Should multi-classing be more limited?

[Boeroer]

First of all they should fix Power Level so it affects all active abilities in a meaningful way. Then one could test if the balance between single and multi-class feels any better. And after that one could think about passives.

 

It all depends on the impact Power Level effectively has. If you look at party-wide healing in the beta, then a single class Livegiver is way better than a multiclass Livegiver. His healing is much more powerful than that of a multiclass variant because of Power Level AND he gets the really good spells a lot earlier. Here the impact of Power Level and tier advancement are strong.

 

On the other hand a paladin nearly gains nothing substancial if the goes for single class. His most prominent abilities are there from lvl 1 (like Erik-Dirk said) and the rest doesn't care much about power level. Also it doesn't matter so much that he gets stuff like Glorious Beacon later.

 

So... if Power Level had an impact on let's say Flames of Devotion, giving it +x% lash per power level - people would at least think twice once they wanted to build a dps paladin.

 

Also I would raise the resource pool of single classes a bit more, meaning that also here power level should have more impact and give you more zeal/guile/discipline - and even maybe bonus spell uses per encounter (because casters have no resource pool).

 

At the same time we need more abilities in each tier, because leveling single classes is so boring atm. They all pick the same route because... there is only one (and a half) way to go.

Edited January 24, 2018 by Boeroer

[AndreaColombo]

First of all they should fix Power Level so it affects all active abilities in a meaningful way. Then one could test if the balance between single and multi-class feels any better. And after that one could think about passives.

+1.

 

Applying multiple fixes to the same issue at the same time has never worked out great IME. Let’s do one fix at a time until we hit the sweet spot.

Edited January 24, 2018 by AndreaColombo

[Raenvan]

I'm not fully convinced that power scaling should affect all abilities, neither all passives. It'd be wise to start with a dozen of selected, strong, low-level passives first.

 

In the long term, ideally all abilities depend on power levels, of course. What I meant above is that a small number of low-level passives tend to make few multiclasses superior in the actual betas. Those selected ones could be rationalized and tested in relatively short time.

[Skaddix]

The only thing that I wanted tied to Character Level were Ranger Pets Otherwise they just be worthless.

[Erik-Dirk]

The only thing that I wanted tied to Character Level were Ranger Pets Otherwise they just be worthless.

Actually pets can pretty easily be nerfed without breaking them.

Health:100% 

Damage:50-70%

Bonus for attacking the same target:50-70%

Bereavement penalty: 50-70%

Disengagement attacks do 100% single class damage.

 

Personally I'd think it'd be easier coding wise to reduce multi class passives by a straight 70%, then implement power levels after we get a chance to see how this balances.

One exception to this is constant recovery, this ability is powerful at low levels but starts to become obsolete at high level, this is an ability that really should scale with level/power level.

[Raenvan]

Personally I'd think it'd be easier coding wise to reduce multi class passives by a straight 70%, then implement power levels after we get a chance to see how this balances.

 

Straight reduction for multiclasses seems easier to code indeed, unless devs have a working system for power level scaling at hand. I'd miss some secondary goals of power scaling though (improved balance between single classes, partial regain of the lost 30% on higher levels, etc.)

 

That said, I can imagine a minimal (not optimal), easy-to-implement plan that addresses the most severe single-/multi-class imparities. That would reduce the bonuses granted by few, specific abilities for multiclasses to around 60-70%. This reduction should be limited mostly to innate abilities of some classes and to selected low-level, easily accessible passives like

• Paladin's defense boosts and some Paladin subclass bonuses,
• Barbarian Carnage and Berserker inspirations,
• Rogue's Sneak Attack/Backstab,
• Cipher's Soul Whip/Biting Whip,
• Fighter's Constant recovery.

Other multiclass passives wouldn't be affected, neither extra ability points of multiclasses. Such a restricted rationalization might solve a notable portion of the problem to my hopes.

[Erik-Dirk]

To achieve a reasonable balance the tier zero passives would need to start at 50% (Given level and power level are the same at level 1). This could be raised later to somewhere between 60-80% depending on how much power level affects abilities, how powerful top tier abilities are, how useful resistances prove to be at high level etc.

I think other passives will likely need to be scaled down as well, remember that multi-class gets access to additional points, as well as a much broader selection of passives. 

Also I don't see that passives need to be linked with power level (With the exception of constant recovery) It could be made very simple.

