Let's Talk: Enhancements!

[jkm]

That doesn't complicate my argument at all. If feats were better 2 feats beats 1 feat plus more. Why would I ignore splashing a class based on it's implementation in DDO from PnP when I'm playing DDO.

Monk is an awesome splash class.

Monk is balanced in PnP by 2 rules that were house ruled out in DDO.

1) Like a member of any other class, a monk may be a multiclass character, but multiclass monks face a special restriction. A monk who gains a new class or (if already multiclass) raises another class by a level may never again raise her monk level, though she retains all her monk abilities.
2) At 1st level, a monk may select either Improved Grapple or Stunning Fist as a bonus feat. At 2nd level, she may select either Combat Reflexes or Deflect Arrows as a bonus feat. At 6th level, she may select either Improved Disarm or Improved Trip as a bonus feat

Now tell me, had they abided by those 2 rules would you be making this argument?

This is kind of the history of DDO. 1 decision is made to make something more playable (IE monks would suck without the leeway on feat selection) but it cascades when you push it into multi-classing. There are other examples -> Ranger getting both bow and TWF feats, etc.

[lathreborn]

Monk is balanced in PnP by 2 rules that were house ruled out in DDO.

Dude, we play DDO, not PnP. The rules don't always translate as well as we'd like. Deal.

[dkyle]

How in the universe CAN you claim that all multis are more focused than pures!?

Huh? I believe I specifically just said I wasn't claiming that.


How can you claim ONE multi is more focused than pure?!

Depends on your definition of focus. I'm still not positive what your definition is.

If I want to focus on Stunning Fist DCs, it's quite apparent that multiclass Fighter/Monks are capable of being more focused on that than pure Monks.


Since you stated most of your toons are pure, it makes sense now that you are having so much trouble grasping much of the basic gist of why pures need to be more effective than multis in their chosen profession.

OK, I really don't know what you mean by "chosen profession". Are you just saying that pures should be better at having the specific set of abilities they get as part of their class, and at doing the specific set of things they do, than multis? Well, yes. I should expect so. I would expect most builds to be the best at having the specific set of abilities they have compared to other builds, whether pure or multi. But that's very nearly a tautology. The only way that could be untrue is if multis were strictly as good or better at absolutely everything the pure does. Which seems highly unlikely. Even a pure melee Ranger is better at some things than a splashed melee Ranger.


As for your propensity to stand behind hypotheticals and mockups and a blank enhancement user interface as "KNOWN FACTS" that will occur in 3-6 months (maybe) is completely unexplainable.

The facts stated by the Devs are "KNOWN FACTS" about the system they are currently planning to implement. I am giving feedback on that system, because they asked for it. I am not talking what what "will occur in 3.6 months". I don't know what will occur then. Although the facts about the currently planned system gives some indication of what is more likely than other possibilities.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

This is ... snip... DDO.

I have played PnP for years, and the closer this game is to 3.5 the happier it makes me.

However, if we make this thread about WoTC's 3.5e in relation to Turbine's DDO, we'll be at reply number 258,9898,090,053 before realizing Dkyle is still trying to explain how he was grateful that Turbine didn't nerf multis after all! :D

[dkyle]

Monk is balanced in PnP by 2 rules that were house ruled out in DDO.

1) Like a member of any other class, a monk may be a multiclass character, but multiclass monks face a special restriction. A monk who gains a new class or (if already multiclass) raises another class by a level may never again raise her monk level, though she retains all her monk abilities.
2) At 1st level, a monk may select either Improved Grapple or Stunning Fist as a bonus feat. At 2nd level, she may select either Combat Reflexes or Deflect Arrows as a bonus feat. At 6th level, she may select either Improved Disarm or Improved Trip as a bonus feat

Now tell me, had they abided by those 2 rules would you be making this argument?

This is kind of the history of DDO. 1 decision is made to make something more playable (IE monks would suck without the leeway on feat selection) but it cascades when you push it into multi-classing. There are other examples -> Ranger getting both bow and TWF feats, etc.

The first would not really be a meaningful restriction in DDO. The second would arguably be a buff, since bonus feats bypass stat requirements.

EDIT: For pure and deep multiclasses. Should've read the context more carefully. The second limitation would put a damper on splash builds. Although it still might be a buff for some.

[Aashrym]

Monk is balanced in PnP by 2 rules that were house ruled out in DDO.

1) Like a member of any other class, a monk may be a multiclass character, but multiclass monks face a special restriction. A monk who gains a new class or (if already multiclass) raises another class by a level may never again raise her monk level, though she retains all her monk abilities.
2) At 1st level, a monk may select either Improved Grapple or Stunning Fist as a bonus feat. At 2nd level, she may select either Combat Reflexes or Deflect Arrows as a bonus feat. At 6th level, she may select either Improved Disarm or Improved Trip as a bonus feat

Now tell me, had they abided by those 2 rules would you be making this argument?

This is kind of the history of DDO. 1 decision is made to make something more playable (IE monks would suck without the leeway on feat selection) but it cascades when you push it into multi-classing. There are other examples -> Ranger getting both bow and TWF feats, etc.

We're not playing by those rules tho, so they are irrelevant.

Some classes are just front loaded with a few nice things and others are not. The ones that are make good splash classes and those splashes tend to be better than what the last couple of levels offer some classes. A wizard doesn't need those last 2 levels either and can get a good reflex save and has the skill points for the skills that open up. If he could get the capstone without going to level 20 there is very little incentive to go to level 20.

That's in DDO. We're not playing PnP. ;)

EDIT: Heck, if we were playing PnP I would have my bard who can cast 9th level spells and a 19 die greater shout. :D

[Vormaerin]

This is true. The Racial PrE does present some problems.

Basically, for a multiclass, I would value being able to pick and choose among a wide variety of options (so no tree limit), over now gaining a capstone. That helps multiclasses be unique, and more truly different than pures.


This is the thing.... The devs have indicated that they want to relax a variety of restrictions. Specific mentions were made of skill stacking, class stat bonuses stacking, and things like that. And adding the racial capstone.

So when someone comes and says "OMG, this new restriction will destroy us" (and you are not the major offender here, just a fellow traveler) and then denies that these other changes are also proposed, its disingenuous.

There are a couple other posters who both swear up and down that the restrictions the devs say will be relaxed won't be and yet insist that the new restrictions the devs are going to use instead are "mathematical fact."

It can't be both ways. Either we have racial capstones and cross class stacking and three tree limits "For sure" (because devs suggested all of those explicitly) or we don't have any of them "For sure."


My preference would be to relax the class level limits on enhancements. Its vaguely closer to p&p and would give multi class characters a distinct advantage. AP point costs will keep everyone, pure or multi, from piling deep into multiple trees anyway.

If all the prestiges are broken into an assortment of abilities like AA, then characters won't take trees that their character can't take advantage of. But if a ranger/fighter wants to AA/DWS, I don't see a problem even if mostly fighter.

That would really open up options. You could have the three tree limit, but still allow multis to pull off combos not otherwise possible.

[jkm]

I am fully aware of what we are playing. However, you have to take into account the effects of those decisions on the game as a whole and WHY staying pure isn't as good in DDO as it is in PnP.

Your argument is that Fighter 18/Monk 2 is better than Fighter 20. Yes it is. It SHOULDN'T be, but it is because of decisions made by this game. To fix this, they then had to buff fighter 20 and they went overboard making 18/X way underpowered compared to Fighter 20 when they should be COMPARABLE. The BEST way to do this would have been to add Superior Weapon Specialization as Fighter 20 for another 2 points of damage.

Thus what I'm talking about when you use enhancements. 17/3 splits should be comparable to 18/2 should be comparable to 19/1 should be comparable to 20.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

The facts stated by the Devs are "KNOWN FACTS" about the system they are currently planning to implement. I am giving feedback on that system, because they asked for it. I am not talking what what "will occur in 3.6 months". I don't know what will occur then. Although the facts about the currently planned system gives some indication of what is more likely than other possibilities.

Whats pm'ed does not equate to facts. Heck whats posted here in this thread was only a mockup. Mad already stated it will change to a horizontal nature and that all enhancements were to be decided. He mentioned that there will be new, removed and combined enhancements, NONE of which were mentioned.

Your "known facts" then are based on ZERO known enhancements.

You can give your opinion all you want. I even agree with .05% of what you said, however you nor I nor anyone else in this thread can claim anything factually because what we are discussing does not exist yet.

We are speaking in a solely in hypothetical nature. You are the only one who hasnt figured this out and apparently wont.

I am still waiting for... a mockup, with the new enhancements filled in, that prove that not going your way, would be a fail for all multi-classed builds.

[jkm]

This is the thing.... The devs have indicated that they want to relax a variety of restrictions. Specific mentions were made of skill stacking, class stat bonuses stacking, and things like that. And adding the racial capstone.

So when someone comes and says "OMG, this new restriction will destroy us" (and you are not the major offender here, just a fellow traveler) and then denies that these other changes are also proposed, its disingenuous.

There are a couple other posters who both swear up and down that the restrictions the devs say will be relaxed won't be and yet insist that the new restrictions the devs are going to use instead are "mathematical fact."

It can't be both ways. Either we have racial capstones and cross class stacking and three tree limits "For sure" (because devs suggested all of those explicitly) or we don't have any of them "For sure."


My preference would be to relax the class level limits on enhancements. Its vaguely closer to p&p and would give multi class characters a distinct advantage. AP point costs will keep everyone, pure or multi, from piling deep into multiple trees anyway.

If all the prestiges are broken into an assortment of abilities like AA, then characters won't take trees that their character can't take advantage of. But if a ranger/fighter wants to AA/DWS, I don't see a problem even if mostly fighter.

That would really open up options. You could have the three tree limit, but still allow multis to pull off combos not otherwise possible.

To me the biggest issue with relaxing level restrictions has to do with monk stances. They've been buffed so much that being able to take 1 level of Monk for a +1 Crit Mod would make an insane arcane archer build (18 Fighter/1 Monk/1 Wizzy i guess). Kensai and FB3 would probably be the other problem children for 1 level fo fighter/barb.

If they added some general item where it cost you 1 AP for +2 levels of a class it would probably be the best solution here.

[dkyle]

It can't be both ways. Either we have racial capstones and cross class stacking and three tree limits "For sure" (because devs suggested all of those explicitly) or we don't have any of them "For sure."

