to reach than many think. Just balance single classes by reducing low-level, flat and strong passives, and make power levels matter.

Edited January 20, 2018 by Raenvan

[gGeorg]

All that numbers tweaks sounds attactive , however, lets take a look at roots.

 

From the game world mechanic point of view.

Spells are cast based on religion or high education (which is a science based religion).

So the Priest casts his spells because of his faith. You might be a believer of one God ( rather one religion) but you cant believe in two or more religious systems. If you try to believe in 2 religious, you become an atheist very soon. e.g. your powers dissapear.

 

In our world, its hard to imagine a Cristian + Muslim believer right?

 

Same as in PoE word,

Paladin + Druid, >>> Animalism and Orthodox god believer in soul ?

That is simply nonsence.

 

From my point of view, spell casters could multi-class only with non-cast classes (physical).

Although physical might multi-class other physical,

e.g. warrior + ranger is ok.

Paladin + druid/wizard/... is wrong.

Edited January 21, 2018 by gGeorg

[Boeroer]

Well - it's good for us that you are not the designer I'd say.

 

Besides that:

 

- Hiravias, Druid, follower of Wael

- Edér, Fighter, follower of Eothas

- Pallegina, Paladin, dislikes the gods

- Durance, Priest of Magran, VERY ambivalent attitude towards Magran

 

...PoE (with its classes, lore and characters) is obviously not like you think it is. Paladins are not necessarily god believers, but just zealous about a certain thing (read about Darcozzi Paladini). To practice animism doesn't mean you can't believe in the gods.

 

I can totally imagine a Christian + Muslim believer. Should be easy, it's the same god at last: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/i-am-both-muslim-and-christian/

Edited January 21, 2018 by Boeroer

[JerekKruger]

The reason is hard to imagine a Christian + Muslim is because they have directly contradictory accounts of the same things, specifically Christians believe Jesus was the son of God (most also believe he was simultaneously one with God, though not all) whereas Muslims believe he was merely a prophet.

 

Meanwhile Eora is demonstrably not monotheistic, and this religions don't need to engage in the same us or them rhetoric since they aren't peddling mutually exclusive stories.

[Boeroer]

*frenetically prays that this will not evolve into a discussion about religion*