Single class gains 100% Passives,

Multi class gets 50% +1%per level
Even constant recovery would perhaps be better if it was changed to something along the lines of:
Single class: 5Hp/3sec +1/every second level
Multiclass: 3Hp/4sec +1/every second level

 

This can be written in the ability tree and new players should easy be able to understand what this means.

Just because we have a more complex system available doesn't mean it's the best option.
 

[Madscientist]

Once again, I like the general idea behind the multi classing system we have now. I do not want more restrictions.

 

When I heared about multiclassing for the first time in the video I thought it goes like this: (the numbers are just arbitrary examples)

- rogues get +10% sneak attack damage per power level, a lv1 rogue does 10%sneak damage, al lv20 single class 90% and a lv 20 multi class 70%

- barbarians frenzy gains +10% damage and AoE per power level

- paladins gain +5% fire damage of FoD and +2 to all defenses (faith and devotion) per power level

- spells get +X% damage/duration/penetration/acc per power level

- and so on for the other classes

So a single class char is always better in what (s)he is doing than a multi class char starting at lv3, but a multi class char gets abilities from 2 classes, hopefully with some synergies.

 

In the current system, many classes get the full bonus at lv1. Some abilities are strongly effected by power level, some are weakly effected and many do not change at all via power level. At the moment, the biggest advantage of single classes is that they learn high level abilities earlier and they can learn the top level abilities. Until we know the high level abilities, especially those that can only be learned by single classes, we cannot know how good single classes can be compared to multi classes.

I assume that most people will fight the really hard enemies (dragons and so on) at max level and it will be possible to reach max level without beating an ultra hard boss (like in PoE1).

 

I agree that single class characters should have much more class resources than a multi class char.

- I think all casters have only 2 spells per spell level per encounter now. What about multi classes keep 2 and single classes get 3.

- Single classes have 50% more class resources ( like rage for barbarien) than multi classes of the same level. Multi classes have still more points if you add the points of both classes.

Edited January 26, 2018 by Madscientist

[Boeroer]

The last two points make sense for me.

 

Err... I mean the rest does as well, I just wanted to say I support the last two things in particular.

[tinysalamander]

I'd rather go with what Madscientist says. Straight nerfing of passives “because you multiclass” sounds like bandaid solution for a broken system to me.

[Raenvan]

When I heared about multiclassing for the first time in the video I thought it goes like this: (the numbers are just arbitrary examples)

- rogues get +10% sneak attack damage per power level, a lv1 rogue does 10%sneak damage, al lv20 single class 90% and a lv 20 multi class 70%

- barbarians frenzy gains +10% damage and AoE per power level

- paladins gain +5% fire damage of FoD and +2 to all defenses (faith and devotion) per power level

- spells get +X% damage/duration/penetration/acc per power level

- and so on for the other classes

So a single class char is always better in what (s)he is doing than a multi class char starting at lv3, but a multi class char gets abilities from 2 classes, hopefully with some synergies.

 

I expected exactly the same linear scaling with power levels, and still believe that it would be best option. On the other hand, it seems that today's incomplete implementation has caused so much confusion. Some recommend removing power levels completely, or making them irrelevant (like +1% bonus per level).

 

To achieve a reasonable balance the tier zero passives would need to start at 50% (Given level and power level are the same at level 1). This could be raised later to somewhere between 60-80% depending on how much power level affects abilities, how powerful top tier abilities are, how useful resistances prove to be at high level etc.

 

Multiclasses having zero level passives larger than 50% causes significant disparity only if those passives are overpowered. If, for example, paladins defenses at first level were +2 instead of +20, nobody could complain about serious imbalance. That's the most important point in power level scaling!

 

As of now, many low-level passives grant (nearly) 100% of their bonus immediately. If this particularly front-heavy behavior (100%+0% per power level) were changed to linear or even slightly superlinear, multiclasses would become much less attractive. A moderately front heavy curve (like 30%+7% per power level) might still favor multiclasses, but the difference would be much smaller.

[AndreaColombo]

Good suggestions, Madscientist.

[Erik-Dirk]

Once again, I like the general idea behind the multi classing system we have now. I do not want more restrictions.