Fair enough. While I still think the 3 tree limit is a bad rule, simply because it reduces AP allocation options, I should amend my "why not?" to unlimited trees to include an assumption that Racial PrEs are not as overwhelming powerful as they seem to be, and that cross PrE stacking means that those Enhancements will be high enough up the tree that stacking more than a few will be infeasible. Part of that is wishful thinking. I just think making Race that vital to builds is a bad idea, even beyond the multiclass issue, and could lead to cookiecutter race-class combos.


My preference would be to relax the class level limits on enhancements. Its vaguely closer to p&p and would give multi class characters a distinct advantage. AP point costs will keep everyone, pure or multi, from piling deep into multiple trees anyway.

I'm OK with that too (and proposed something along those lines earlier), but I'm concerned that it's a much more drastic change, and hence, more difficult to get right. Having unlimited trees is basically what we have now. Having relaxed class level requirements is a big change from how things work now.

But it does address another concern about multis I have: why is it that a Race PrE bought with a handful of APs is so much more powerful than a PrE bought with class levels?

[Vormaerin]

To me the biggest issue with relaxing level restrictions has to do with monk stances.

There would need to be some balancing. But the Devs have also indicated that they expect to have more use of stances, so that may be the solution.

If you can be in Monk Stance or Stalwart Defender Stance or "Showtime" Stance, its less of a problem.

[jkm]

Whats pm'ed does not equate to facts. Heck whats posted here in this thread was only a mockup. Mad already stated it will change to a horizontal nature and that all enhancements were to be decided. He mentioned that there will be new, removed and combined enhancements, NONE of which were mentioned.

Your "known facts" then are based on ZERO known enhancements.

You can give your opinion all you want. I even agree with .05% of what you said, however you nor I nor anyone else in this thread can claim anything factually because what we are discussing does not exist yet.

We are speaking in a solely in hypothetical nature. You are the only one who hasnt figured this out and apparently wont.

I am still waiting for... a mockup, with the new enhancements filled in, that prove that not going your way, would be a fail for all multi-classed builds.

And passing the time by arguing about "what ifs"? :o

What I want is a lot of VIABLE choices whether they be pure or multiclass. The current system has been chained into such a finite amount of builds that is incredibly hard to build anything not relying on certain PrEs that can be anything close to competitive at end game.

Oh and by a "lot" I mean hundreds of thousands if not millions of permutations here.

[Vormaerin]

I just think making Race that vital to builds is a bad idea, even beyond the multiclass issue, and could lead to cookiecutter race-class combos.

But it does address another concern about multis I have: why is it that a Race PrE bought with a handful of APs is so much more powerful than a PrE bought with class levels?

I'm very much not in favor of racial PrEs. I'd rather they did something with racial paragon bonuses for buying race based enhancements and leave it at that. You have my full agreement that this is bad.

However, I'm not afraid of a radical overhaul. The change from the original enhancement system to the current one was radical and well done.

The addition of PrEs and Capstones was pretty radical and reasonably decent, marred mainly by partial implementations.

[lathreborn]

I am fully aware of what we are playing. However, you have to take into account the effects of those decisions on the game as a whole and WHY staying pure isn't as good in DDO as it is in PnP.

PnP is, unfortunately, NOT comparable to DDO. Multi-classing in PnP is a lot more difficult, for example.


17/3 splits should be comparable to 18/2 should be comparable to 19/1 should be comparable to 20.


There are some very effective 17/3, 18/2 or 19/1 splits, depending on class. Some of the capstones need to be made more powerful to make staying pure more desirable, IMO.
As I see it, there are very few classes that the capstone is worth staying pure.

[jkm]

There would need to be some balancing. But the Devs have also indicated that they expect to have more use of stances, so that may be the solution.

If you can be in Monk Stance or Stalwart Defender Stance or "Showtime" Stance, its less of a problem.

Heh, while that would be 3 kinds of awesome I just don't see it. The devs have tended to have abilities tacked on to other abilites (for example power surge or frenzy). If they move to you having to be in a stance in order to use an ability from a PrE tree then it would cause some serious backlash. What do you mean I have to swap out of assassin stance to acrobat stance to use haste boost?

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

What I want is a lot of VIABLE choices whether they be pure or multiclass. The current system has been chained into such a finite amount of builds that is incredibly hard to build anything not relying on certain PrEs that can be anything close to competitive at end game. .

The problem is that PrE and class were one and the same. Turbine's proposed move to break Prestige Enhancements away from their base classes and redo the bulk of the enhancements will mean a myriad of new builds will be possible.

By this narrow definition I think we are on the same page.

[dkyle]

Whats pm'ed does not equate to facts.

Why not? Is it not a fact about what the Devs are currently planning? Did they send out false info to mess with us? Or do you doubt the honesty of the posters that relayed those PMs?


Heck whats posted here in this thread was only a mockup.

So? The mockup is a fact. The info about the mockup is a fact. All facts about the system they are planning, that we were asked to comment on.


Your "known facts" then are based on ZERO known enhancements.

This is entirely true, and something I've acknowledged many times.


You can give your opinion all you want. I even agree with .05% of what you said, however you nor I nor anyone else in this thread can claim anything factually because what we are discussing does not exist yet.

Facts can exist about plans that have not yet been implemented.


We are speaking in a solely in hypothetical nature. You are the only one who hasnt figured this out and apparently wont.

A hypothetical would be: "suppose the Devs add a three tree limit?" A fact is: "the Devs have told us that they are currently planning to add a three tree limit."

Do you see the difference? I've tried to be as clear as possible where I'm basing my assessments on facts (what the Devs have told us about their plans), and when I'm basing on what I believe is the best-supported hypothesis.

[jkm]

There are some very effective 17/3, 18/2 or 19/1 splits, depending on class. Some of the capstones need to be made more powerful to make staying pure more desirable, IMO.
As I see it, there are very few classes that the capstone is worth staying pure.

In the current system, a 17/3 split is a shadow of an 18/2 for any PrE with a Tier 3 PrE.

Kensai gives up +1 crit range
FB gives up +2 crit mod
Assassin gives up vorpal on a 20

The same goes for a 19/1 for all but the FB (since the barb capstone is a drop in the bucket).

I'd personally like the NEW system to do away with the arbritrary 6/12/18/20 boundaries.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

So? The mockup is a fact. The info about the mockup is a fact. All facts about the system they are planning, that we were asked to comment on.


What!? The only think that's guaranteed about a mockup is that its most likely going to change!

[Vormaerin]

Heh, while that would be 3 kinds of awesome I just don't see it. The devs have tended to have abilities tacked on to other abilites (for example power surge or frenzy). If they move to you having to be in a stance in order to use an ability from a PrE tree then it would cause some serious backlash. What do you mean I have to swap out of assassin stance to acrobat stance to use haste boost?

Well, I don't think stances would be quite as comprehensive as to affect every enhancement on that tab. I do think we'll see a lot more of the "can't rage while in DoS stance" type thing.

It was specifically brought up by Eladrin when someone asked how the devs intended to stop Stalwart Kensai from being insanely overpowered.

[jkm]

The problem is that PrE and class were one and the same. Turbine's proposed move to break Prestige Enhancements away from their base classes and redo the bulk of the enhancements will mean a myriad of new builds will be possible.

By this narrow definition I think we are on the same page.




Correct. And I haven't really changed this stance since page 6 http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p=4247424&postcount=112

What I don't want to happen is for people to insist that Pure classes must be an order of magnitude more powerful than MCs. The fact is that MCing is where the permutations expand exponentially, you can only do so much within the framework of one class.

[Chai]

PnP is, unfortunately, NOT comparable to DDO. Multi-classing in PnP is a lot more difficult, for example.

I disagree. While this game scales differently, it is certainly comparable to PnP in spirit, just not in letter.

And multiclassing was far easier in PnP. Some PRC had class requirements, but many of the melee ones especially did not have any. A character qualified through skills and feats for a PRC. There was alot more freedom as there were no 3 class limitations like we see in many video game representations of D&D.



There are some very effective 17/3, 18/2 or 19/1 splits, depending on class. Some of the capstones need to be made more powerful to make staying pure more desirable, IMO.
As I see it, there are very few classes that the capstone is worth staying pure.

I believe there needs to be an incentive to be pure, but if someone wants to multi, they are going to want to do so in order to gain benefits they feel are better for that specific build than the capstone would be. In some roles/situations pure will be more powerful, and in some roles/situations multi will be more powerful. Having pure ALWAYS be more powerful is just as bad as having multis ALWAYS be more powerful. Players should not be shoe-horned into one or the other in order to be optimal. You know when a game designer got this right when theres a long internal debate before the choice is made. If one option is the obvious choice and the others are simply relegated to "flavor options" they didnt get it right. My favorite current example of this is the paladin capstone. If someone puts two levels of something else on a paladin, chances are they got someting as good as the capstone in trade, but you know they still feel the loss of that capstone for sure. The other example is a melee ranger. They lose very little for multiclassing currently. Most have at least two levels of something else. Its an obvious choice. The current capstone for rangers just doesnt hold its own weight in any debate for tempest builds, against the multiclassing options that can be had.

[lathreborn]

In the current system, a 17/3 split is a shadow of an 18/2 for any PrE with a Tier 3 PrE.

Hence why I said 'depending on class'.

Assuming the Devs actually complete all the PrE's, I believe an 18/2 split will be that much more effective than a 17/3 split; in which case, I have to say that doing away with the arbitrary 6/12/18/20 requirements would be beneficial.

[dkyle]

What!? The only think that's guaranteed about a mockup is that its going to most likely CHANGE!

I did not say that it is a fact about the system that will get implemented in 3-6 months. At most, it is an indication of what that system is likely to look like.

I said it is a fact about the system that the Devs are currently planning. I am discussing that system. That specific set of game rules. Because they asked us too.

If it changes in the next 3-6 months, then it will be a different system, with different rules, subject to different analysis. But I don't know those rules yet, so I can't comment on them. I can comment on the system they have described.

[lathreborn]

I disagree. While this game scales differently, it is certainly comparable to PnP in spirit, just not in letter.

I was speaking to letter, not spirit. The rules are not the exact same in DDO as in PnP.


And multiclassing was far easier in PnP. Some PRC had class requirements, but many of the melee ones especially did not have any. A character qualified through skills and feats for a PRC. There was alot more freedom as there were no 3 class limitations like we see in many video game representations of D&D.

CLASS, not PrC. I agree the PrC's were actually easier. However, there ARE penalties for multi-classing in PnP, if not for PrCs.



I believe there needs to be an incentive to be pure, but if someone wants to multi, they are going to want to do so in order to gain benefits they feel are better for that specific build than the capstone would be. In some roles/situations pure will be more powerful, and in some roles/situations multi will be more powerful. Having pure ALWAYS be more powerful is just as bad as having multis ALWAYS be more powerful. Players should not be shoe-horned into one or the other in order to be optimal. You know when a game designer got this right when theres a long internal debate before the choice is made. If one option is the obvious choice and the others are simply relegated to "flavor options" they didnt get it right. My favorite current example of this is the paladin capstone. If someone puts two levels of something else on a paladin, chances are they got someting as good as the capstone in trade, but you know they still feel the loss of that capstone for sure. The other example is a melee ranger. They lose very little for multiclassing currently. Most have at least two levels of something else. Its an obvious choice. The current capstone for rangers just doesnt hold its own weight in any debate for tempest builds, against the multiclassing options that can be had.

I have to agree with that, since the only reason I multi class is for the added benefit to my toon from both classes. My pally is a 19/1 split and I see no reason to change that. I do not feel the loss of the pally capstone as I gain more than I lose.

[jkm]

I disagree. While this game scales differently, it is certainly comparable to PnP in spirit, just not in letter.

And multiclassing was far easier in PnP. Some PRC had class requirements, but many of the melee ones especially did not have any. A character qualified through skills and feats for a PRC. There was alot more freedom as there were no 3 class limitations like we see in many video game representations of D&D.

Speaking of long debates. I wonder how long the debate was to scrap the enhancement system altogether.

It would make much more fiscal sense for them to:


Build out Prestige Classes
Expand classes taken to 4 or 5
Scrap the Enhancement system
Sell Prestige Classes in the DDO Store

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

Sell Prestige Classes in the DDO Store

Unless by "fiscal sense" you mean how fast can you "Netflix" a company into obscurity, then I'm not to sure you are making a whole lotta sense with that one!! :eek:

aka: a lot of people would simply leave DDO.

[dkyle]

Unless by "fiscal sense" you mean how fast can you "Netflix" a company, then I'm not to sure you are making a whole lotta sense with that one!! :eek:

Hey! I agree with you!

[Angelus_dead]

What!? The only think that's guaranteed about a mockup is that its most likely going to change!
And the reason mock-ups change is because someone analyzes it and reports a problem.

For the purposes of giving feedback on a proposal, the proposal itself is the guaranteed facts.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

For the purposes of giving feedback on a proposal, the proposal itself is the guaranteed facts.

Unfortunately with this proposal Angelus, there were no enhancements, nor access rules mentioned, so there really isnt anything guaranteed at this point.

I am grateful they've allowed us to comment on what our opinions are, this early in the process... as I'm sure you are too.

In a few months we should have a much better idea what we'll actually be dealing with, so we can extrapolate some factual data so we can plan our builds!

[Angelus_dead]

there were no enhancements, nor access rules mentioned, so there really isnt anything guaranteed at this point.
No. The developers in this thread shared demonstrations of enhancements and access rules.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

No. The developers in this thread shared demonstrations of enhancements and access rules.

Can you link that? Dont remember seeing the new list of enhancements, prestiges, and capstones. Also dont recall reading any access rules that were decided upon.

All hypotheticals from devs mentioned in this thread and others declared that their ideas were subject to change. I havent seen any demonstrations that were complete, if I missed it I'd definitely be interested to review it.

Madfloyd stated this will not be happening before the midpoint of 2012. That's appx 5 months away at best.

Anyway you flip the coin, when you look at the girth of work that remains in front of the devs on this project.... they have a long, long way to go...

[sephiroth1084]

The dips are still worth while for the class features. Usually sneak attack, evasion, bonus feats, or access to skill lists.

The Dark Knight paladin could spend over 30 AP in the DoS tree and spending 20 AP in KotC and HotD give him DoS III, KotC II, HotD II and 10 AP for race or spend in the other 3 trees.

The AP spent in those trees unlocks 14 free abilities with no AP cost as part of the PrE bonuses and the Dark Knight still makes use of those 2 free feats and possibly free tower shield from the 2 fighter levels.

14 free abilities over fighter haste I and fighter strength I and not having to pay for the actual PrE AP costs like the current system?

Heck, he could go dwarf, take the CHA hit, drop DoS, open up SD, and use that if it looks like a better choice than DoS for him. Or drop HotD if it only looks like he wants a few enhancements from there and there is a PrE he wants more that he can unlock from the races.

If he wanted he could stick with Pally 18 / Monk 2 and if helf or human can unlock RS or war priest or beacon of light or others then he has potential we can't even see yet.

That still looks like a lot of potential gain compared to needing a +4 STR tome instead of a +3 STR tome so will lose +1 STR bonus until then and a limited number of action boosts.
Everyone is getting more options and presumably more interesting ways to spend their AP. My qualms are with characters being artificially limited outside of the core system with this trees concept.In particular, multiclass characters, as they will likely have to sacrifice the minor, but useful and desirable, enhancements from their small dip, or will have to sacrifice some real advantages and power somewhere else, because stuff they had been relying upon before ends up in multiple places.

Look at a 3-way multiclass that relies on more than just DPS--probably giving up a chunk of their utility or DPS somewhere, because they can't pick up all of those enhancements. We already have a limiter on the system--Action Points. We don't need another bracket that affects some characters in a small way and others in a major way; it isn't an equitable solution.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

My qualms are with characters being artificially limited outside of the core system with this trees concept.

I think we all have concerns at some level about this as well, but look at all the fluff we have in our builds that many have to take or own because it was granted.

If they are trying to offer more choices to build for both pures and multis that will enhance our play, and limit the fluff in the process, I say "GO devs!" ;)

[Riggs]

Unfortunately with this proposal Angelus, there were no enhancements, nor access rules mentioned, so there really isnt anything guaranteed at this point.

I am grateful they've allowed us to comment on what our opinions are, this early in the process... as I'm sure you are too.

In a few months we should have a much better idea what we'll actually be dealing with, so we can extrapolate some factual data so we can plan our builds!

Some people are more worried about game balance and the quality of the game than simply 'planning their builds' as you keep mentioning.

And demonstrating the constant naivete that this process has barely started behind the scenes doesnt help your arguments any. It is like you have not noticed how Turbine operates, how they have SAID ON THE FORUMS how they operate - repeatedly - for the last 5 years. The fact that we are getting a longer heads up than usual is awesome, but to even say that this process 'is at the beginning' of the behind the scenes planning is utterly foolish and only proves your lack of reading what Turbine has put out in the past.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

Some people are more worried about game balance and the quality of the game than simply 'planning their builds' as you keep mentioning.

Indeed with all these new choices we will soon be able to make for our toons, game balance will dictate all. Any sharp turn for the best or worse will have a monumental effect on the quality of the game and the longevity of this player base. All we will care about when this ships is planning our builds, believe that. I think the move to do this, now, is a small gamble (because of their skill in producing excellent quality UI and intuitive character creation) with potentially big returns. With all the new games that shipped in '11 and coming soon in '12, DDO needs a fresh face (or at least not a really old one). The best way to keep us in the ballpark, is to entice us to make new ballplayers.


And demonstrating the constant naivete that this process has barely started behind the scenes doesnt help your arguments any. It is like you have not noticed how Turbine operates, how they have SAID ON THE FORUMS how they operate - repeatedly - for the last 5 years. The fact that we are getting a longer heads up than usual is awesome, but to even say that this process 'is at the beginning' of the behind the scenes planning is utterly foolish and only proves your lack of reading what Turbine has put out in the past.

When the devs stated upfront that the new UI is admittedly 5-6 months away from debuting on lamma from their initial post, and that they have plans in motion to change lamma into a test server, I'd call that a stark change in behavior and consider this anything but the end stage of development.

Whatever stage this UI development is at, and noone but the devs know for sure, we have months to go before we see anything concrete. That's all I was saying.

I know Turbine's history full well, having kept very close tabs on them daily for 6+ years, but I'm not about to bash them when they were nice enough/wise enough to involve us in the process in the way that they have.

They have promised some major changes to QA, some of which I believe we are already seeing. Whether they continue on with what they promised in Fernando's New Years letter, is completely up to debate. You have fun bashing, but I'm going to hope that much of it comes to fruition. As I've said early in this thread, they need to execute BIG TIME in order to overshadow some of the appalling decisions they made in 2011. Considering the incredible talent in their dev-pool, and from what I've seen so far in '12, I believe they are ontrack to succeed.

[waterboytkd]

I'd personally like the NEW system to do away with the arbritrary 6/12/18/20 boundaries.

Does a system with 3/6/9/12/15/18/20 boundaries count? That's what we're getting. And in that system, 17/3 could certainly have it's place, right alongside 18/2, 20, 12/6/2, 14/3/3, 8/6/6, 12/4/4, 9/6/5, 9/9/2, etc.

The new PrE bonus enhancement lines look broken up a lot more, which is cool. It'll encourage a broader range of level splits. I think.

[red_cardinal]

As I've said early in this thread, they need to execute BIG TIME in order to overshadow some of the appalling decisions they made in 2011. Considering the incredible talent in their dev-pool, and from what I've seen so far in '12, I believe they are ontrack to succeed.

Let's hope that Lammania will continue dev events as it did until now, especially for this Enhancements feature. They will get huge feedback for which I hope they will fix bugs and not make a hasty release with to many broken things.

I do think after all this year will change things for the better.

[Randil_Keeper]

interesting times ahead, look forward to seeing this up on Lamaland :)

[sweez]

My pure builds are FAR more focused than my multis.
Ex: My AA is pure ranged (they're dead before they reach melee range, so why SHOULD I have a melee game?),

So you drop purple names in 1 manyshot? Do you realize how useless ranged dps is when off manyshot?

[Callavan]

It's an interesting idea, but how about we drop the whole crappy enhancement/ap system and use prestige classes like actual D&D. Yeah I know, but that's what I'd prefer seeing. It makes multiclassing easier and falls under the whole "more options = good" idea, as far as I'm concerned.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

It's an interesting idea, but how about we drop the whole crappy enhancement/ap system and use prestige classes like actual D&D. Yeah I know, but that's what I'd prefer seeing. It makes multiclassing easier and falls under the whole "more options = good" idea, as far as I'm concerned.

That would be ideal, but may not be possible without a major re-write to DDO. Im happy to see them going this far ;)

[Chai]

I was speaking to letter, not spirit. The rules are not the exact same in DDO as in PnP.