 

When I heared about multiclassing for the first time in the video I thought it goes like this: (the numbers are just arbitrary examples)

- rogues get +10% sneak attack damage per power level, a lv1 rogue does 10%sneak damage, al lv20 single class 90% and a lv 20 multi class 70%

- barbarians frenzy gains +10% damage and AoE per power level

- paladins gain +5% fire damage of FoD and +2 to all defenses (faith and devotion) per power level

- spells get +X% damage/duration/penetration/acc per power level

- and so on for the other classes

So a single class char is always better in what (s)he is doing than a multi class char starting at lv3, but a multi class char gets abilities from 2 classes, hopefully with some synergies.

 

 

I think this idea is just as likely to be able to balance the classes as any other idea, my only criticism is that it'll result in a larger power bloat at high levels.

I.e. a level 20 single class will receive a +x% on around 21 abilities.

I know the previous suggestion was slightly guilty of this as well, however a 1%/level and a multiclass nerf won't result is such a large power jump when you reach the highest power level.

p.s. im aware of the diminishing returns from low level abilities but it still adds up.

Edited January 26, 2018 by Erik-Dirk

[clouseau64]

Once again, I like the general idea behind the multi classing system we have now. I do not want more restrictions.

 

When I heared about multiclassing for the first time in the video I thought it goes like this: (the numbers are just arbitrary examples)

- rogues get +10% sneak attack damage per power level, a lv1 rogue does 10%sneak damage, al lv20 single class 90% and a lv 20 multi class 70%

- barbarians frenzy gains +10% damage and AoE per power level

- paladins gain +5% fire damage of FoD and +2 to all defenses (faith and devotion) per power level

- spells get +X% damage/duration/penetration/acc per power level

- and so on for the other classes

So a single class char is always better in what (s)he is doing than a multi class char starting at lv3, but a multi class char gets abilities from 2 classes, hopefully with some synergies.

 

In the current system, many classes get the full bonus at lv1. Some abilities are strongly effected by power level, some are weakly effected and many do not change at all via power level. At the moment, the biggest advantage of single classes is that they learn high level abilities earlier and they can learn the top level abilities. Until we know the high level abilities, especially those that can only be learned by single classes, we cannot know how good single classes can be compared to multi classes.

I assume that most people will fight the really hard enemies (dragons and so on) at max level and it will be possible to reach max level without beating an ultra hard boss (like in PoE1).

 

I agree that single class characters should have much more class resources than a multi class char.

- I think all casters have only 2 spells per spell level per encounter now. What about multi classes keep 2 and single classes get 3.

- Single classes have 50% more class resources ( like rage for barbarien) than multi classes of the same level. Multi classes have still more points if you add the points of both classes.

extra ressource currently do not matter that much given that fights last 15 seconds top ( 5 rounds), so it's quite difficult to deplete ressources especially since the patch where ressource cost got reduced for the best ability and the high level one are basically useless.

 

i like the idea of more spell with current system. i would prefer that spell are not restricted by level but tap into a single mana pool with increasing cost per spell level and some passive for caster to have a toned down version of empower available for increased ressource cost. this would restorce some flexibility to vancian casters and make a significant difference to boost single class

[deneweth]

I don't think they should be limited if it is possible to have them relatively balanced.  That being said, I think that way too much hype and development focus is going into multiclassing.  If I had know how it would pan out, I would have been against even adding it in favor of really solidifying base classes.  It would have been a nice happy medium to limit from the start, but to include a separate identity for each multiclass.  A unique ability that encapsulates the RP flavor and class role mash up would make each of the limited number of multiclasses available feel special.  Something that made a fighter/ranger distinct from a "fighter or a ranger" or a "fighter and a ranger" game play wise.

 

Multiclassing is great for table top games where you're creating a specific character, but in a cRPG where you have 5 characters you can diversify your party already.  That's not to say multiclassing is entirely redundant or without worth.  I think multiclassing as it exists is cool, but I'm not sure it was worth the limits it places on other areas of the games or all the time and energy it took to add.

 

With that being said we're here now and multiclass is in game.  I don't see any real upside to limiting all players when individuals can limit themselves.  Mentioning limiting them specifically for balance is even more silly in a single player game where you can adjust the difficulty.  The only really need for balance is that none of the MCs are game breakingly overpowered to where the rest of the party is pointless, or underpowered to the point where they are dead weight.  I know the developers have the added criteria of there being "no bad choices" when it comes to character progression and stats, but I don't know how well that will play out with all the combinations.  I am of the mindset that if everything is perfectly balanced then your choices won't really matter anyways, so hopefully they do leave a little imbalance to make some classes more challenging, some late bloomer 'investment' classes, and situational dependent classes.