The rules are not the exact same from table to table, much less between a paper game and a video game representation of it. This fact however, does not make comparisons irrelevant. I see the statement made alot that "DDO is not D&D so your point is invalid" or something similar, but thats simply not true. DDO is D&D in and of its own right. Most comparisons are made in order to analyze how to best fit a P&P ability into the game they are designing.


CLASS, not PrC. I agree the PrC's were actually easier. However, there ARE penalties for multi-classing in PnP, if not for PrCs..

In D&D PRC is a class. The XP penalties went away for the most part after 2.0e where a player could not be more than one level higher in any of their class combos save for their preferred racial class.



I have to agree with that, since the only reason I multi class is for the added benefit to my toon from both classes. My pally is a 19/1 split and I see no reason to change that. I do not feel the loss of the pally capstone as I gain more than I lose.

Yeah it should be a trade off and not an obvious choice.

[Chai]

It's an interesting idea, but how about we drop the whole crappy enhancement/ap system and use prestige classes like actual D&D. Yeah I know, but that's what I'd prefer seeing. It makes multiclassing easier and falls under the whole "more options = good" idea, as far as I'm concerned.

I think they already made their bed on that one. I liked NWN when it had PRC, as that system was a pretty close representation of P&P for the abilities they had in game.

[Chai]

So you drop purple names in 1 manyshot? Do you realize how useless ranged dps is when off manyshot?

Of all the AA that have done the DPS test, they are on top due to many shot. If you multiply their times by 4 to account for shooting one arrow at a time instead of 4, their DPS isnt really bad at all when focused. Its the people that do not want to play focused that end up with half way crook archers.

[orakio]

Correct. And I haven't really changed this stance since page 6 http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p=4247424&postcount=112

What I don't want to happen is for people to insist that Pure classes must be an order of magnitude more powerful than MCs. The fact is that MCing is where the permutations expand exponentially, you can only do so much within the framework of one class.

I don't think most reasonable people are insisting that Pure classes need to be more powerful than MC's but they should at least be equal. In the current system only 20fighter and 20barb, and situationally 20 dark monk or rogue, can kind of keep up with most of the solid deep multiclass builds and pures still don't have the utility of things like UMD and evasion.



In D&D PRC is a class. The XP penalties went away for the most part after 2.0e where a player could not be more than one level higher in any of their class combos save for their preferred racial class.


XP Penalty didn't go away in 3.0 or 3.5, multiclass characters took a 20% xp penalty for each class not within 1 level of your highest level class. For example a 12/6/2 split in PnP would take a -40% xp penalty, or -20% if the 12th level class was their favored class. These xp penalties were frequently house ruled to not exist, and xp penalties did not apply to PrC's just base classes. I am glad that this system isn't in DDO as it is cumbersome and very punishing.

[Aashrym]

Look at a 3-way multiclass that relies on more than just DPS--probably giving up a chunk of their utility or DPS somewhere, because they can't pick up all of those enhancements. We already have a limiter on the system--Action Points. We don't need another bracket that affects some characters in a small way and others in a major way; it isn't an equitable solution.

That's the part that I disagree with. If there is something in one of the trees on the the dip class so incredibly worth taking the players will take it. They have the options for swapping out trees that pure classes don't have.

If I make a 8/6/6 or a 7/7/6 or a 12/6/2 I have choices from 9 PrE trees and if I have a pure class I have 3 class PrE to have on my character and no choice in swapping the best trees and that's it. That's a lot of choices and I think players are trying to down play that when it is a relevant advantage.

In the meantime, separating the enhancement features into 3 trees still means pure class will not have them as options because of the way the trees are set up requiring minimum AP spend per tree to access them. So if a pure class does not have access to all of the enhancement he would have on the existing system either if they are separated into the upper tiers of his 3 trees effectively providing similar limitations on the access to number of enhancements at once the a multiclass faces.

The enhancements in the 3 class trees do not necessarily compliment each other nor do they necessarily provide for the the role the character intends to play so the choice of the 3 best trees for that role can be significant. What we can't say is how significant until we actually see the what each enhancement will be, what enhancements no longer exist, what new enhancements exist, and what all of the free PrE abilities are going to be.

[gelgoog]

Changes for the Enhancement UI will be a good thing…………

1.) If these changes makes it easier for Turbine to implement new enhancements/PrEs more often.

2.) If these changes make the Enhancements easier to understand to new players and existing players.

Changes to the Enhancement UI are way overdue in my opinion.
It will be nice to not have to click “show unavailable” on the enhancement tab and scroll thru all of the Enhancements to find the one you need to see.

[Failedlegend]

I have played PnP for years, and the closer this game is to 3.5 the happier it makes me.


Actually there's alot of stuff in 3.5 that I DONT want in DDO there was alot of systems that were either over complicated, borked or stupid and I don't know a single gaming group that after learning the system didn't institute a bunch of house rules. As long as it keeps to the spirit of the game and stays FAR away from the "Standard" MMO formula I'm fine


I'm very much not in favor of racial PrEs. I'd rather they did something with racial paragon bonuses for buying race based enhancements and leave it at that. You have my full agreement that this is bad.


Partially Agreed

The way their currently doing it by just copying Class PrEs is wrong and could cause alot of issues (ie. A Lvl 20 Palemaster Wiz with Tier 3 Stalwart Defender). On the other hand if they made ACTUAL Racial PrEs like Juggernaut, Luck Stealer, DWARVEN Defender (as opposed to slatwart),Scorpian Wraith,etc. it would work much better...they should also add the Racial PrE to the racial section of the new UI instead of forcing you to give up a Class PrE for it.

Another thing they could do to add some racial flair is give them a "Favored PrE" which add 6 levels to their effetive class lvl for purposes of any enhancement level requirement...they could also add a special lvl 26 enhancement so only a Pure Classed Character of the correct race could access it...nothing too powerful...maybe just something interesting.


Oh and someone mentioned earlier about Dragonmark Heir PrEs...the devs are actually thinking of implementing that in a different way (I'll find the Dev post when I'm at my home PC) they might only require 1 feat (as opposed to the current 3) and than the better versions as well as the boosts planned for the DM Heir Lines would become enhancements in the Racial section.

[NecroKovy]

My feedback regarding Prestige Enhancements is regrettably simple and selfish:

Please don't turn Pale Masters into speed bags, I picked Necro BEFORE all that Lich form and how do you do, which I really like. I got MADE FUN OF for choosing Necro spec when I first played DDO, the first guild I had abandoned me.

They didn't kick me out of the guild. No, they ALL just stopped showing up! For at least five levels I wept the tears of the (darned), limping my weak old man Necromancer around as a renown lemming for a guild that for all I know never ever logged in again.

Then Pale Master came. AFTER Necros were booted to go watch The Crow and paint your face black while the adults play for what, at least a couple years I'd imagine.

Necros gotta keep it real, and remind people of our early struggles. We DESERVE what we have, and light spells hurt like it's almost actually for real (testify!). I'm all about helping some of the classes that need a boost or change here and there to be better, and as long as the PM's don't get kicked on account they're too much not the dog anymore, that's not fair to anyone. It's not fair to King Arthur, it's not fair to Optimus Prime, and it's definitely not fair to the movie Legend (featuring Tom Cruise as long haired sensitive man from the woods...why did you even let her approach the Unicorn, Tom?).

[lathreborn]

So you drop purple names in 1 manyshot? Do you realize how useless ranged dps is when off manyshot?

I don't solo raids. Besides which, something that several of you seem to have forgotten, there will be MELEE FIGHTERS between me and the raid boss. I DON'T NEED TO MELEE!
Slayer arrows + Lit2 bow = a lot of DPS, even off manyshot.

[nibel]

Monk is balanced in PnP by 2 rules that were house ruled out in DDO.

Actually, monks became playable in DDO, Neverwinter Nights, and Baldur's Gate by allowing they to wear "magic gloves" or something like that. PnP monks are fubar because they need a 150.000 po item to match a 50.000 po clean +5 weapon, and the lack of good armor/tunic, and the need to fit tons of ability-boosting items.

DDO pushed it further with stances and better unarmed progression (via items and stances that raise unarmed damage). And the cherry is the more open feat selection.

Sorry for the derail. I just can't hold myself when someone says monks in PnP were balanced.

[Failedlegend]

I don't solo raids. Besides which, something that several of you seem to have forgotten, there will be MELEE FIGHTERS between me and the raid boss. I DON'T NEED TO MELEE!
Slayer arrows + Lit2 bow = a lot of DPS, even off manyshot.

As much as I agree with you that ranged characters shouldn't waste resources, feats,etc. on melee this thread is already WAY too long for the devs to keep up and doesn't need to be derailed even more

[budalic]

Actually, monks became playable in DDO, Neverwinter Nights, and Baldur's Gate by allowing they to wear "magic gloves" or something like that. PnP monks are fubar because they need a 150.000 po item to match a 50.000 po clean +5 weapon, and the lack of good armor/tunic, and the need to fit tons of ability-boosting items.

DDO pushed it further with stances and better unarmed progression (via items and stances that raise unarmed damage). And the cherry is the more open feat selection.

Sorry for the derail. I just can't hold myself when someone says monks in PnP were balanced.

So true. Monk was worst class in 3.5e PHB, and differences between classes were a lot more pronounced than in DDO. Low to-hit, abilites that didn't really do anything (Flurry of Misses and Slow fall spring to mind); overall schisophrenia of class ('so, i can move fast, and I can gain a lot of attacks when not moving').

Thinking about it, balance we have in DDO currently far surpasses pen and paper.

[lathreborn]

As much as I agree with you that ranged characters shouldn't waste resources, feats,etc. on melee this thread is already WAY too long for the devs to keep up and doesn't need to be derailed even more

Agreed. My original point was multiclass v pure class.

[bigolbear]

If a multi-class is more powerful than a pure in his chosen profession, the fundamental design is flawed.

As people have pointed out, there existed a time when this was the case, and was compensated with capstones.

Agreed about 'in his chosen profession'. I didnt mean that at all, perhaps if i had said 'overall more powerful - through gained versatility'. This would be closer to what i meant. but bear in mind a fighters 'proffession' is fighting - defensive, offensive mele and ranged, not just mele DPS.

Im not saying a battle cleric should be equal at fighting to a fighter - but if its a well thought out build then then they should be say half as good at fighting and 75% as good at casting as a cleric. thats 125% power compared to 100%.

The multiple mele class builds are where cookie cutter builds come from - and these are either better in one very focused area (often burst DPS) compared to a pure. This is generaly the area most folks are concerned with when it comes to comparing pure Vs multi powerscales.

Either way I stand by statement, If you cant make a character that is either more focused than a pure or more versatile than a pure then the purpose for multiclassing is limited to 'roleplayers', self gimpers, play challenge builds etc. It absolutely should be a valid choice, and as with picking the right feats and skills investment in time and thought should be rewarded.

[jkm]

Actually, monks became playable in DDO, Neverwinter Nights, and Baldur's Gate by allowing they to wear "magic gloves" or something like that. PnP monks are fubar because they need a 150.000 po item to match a 50.000 po clean +5 weapon, and the lack of good armor/tunic, and the need to fit tons of ability-boosting items.

DDO pushed it further with stances and better unarmed progression (via items and stances that raise unarmed damage). And the cherry is the more open feat selection.

Sorry for the derail. I just can't hold myself when someone says monks in PnP were balanced.

If you would have followed the thread, they you would see that i was talking about the 2 monk splash, not the class as a whole. Pure Monks were a totally different animal especially if your DM house ruled out the size bonus advantages.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

... It's not fair to King Arthur, it's not fair to Optimus Prime, and it's definitely not fair to the movie Legend (featuring Tom Cruise as long haired sensitive man from the woods...why did you even let her approach the Unicorn, Tom?).

Any post in a DDO thread that mentions the name Tom Cruise, deserves a -1. However, the Optimus Prime reference reverses such negativity and raises it +1, so your good! ;)

[Pwesiela]

I don't solo raids. Besides which, something that several of you seem to have forgotten, there will be MELEE FIGHTERS between me and the raid boss. I DON'T NEED TO MELEE!
Slayer arrows + Lit2 bow = a lot of DPS, even off manyshot.

/sigh

[dkyle]

If a multi-class is more powerful than a pure in his chosen profession, the fundamental design is flawed.

I'm still not clear what "chosen profession" actually means in terms of actual game mechanics. To my mind, pure classes are an amalgamation of various "professions", to begin with, and no more inherently dedicated to one profession than a multi.

[Failedlegend]

I'm still not clear what "chosen profession" actually means in terms of actual game mechanics. To my mind, pure classes are an amalgamation of various "professions", to begin with, and no more inherently dedicated to one profession than a multi.

I think he/she means a 20 Cleric should be a better Cleric than a Cleric12/Fighter6/Monk2

[dkyle]

I think he/she means a 20 Cleric should be a better Cleric than a Cleric12/Fighter6/Monk2

I get that in principle, but what does it really mean to be a "better Cleric"? Better Healer? Better spell DPS?

[Failedlegend]

I get that in principle, but what does it really mean to be a "better Cleric"? Better Healer? Better spell DPS?

Essentially yeah.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

I get that in principle, but what does it really mean to be a "better Cleric"? Better Healer? Better spell DPS?

That definition will change based on the build/person behind the build. The "focus" is the ability that you've trained the most in.

[Chai]

XP Penalty didn't go away in 3.0 or 3.5, multiclass characters took a 20% xp penalty for each class not within 1 level of your highest level class. For example a 12/6/2 split in PnP would take a -40% xp penalty, or -20% if the 12th level class was their favored class. These xp penalties were frequently house ruled to not exist, and xp penalties did not apply to PrC's just base classes. I am glad that this system isn't in DDO as it is cumbersome and very punishing.

However....

The preferred class of the race did not count toward that rule. A dwarf cleric 5 fighter 1 - no penalty. Halfling rogue 5 fighter 1 - no penalty.

Human got to CHOOSE which was their preferred class. A human ranger 7 rogue 1 wizard 1 - no penalty. The ranger is chosen as their preferred class so it doesnt count, and the wizard and rogue are within one level of eachother.

A human ranger 9 fighter 2 barbarian 2 rogue 1 dervish 1 tempest 1 takes - NO XP PENALTY. They choose ranger as their preferred class and every other class is within one level of eachother. PRC also worked differently.

Ruled Out? You mean easily built around. Having a main class + 1-2 level splashes of multiple different classes was the easiest way to become really powerful in 3.0 and 3.5.

Theres nothing in 3.x restricting people to having to take x levels of a class to get a PRE. Its not built on multiples of 6.

[Failedlegend]

However....

The preferred class of the race did not count toward that rule. A dwarf cleric 5 fighter 1 - no penalty. Halfling rogue 5 fighter 1 - no penalty.

Human got to CHOOSE which was their preferred class. A human ranger 7 rogue 1 wizard 1 - no penalty. The ranger is chosen as their preferred class so it doesnt count, and the wizard and rogue are within one level of eachother.

A human ranger 9 fighter 2 barbarian 2 rogue 1 dervish 1 tempest 1 takes - NO XP PENALTY. They choose ranger as their preferred class and every other class is within one level of eachother. PRC also worked differently.

Ruled Out? You mean easily built around. Having a main class + 1-2 level splashes of multiple different classes was the easiest way to become really powerful in 3.0 and 3.5.

Theres nothing in 3.x restricting people to having to take x levels of a class to get a PRE. Its not built on multiples of 6.

Well good for you except I LOATHED people who had characters like 4/2/2/2/2/1/1/1/1/1/1 it was banned from my games because it was stupid and made no sense so I removed the multiclassing xp penalty

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

well good for you except i loathed people who had characters like 4/2/2/2/2/1/1/1/1/1/1 it was banned from my games because it was stupid and made no sense so i removed the multiclassing xp penalty

+1.


XP PENALTY.

Personally I'd love to see xp penalty come back, I liked it. There should be a penalty for acting like a ****** in quest. However with introduction of TRs that will never happen, and lag it probably should never happen.

I still think it was a better DDO before TRs and without 1/2 the lag we get today, oh well... no biggie.

[Aashrym]

Well good for you except I LOATHED people who had characters like 4/2/2/2/2/1/1/1/1/1/1 it was banned from my games because it was stupid and made no sense so I removed the multiclassing xp penalty

I didn't ban them because some players wanted to have a lot of options and the system was set up that way. House ruling against it being possible doesn't change the fact the game rules allowed for it.

I did set the expectation that if I did not want something in my game to meet PrC requirements those individual options might not be available and to check with me on planning it out before hand on a case by case basis but that was still house ruling out some builds based on broken mechanics.

The DDO system with PrE's and 3 class limits is something I do not mind over PrC's because they still provide options, they still provide flavor, and it keeps the 4/2/2/2/2/2/2/2/1/1 munchkin building to a minimum. Having a lot of options can be good, having too many options can lead to losing control of where the end result of the build should be compared to the standard alternatives and that is where allowing everything from the PnP splat book options could turn into a balance issue.

My general rule was if it's in the PHB core rules it's fine; if it's not get it pre-approved.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

I did set the expectation that if I did not want something in my game to meet PrC requirements those individual options might not be available and to check with me on planning it out before hand on a case by case basis but that was still house ruling out some builds based on broken mechanics.

My general rule was if it's in the PHB core rules it's fine; if it's not get it pre-approved.

This is how I did it. Usually however, it didn't (get approved). ;)

[Aashrym]

This is how I did it. Usually however, it didn't (get approved). ;)

Yeah, that tended to happen with players trying to munchkin out.

That's actually part of the issue with playing an online version. It's not like Turbine would be approving builds for balance in advance on an individual basis and why there needs to be limitations somewhere.

When I see posters arguing that they should have the right to more trees for more total options it reminds me of the munchkin builders. When it looks like there will be more than enough options already and someone still wants more the only reason for that is to munchkin build better just like those 4/2/2/2/2/2/2/2/1/1 PnP characters looking for the next Pun Pun build.

[jkm]

So one last idea here for the system:

The ability to upload xml templates that will show you the enhancements you should take.

General Requirements:

Published XML Schema for forum tools

Enhancement Tree
Enhancement
Times to Take
Level to Take


Color coding of enhancements as the character levels. These would be used on the outline of the enhancement as a visual indicator.

Yellow - To be taken
Green - Taken at this level
Red - Enhancement taken that isn't in the template

[Failedlegend]

I didn't ban them because some players wanted to have a lot of options and the system was set up that way. House ruling against it being possible doesn't change the fact the game rules allowed for it.

I did set the expectation that if I did not want something in my game to meet PrC requirements those individual options might not be available and to check with me on planning it out before hand on a case by case basis but that was still house ruling out some builds based on broken mechanics.

The DDO system with PrE's and 3 class limits is something I do not mind over PrC's because they still provide options, they still provide flavor, and it keeps the 4/2/2/2/2/2/2/2/1/1 munchkin building to a minimum. Having a lot of options can be good, having too many options can lead to losing control of where the end result of the build should be compared to the standard alternatives and that is where allowing everything from the PnP splat book options could turn into a balance issue.

My general rule was if it's in the PHB core rules it's fine; if it's not get it pre-approved.

I was actually trying to create a system similar to how DDO handles prestige classes althugh I called it the "Guild System" so instead of taking a level in it you needed to do certain requirements to "Join the Guild" (ie. a Black Flame Zealot would have to join "The Order of the Black Flame") and you were only allowed One but I would allow two or three if the player could roleplay how it happened.

Basically a player would build a character with 1-4ish "Base" classes than choose a "Guild" to join (we would dedicate a session to making our characters and figuring out our basic back stories) and the next session would basically be the players trying to accomplish the "Initiation Tasks" that I made up since the last session. I never fully completed it as I moved on to 4e but what I had done seemed to be well received by my players and when I finished it we were likely going to make it an official house rule.

Oh and in case you can't tell as a DM I'm very open to bending rules (even my own house rules) if someone can roleplay through it and I've continued to do so in 4e

[Chai]

Well good for you except I LOATHED people who had characters like 4/2/2/2/2/1/1/1/1/1/1 it was banned from my games because it was stupid and made no sense so I removed the multiclassing xp penalty

Each different gaming table I would sit at would show another prime example of Oberoni fallacy coming into play. People house rule things in and out to fit what they were willing and not willing to allow.

Usually when I would do this it would be for a specific reason. Those reasons would have things to do with current lore, current locale, setting, available trainers, etc. It usually didnt have to do with "Im not going to allow this because its too powerful" or "I dont like optimized multiclasses because I deem them unrealistic" - but every once in a while that decision needed to be made.

The one thing I do like when games get this concept correct is the pure choice is a safe choice. A new player with little to no D&D knowledge can log on and roll up a pure 20 single class toon and still have an effective character. On the converse someone with a decent understanding of the class mechanics and how they interact can decide what type of character they want, then build for it through mixing and matching of abilities in an optimized fashion.

The point here is to allow the players to decide. Having one more powerful than the other will just push the majority of players - especially the optimizers - to the obviously more powerful incarnations. Ruling something out Oberoni style because we dont like it or we feel it should be one way is just setting limitations into place that all will not agree with. D&D (and DDO) is not a game that is played one way. Turbine has a vested interest in satisfying alot of different playstyles and preferences. If they were to put measures into place that insure pure builds will be more powerful or disallow too many options, optimizers who enjoyed multiclassing would be put off by that, as well as the cost associated with straightening out their builds they have created and geared over the years. Sure they could use a TR, but forcing that time committment onto someone who has a number of alts on their account just to make their builds viable would not be a good move to make.




When I see posters arguing that they should have the right to more trees for more total options it reminds me of the munchkin builders. When it looks like there will be more than enough options already and someone still wants more the only reason for that is to munchkin build better just like those 4/2/2/2/2/2/2/2/1/1 PnP characters looking for the next Pun Pun build.

I disagree that it would be the only reason. Versitility is not a munchkin character. The 12/6/2 helves angel is a versitility build that simply does more than a pure fighter. Theres nothing munchkin about it however. Splashing a couple levels of fighter does not make a munchkin character, and its done quite as bit with other melee classes. I understand your preference to pure builds and splashes, but not everyone plays the same style you play. To disallow builders from being able to build a certain way simply due to personal preference is not a good business decision.

Even if the "munchkin toon builders" are lined up eagerly waiting to see all these new options and how they interact, their ability to build a "munchkin toon" doesnt impact your ability to have fun playing a pure toon or splashed toon. There should be no limitations to the system due to personal preference, because the player has the ability to excersise their own personal preference within a wider set of game parameters.

Bottom line: Someone who chooses to limit vertical progression in order to take more lateral progression should be able to do so. A trade off is already being made. Limiting lateral progression through the UI is arbitrary, and hampers multiclassing because the vertical progression sacrifice is made to gain nothing laterally. Being "munchkin" or "cookie cutter" should have nothing to do with it.

[SisAmethyst]

This all sound very interesting and promising. I remember that I tryed to get the PrE as a tree in ddowiki and noticed how much hell of work that is...

However I wonder about some points:
1. How will Pastlifes intergrate into that? For certain past lifes we may get some enhancements clickies etc. that have to be integrated into this tree also. However tehy neither belong to the race nor to any of the current classes.
2. How will Half-Elf Dillies integrate into that? Are they race specific Enhancements then? They are however different to things like a Dwarven Defender Enhancement.
3. How to visualize that certain enhancements locks out other options? For example I can only have the Ranger or the Rogue boosts.

In other words this must be a pretty dynamic tree and as already noted in another post it would be then cool to have an official character planer to play arround with all possibilities. I guess that would even ease the development work or test on Lama-land if you could pre-view those choices instantly.

[Aashrym]

I disagree that it would be the only reason. Versitility is not a munchkin character. The 12/6/2 helves angel is a versitility build that simply does more than a pure fighter. Theres nothing munchkin about it however. Splashing a couple levels of fighter does not make a munchkin character, and its done quite as bit with other melee classes. I understand your preference to pure builds and splashes, but not everyone plays the same style you play. To disallow builders from being able to build a certain way simply due to personal preference is not a good business decision.

Even if the "munchkin toon builders" are lined up eagerly waiting to see all these new options and how they interact, their ability to build a "munchkin toon" doesnt impact your ability to have fun playing a pure toon or splashed toon. There should be no limitations to the system due to personal preference, because the player has the ability to excersise their own personal preference within a wider set of game parameters.

Bottom line: Someone who chooses to limit vertical progression in order to take more lateral progression should be able to do so. A trade off is already being made. Limiting lateral progression through the UI is arbitrary, and hampers multiclassing because the vertical progression sacrifice is made to gain nothing laterally. Being "munchkin" or "cookie cutter" should have nothing to do with it.

He's not limiting his vertical process by level, however, because there aren't enough AP to fill the vertical levels for anyone.

The mock up looks like each tree has about the same number of options an entire character class has now, or close to it. The versatility gained is in the ability to mix and match the trees and free PrE abilities. That provides for a lot of options and versatility when a person can choose which trees are in the list compared to not being able to choose which trees are in the list.

No pure class will be able to go very deep in multiple trees either because trying to due so still limits the higher tiers because no one will have the AP to do that. I don't have enough points to develop 4 trees to go beyond the level caps created by multiclassing any more than the multiclass level caps would be at.

Going pure means being restricted to going deep in 1 tree and spending points in the others while having a very restricted choice on what those other trees are. Going triple class means being able to go deep in the race tree and filling that out the other trees with a wide variety of the tree choices and PrE's available. That is versatility there and it's not restricted by depth going with the race tree. It's not even restricted by not being able to go deep in a class tree instead by using a race unlock. The end result is still going to be pure classes can develop one tree and supplement it, multiclasses are going to have the option of developing one main tree supplementing it with a much wider variety of options. Depth in multiple individual trees is a pipe dream.

When we are already looking at a lot of versatility (and I see A LOT of versatility in multiclassing compared to pure classing) asking for more choices is pointless when a person cannot fulfill all of the choices he or she already has except to munchkin up. What you are claiming as a need for versatility I am disagreeing with because the need for versatility is already fulfilled sufficiently with the ability to freely choose which trees will be available.

Bottom line: Someone is not choosing to limit vertical progression by multiclassing in the first place. The vertical progression is still available and heavy vertical progression in multiple trees not a real option in the first place to have given up for anyone. The versatility already exists in the choice of trees and more is not necessary. Having more choices than a person can possibly make use of but still asking for more choice is pointless unless there is a goal in place to improve the build, which is munchkin building.

I expect to have vertical limits on a pure class because I don't expect to have 150-200 AP to fill the existing number of available trees. ;)

[Failedlegend]

Anyways back on topic...The main reason DDO can't do alot of the above is they can't do the one at a time approval or denials that DMs in PnP can which is why I can understand the need for some restriction but the 3 tree limit is too much...but if they added multiclass PrEs I think it would balance things perfectly...sure we only have access to 3 PrEs (out of 6 or 9) BUT if I take some enhancements (possibly Tier 1) Warpriest & Henshin Mystic or Warchanter & Purple Dragon Knight I can have Sacred Fist or Dread Pirate in my third Slot....or I could ignore that and take three regular prestige like Warchanter, Purple Dragon Knight and Kensai on my ummm...Fighter12/Bard8

A few examples (Some fairly open and some specific)

Swiftblade: Any Arcane w/ Haste Spell (Maybe Trans AM gets an extra bonus) + Martial

Dread Pirate: Warchanter + Purple Dragon Knight

Sacred Fist: Cleric + Monk

Arcane Trickster: Rogue Mechanic + Wizard

Eldritch Knight: Arcane + Martial (maybe limited to Elves)'

Daggerspell Mage: Rogue Assassin + Wizard

Bone Knight : Palemaster + Paladin

????????????: Arty Construct PrE + Rogue Mechanic

Corrupt Avenger: Acolyte of the Skin + Divine Avenger

Warning: Some of these names may be misspelled or not even vlose to the actual name as my 3.5e books are packed away in my attic so I'm just going off memory but you get the general idea.



Sidenote to devs: Any chance some of the new enhancements include Cleric Domains and/or more Racial weapons?

[Aashrym]

Anyways back on topic...The main reason DDO can't do alot of the above is they can't do the one at a time approval or denials that DMs in PnP can which is why I can understand the need for restriction but the 3 tree limit is TOO much...BUT if they added multiclass PrEs I think it would balance things perfectly...sure we only have access to 3 PrEs (out of 6 or 9) BUT if I take some enhancements (possibly Tier 1) Warpriest & Henshin Mystic or Warchanter & Purple Dragon Knight I can have Sacred Fist or Dread Pirate in my third Slot....or I could ignore that and take three regular prestige like Warchanter, Purple Dragon Knight and Kensai on my ummm...Fighter12/Bard8

A few examples (Some fairly open and some specific)

Swiftblade: Any Arcane w/ Haste Spell (Maybe Trans AM gets an extra bonus) + Martial

Dread Pirate: Warchanter + Purple Dragon Knight

Sacred Fist: Cleric + Monk

Arcane Trickster: Rogue Mechanic + Wizard

Eldritch Knight: Arcane + Martial (maybe limited to Elves)'

Daggerspell Mage: Rogue Assassin + Wizard

Bone Knight : Palemaster + Paladin

????????????: Arty Construct PrE + Rogue Mechanic

Corrupt Avenger: Acolyte of the Skin + Divine Avenger

Warning: Some of these names may be misspelled or not even vlose to the actual name as my 3.5e books are packed away in my attic so I'm just going off memory but you get the general idea.



Sidenote to devs: Any chance some of the new enhancements include Cleric Domains and/or more Racial weapons?

I think unlocking a PrE tree option to swap in that is not available without locking in 2 existing trees from separate classes actually does sound like a fantastic option if it can be implemented with enough combinations and doesn't break anything.

Sound like a lot of work too but would be an interesting option that could provide an alternative to the racial unlock PrE. It might also be a way to consolidate some PrE tree enhancements in different ways.

/signed on the side note for domains. Race options look like they are increasing too but more weapons would be nice. I'd still be happy just adding a spear.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

I think unlocking a PrE tree option to swap in that is not available without locking in 2 existing trees from separate classes actually does sound like a fantastic option if it can be implemented with enough combinations and doesn't break anything.

Sound like a lot of work so but would be an interesting option.

/signed on the side note for domains. Race options look like they are increasing too but more weapons would be nice. I'd still be happy just adding a spear.

I'll /sign that.

[Failedlegend]

I think unlocking a PrE tree option to swap in that is not available without locking in 2 existing trees from separate classes actually does sound like a fantastic option if it can be implemented with enough combinations and doesn't break anything.

Sound like a lot of work too but would be an interesting option that could provide an alternative to the racial unlock PrE. It might also be a way to consolidate some PrE tree enhancements in different ways.

It will likely take alot of work but if done right it can give DDO more marketing ammo and for us another thing that only DDO has that other MMOs don't and would alleviate alot of peoples (like myself) concerns about the new system as far as multiclassing goes. Also this is probably the best time to do this since their re-tooling the whole system and I think the 3- Variable Tree system lends it very well to this.



/signed on the side note for domains.


I'll probably never actually play a cleric because frankly...everyone would die but Clerics without domains is like a Bard w/o Songs, a Barb without Rage or an FvS without their Deity Weapons..sure they would all still function without it but it's just not right



Race options look like they are increasing too but more weapons would be nice. I'd still be happy just adding a spear.

I'm definitely looking forward to what the new enhancements are gonna be like especially after seeing tempest.

As far as racial weapons I think they should try to use less used weapons like bludgeoning weapons, daggers, kukri's etc.

Along with spear I think it would be cool to add Bludgeoning Bolts/Arrows

[Aashrym]

It will likely take alot of work but if done right it can give DDO more marketing ammo and for us another thing that only DDO has that other MMOs don't and would alleviate alot of peoples (like myself) concerns about the new system as far as multiclassing goes. Also this is probably the best time to do this since their re-tooling the whole system and I think the 3- Variable Tree system lends it very well to this.

The tree system seems like the easiest way to implement something like this. Maybe not right away but as the groundwork for future development. I think it would be much more likely in the tree system than the current system and a very attractive option.

[Chai]

He's not limiting his vertical process by level, however, because there aren't enough AP to fill the vertical levels for anyone.

The mock up looks like each tree has about the same number of options an entire character class has now, or close to it. The versatility gained is in the ability to mix and match the trees and free PrE abilities. That provides for a lot of options and versatility when a person can choose which trees are in the list compared to not being able to choose which trees are in the list.

No pure class will be able to go very deep in multiple trees either because trying to due so still limits the higher tiers because no one will have the AP to do that. I don't have enough points to develop 4 trees to go beyond the level caps created by multiclassing any more than the multiclass level caps would be at.

Going pure means being restricted to going deep in 1 tree and spending points in the others while having a very restricted choice on what those other trees are. Going triple class means being able to go deep in the race tree and filling that out the other trees with a wide variety of the tree choices and PrE's available. That is versatility there and it's not restricted by depth going with the race tree. It's not even restricted by not being able to go deep in a class tree instead by using a race unlock. The end result is still going to be pure classes can develop one tree and supplement it, multiclasses are going to have the option of developing one main tree supplementing it with a much wider variety of options. Depth in multiple individual trees is a pipe dream.

When we are already looking at a lot of versatility (and I see A LOT of versatility in multiclassing compared to pure classing) asking for more choices is pointless when a person cannot fulfill all of the choices he or she already has except to munchkin up. What you are claiming as a need for versatility I am disagreeing with because the need for versatility is already fulfilled sufficiently with the ability to freely choose which trees will be available.

Bottom line: Someone is not choosing to limit vertical progression by multiclassing in the first place. The vertical progression is still available and heavy vertical progression in multiple trees not a real option in the first place to have given up for anyone. The versatility already exists in the choice of trees and more is not necessary. Having more choices than a person can possibly make use of but still asking for more choice is pointless unless there is a goal in place to improve the build, which is munchkin building.

I expect to have vertical limits on a pure class because I don't expect to have 150-200 AP to fill the existing number of available trees. ;)

We arent talking about filling the entire tree. We are talking about progression to specific levels in the split. Youre saying its not limiting unless theres enough points to fill the entire tree?

That would be incorrect. Like the current system, the new system will have level limited enhancements. In a 12-6-2 situation the person cannot access enhancements over level 12 for fighter, over level 6 for ranger, and over level 2 for monk. They traded in ability to ascend vertically to level 20 in fighter, and they gained the ability to ascend to 6 in ranger and 2 in monk. That is the trade off. There is no reason to arbitrarily limit the system further through UI. The trade off is vertical movement for lateral movement. By gaining up to level 6 ranger enhancements and level 2 monk, they denied themselves access to fighter 13-20 enhancements.

Your statement that there is enough enhancements in fighter trees is incorrect, because they are being limited by the number of trees, which encourages pure class building. If they werent limited by trees then you would be correct, but since they are, there is far less reason to multiclass.

The ability to multiclass here SHOULD (but doesnt) give us the option to choose whatever we want from ranger 1-6, whatever we want from monk 1-2 and whatever we want from fighter 1-12 using the 12-6-2 class split. We cant do that because once we choose something from three trees, all lateral movement is locked out, which was the entire advantage in multiclassing in the first place, lateral movement.

Vertical movement does not cost another tree. Lateral movement does. It is NOT an equal system.

[Failedlegend]

The tree system seems like the easiest way to implement something like this. Maybe not right away but as the groundwork for future development. I think it would be much more likely in the tree system than the current system and a very attractive option.

Yeah the current system is far to convoluted and messy to work this in.

Somewhat unrelated but I'd kill to hear/see whats going on in the Dev meetings right now


That would be incorrect. Like the current system, the new system will have level limited enhancements. In a 12-6-2 situation the person cannot access enhancements over level 12 for fighter

IIRC one of the devs was saying those requirements are being relaxed if not completely removed and only the "Free Bonuses" are going to be level gated with the Trees only being limited by PrE and AP Spent. Also if they go with the "Favored PrE" System its even less of a concern.

Here's how I understand it. Each Tier (Shown below) requires X amount of AP before you can move up to the next one also when you spend 5/10/15/20/25/30/41 you get a "Free Bonus" in the form of a PrE bonus (See Tempest example below) but its level gated (I think it was like 3/6/9/12/15/18/20 or something)

http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo93/Failedlegend/Mock-UpMyGuesses.jpg



5 Points Spent: +2 shield bonus when dual wielding
10 Points Spent: Tempest I, +10% off hand attacks, Scimitars are treated as light weapons and can be finessed.
15 Points Spent: +3 shield bonus when dual wielding
20 Points Spent: Tempest II, +10% off hand attacks, Deflect Arrows while dual wielding
25 Points Spent: +4 shield bonus when dual wielding
30 Points Spent: Tempest III, +5% doublestrike when dual wielding
41 Points Spent: Dervish - Full ability score bonus for damage on off hand

I do agree though that there needs to be incentive to multi-class in this new system and I'd say either an Extra Pane per class or my suggested Multi-class system (would prefer this) would suffice.

[jkm]

Anyways back on topic...The main reason DDO can't do alot of the above is they can't do the one at a time approval or denials that DMs in PnP can which is why I can understand the need for some restriction but the 3 tree limit is too much...but if they added multiclass PrEs I think it would balance things perfectly...sure we only have access to 3 PrEs (out of 6 or 9) BUT if I take some enhancements (possibly Tier 1) Warpriest & Henshin Mystic or Warchanter & Purple Dragon Knight I can have Sacred Fist or Dread Pirate in my third Slot....or I could ignore that and take three regular prestige like Warchanter, Purple Dragon Knight and Kensai on my ummm...Fighter12/Bard8

A few examples (Some fairly open and some specific)

Swiftblade: Any Arcane w/ Haste Spell (Maybe Trans AM gets an extra bonus) + Martial

Dread Pirate: Warchanter + Purple Dragon Knight

Sacred Fist: Cleric + Monk

Arcane Trickster: Rogue Mechanic + Wizard

Eldritch Knight: Arcane + Martial (maybe limited to Elves)'

Daggerspell Mage: Rogue Assassin + Wizard

Bone Knight : Palemaster + Paladin

????????????: Arty Construct PrE + Rogue Mechanic

Corrupt Avenger: Acolyte of the Skin + Divine Avenger

Warning: Some of these names may be misspelled or not even vlose to the actual name as my 3.5e books are packed away in my attic so I'm just going off memory but you get the general idea.



Sidenote to devs: Any chance some of the new enhancements include Cleric Domains and/or more Racial weapons?

Swiftblade/Hexblades probably need to be on a new class (battlemage or something like that). What I would love to see them do with Favored Souls is to have a Light/Dark tree for if someone chooses to be a Cursed Soul with feats.

[G.T.Gizra]

It's all good if y'all want to try something new but don't just change things up just to change things while it probably will be nice in the long run I hope y'all are ready for a lot of griping and general bronx cheers LOL. The mock up of the tree system looks functional ang fairly simple and disturbingly like the powers and skill trees from DCU, but I guess there are only so many layouts you can use when you are doing this type of selection tree menu. Good luck and u best not mess with my companion enhancements, or my rogue mechanic enhancement LOL.

[Failedlegend]

What I would love to see them do with Favored Souls is to have a Light/Dark tree for if someone chooses to be a Cursed Soul with feats.

Hmmm looked at Cursed Soul...could be an interesting mix with Monk with Demon Traits

Deadly Reach: Your reach extends by +5 feet. This trait can only be taken by those with at least 9 levels of cursed soul.

Claws: Your hands become large grotesque talons, gaining you a natural claw attack for 1d8 points of damage.

This vv could be worked into unarmed combat somehow...would be cool if there was a "Cursed" Soul weapon line and one was unarmed

Deadly Touch (Su): Beginning at 2nd level, a cursed soul can cause wounds with a successful touch attack. An opponent subjected to this attack can make a Will save (DC 10 + 1/2 cursed soul level + cursed soul’s Charisma modifier) to halve the damage dealt. Furthermore, whenever a cursed soul deals at least 10 damage with a single deadly touch, the target takes 1d6 + 1 per two cursed soul levels strength damage.


Swiftblades probably need to be on a new class

I wouldn't complain if they did but really it would just be bloody confusing for a Prestige Class to have Prestiges Classes (or for it to be a base class)...and what Prestige classes would a Haste addicted Fighter have...Tempest? Dervish? Whirling Dervish? Bladesinger? Invisible Blade? Champion of the Wild?

[WurmBurned]

Racial PREs
---------------

Drow: The Scorpion wraith Prestige class presented in Secrets of Xen’drik is much closer to the Assassin PRE in this game than the Tempest PRE. Scorpion Wraith largely focuses on poisons and poison-like abilities with some free damage against enemies that are denied their DEX bonus.

Beyond the status of drow as ambush fighters in Eberron, I feel that a broader range of existing drow builds would benefit from access to Assassin traits than Tempest given the large investment needed for TWF and the prevalence of drow characters focused on casting and ranged.

Warforged: IRC, The mass produced warforge we have access to as a player race were designed as cheap labor infantry to augment the titan’s existing role as heavy armor. While the Warforged Juggernaut prestige class provides improved defenses against critical damage and some spell effects, it also shows a strong focus on grappling and tactical maneuvers.

Not only do I feel that Kensei is more in line with the lore of a highly trained warforged soldier, but it would help them catch up with half-orcs in the melee DPS department.

Thank you for your time.

[Marcus-Hawkeye]

Alrighty, so what I'm seeing here is a reworking of the enhancements to be something similar to your previous Asheron's Call 2 system. I always liked that system and it'll be interesting to see how you get it to work.

[SisAmethyst]

Yeah the current system is far to convoluted and messy to work this in.

Here's how I understand it. Each Tier (Shown below) requires X amount of AP before you can move up to the next one also when you spend 5/10/15/20/25/30/41 you get a "Free Bonus" in the form of a PrE bonus (See Tempest example below) but its level gated (I think it was like 3/6/9/12/15/18/20 or something)

I do agree though that there needs to be incentive to multi-class in this new system and I'd say either an Extra Pane per class or my suggested Multi-class system (would prefer this) would suffice.

The system to unlock certain levels with a specific amount of points is commonly used and I guess widely accepted. While I neither want it to become like WoW or Rift, the later still managed to give an incentive to multiclass and even switch those trees on the fly. However they not only have a upwards tree but as well Roots that get automatically unlocked and distributed as soon as enough points are spent.

http://i794.photobucket.com/albums/yy221/SisAmethyst/RIFT.jpg

So the root is something like the bottom line that get unlocked via 5/10/15/20/25/30/41 points.

On the other side it I guess DDO is much more complex in its possibilities to combine certain enhancements. Even imagine all the different skill boosts like Concentration, UMD, Haggle, etc. will be probably quite difficult to place in this tree without making it too wide (even if they are single icons and can be selcted multiple times).

[Failedlegend]

While I neither want it to become like WoW or Rift.

While I'm also wholly against DDO following the "Standard" MMO Formula I have no problem with it going to a tree system if its done right..theres a REASON most games use it.

Now the thing is with DDO despite using a similar tree system its utilized completely different just by the fact that our leveling system is a entirely different beast. Now I'm going to make an example but bear with me because its been years since I played WoW but here goes nothing.

In WoW (or its many clones) if your a mage...thats it your a mage..sure you could be a Frost Mage (IIRC Slightly Less DPS than Fire but had more CC type effects), A Fire Mage (Higher DPS than Ice but alot less get out of jail free cards), or the I don't remeber Mage (had that were magey but didnt belong in fire or frost..the General mage)

In DDO Arcane PrEs are similar line but far more complex...but for simplicity sake lets just say their exaclty the same.

So that leaves the actual Classes if I'm in WoW my best bet is a Death Knight if I want to Play a Caster/Melee Mix which requires a high level character to unlock and starts at a high level himself and its the ONLY choice...in DDO I can just make a Caster Melee...sure they might not be hyper optimized but I can do it and if I stick to normal can probably do pretty well. Take My Arcane Knight for example.

Dwarven Wizard12/Fighter6/Rogue2

Now lets see with the new system (making a few assumptions here) I'd Probably go Palemaster/Dwarven Defender/Kensai this would give me the survivability of the Palemaster, the defensive capabilities of the Dwarven Defender and the extra oomph to my attacks from a little bit of Fighter. If they implemented my multiclass system Swiftblade would probably be awesome here. (Sidenote: For people who like to Mix Melee/Ranged A Tempest/AA/Swiftblade would be cool :D)

I actually play this guy quite often (He's now level 10) and his only real issues are his reflex save is a little low and he only hits about 80ish% of the time but his gear is also lagging far behind since I rolled him on a new server but his crafting levels are catching up rapidly and I'm missing less and less...also I've gotten my hands on a few Divine Power clickies which make the misses disappear.

Beyond that there's the Zombie Mage (Monk12/Wizard7/Fighter1 NS2/PM1), The Master of Miss Chance (Wizard12/Monk6/X2 PM2/NS1), The Tukaw (Sorc16/Paladin2/Rogue2), The FvS Class (Cursed Soul would be closest to Death knight) and many more

I would NEVER be able to do that in other MMOs...not even Rift or FF11...the former amounts to a far less in-depth PrE system and the latter having the ability to Dual-Class (IIRC you could have a second class up to half your main level) Out of the two systems I actually prefer the way FF11 handled it but other than that the game was HORRIBLE also they both have the same tired stand and press button to win mechanic...hell rift doesn't even try to hide it you can put your entire combat sequence into one button.

Oh our Clerics aren't <insert rude comment here> and our game is F2P

P.S. : We don't have any Gold Farmer and any griefers are quickly shunned the lack of an open PvP system helps with that....yeah No PvP is in MY Pro section


The ONLY thing WoW has that DDO doesn't is Gnomes...GIVE ME Gnomes...also speaking of WoW Gnomes they actually got them right...they do two things well Arcane Casting and Mechanical things. Turbine if you give us Gnomes don't you be giving em 3.5 Stats (+2 Con, -2 Str) Old School Gnome stats all the way (+2 Int/Dex, -2 Str/Wis...known as a Tinkere Gnome in 3.5)

[SisAmethyst]

While I'm also wholly against DDO following the "Standard" MMO Formula I have no problem with it going to a tree system if its done right..theres a REASON most games use it.

Now the thing is with DDO despite using a similar tree system its utilized completely different just by the fact that our leveling system is a entirely different beast. Now I'm going to make an example but bear with me because its been year since I played WoW but here goes nothing.

...

I would NEVER be able to do that in other MMOs...not even Rift or FF11...the former amounts to a far less in-depth PrE system and the latter having the ability to Dual-Class...both having the same tired stand and press button to win mechanic...hell rift doesn't even try to hide it you can put your entire combat sequence into one button

Sure, I like the tree as well as it is far more intuitive then what we have at the moment. On the otehr hand it is quite complex and enable us to do quite crazy combinations which is a good thing. So my point was just to not make it to strict and fixed like it is in WoW or Rift. As you said, DDO goes far more in depth with its Enhancments and I hope that the Devs will not simplify it too much in this process just to fit it all into a tree.


P.S. : We don't have any Gold Farmer and any griefers are quickly shunned the lack of an open PvP system helps with that....yeah No PvP is in MY Pro section

hehe, I guess you are not alone there :)

[Aashrym]

We arent talking about filling the entire tree. We are talking about progression to specific levels in the split. Youre saying its not limiting unless theres enough points to fill the entire tree?

That would be incorrect. Like the current system, the new system will have level limited enhancements. In a 12-6-2 situation the person cannot access enhancements over level 12 for fighter, over level 6 for ranger, and over level 2 for monk. They traded in ability to ascend vertically to level 20 in fighter, and they gained the ability to ascend to 6 in ranger and 2 in monk. That is the trade off. There is no reason to arbitrarily limit the system further through UI. The trade off is vertical movement for lateral movement. By gaining up to level 6 ranger enhancements and level 2 monk, they denied themselves access to fighter 13-20 enhancements.

Your statement that there is enough enhancements in fighter trees is incorrect, because they are being limited by the number of trees, which encourages pure class building. If they werent limited by trees then you would be correct, but since they are, there is far less reason to multiclass.

The ability to multiclass here SHOULD (but doesnt) give us the option to choose whatever we want from ranger 1-6, whatever we want from monk 1-2 and whatever we want from fighter 1-12 using the 12-6-2 class split. We cant do that because once we choose something from three trees, all lateral movement is locked out, which was the entire advantage in multiclassing in the first place, lateral movement.

Vertical movement does not cost another tree. Lateral movement does. It is NOT an equal system.

I'm saying there is no difference between being limited to advancement in a tree by level req's or being limited by advancement in a tree because of AP spend req's or lack of AP left to spend in a tree. A grayed out option is a grayed out option. That cuts vertical movement in trees for pure classes.

Players do not go 12/6/2 because of the enhancements on that 2nd level character and it would be just as viable. Players hit the splash for the abilities the class that come with it and the enhancements are a small concern or small perk.

What they normally do is multiclass the higher levels for the PrE's they want and that option has not changed. Instead what has changes is the fact they have more options to mix more PrE's by multiclassing and more free abilities from which to select with those tree choices. Losing some choices and gaining other choices is not a net loss.

An individual class within the multiclass does hit some choice restrictions compared to the old system but those choices move to the character instead and we build for a character, not one class within the character.

I'm inclined to think new builds might be Horc 12/6/2 splits with Kensei II, Tempest I, and Ravager III; or maybe Drow 12/6/2 Tempest Capstone and Kensei II -- I'm sure drow won't mind a boost in popularity if it works although changing the ranger levels to rogue levels for Assassin I might be better for the free benefits, sneak attack, and assassin tree because the feat restriction on tempest just dropped and I don't need the ranger levels -- or forget assassin completely and still take the sneak attack for rogue at 5 levels and 3 monk levels -- or drop monk for rogue at 2 levels for sneak attack and evasion and take barbarian 6 for fast movement, rage, and occult slayer I. A pure class can't do any of that.

This system looks incredibly multiclass friendly. Why on earth would I make a pure fighter and limit myself to the choice of fighter trees when I can make a race with a nice melee unlock, pick from the best trees available to those classes, still have access to high level enhancements, have access to a capstone if I wanted it, and still have more options than I can possible spend points on?

Multiclassing does not cost a tree, there are still 3 for the character regardless. Multiclassing provides a choice of what trees will be available until those trees are locked in. Choosing from 12 classes with 3 trees each means 36 tree combinations to select from by multiclassing before considering at what level to preplan them out. Pure classing has less than 10% of the options available to multiclassing.

The vertical movement is still there whether it's in the race tree, the race PrE unlock, or high enough up in a main class on something like a 16 or 18 level break point with multiclasses.

Going pure class, at best, means I have limited the number of tree options that I won't be able to spend points in because spending the points in 1 means limiting my vertical advancement in the others. Spending 30+ in one and possibly the same in race leaves **** to spend on the other 2. Which I guess is okay because going pure means I don't have the option of getting better choices to suit my build design anyway.

I'm seeing a whole lot of potential reasons to not make a pure class. The most options seem to be coming from 12-18 levels in 1 class and 2-8 levels in a second class, possibly with a 3rd splash just to cherry pick the class abilities. I might agree it's not an equal system but not because it's better for pures, because it's the other way around.

[Aashrym]

I do agree though that there needs to be incentive to multi-class in this new system and I'd say either an Extra Pane per class or my suggested Multi-class system (would prefer this) would suffice.

I don't think those are racial PrE markers on the bottom of the race tree. I think those are free race bonuses similar to the free PrE bonuses but for spending points in the race tree. The race PrE unlocks the ability to swap a class PrE for a full class PrE tree unrestricted by class level until we get more info.

[Vormaerin]

Old School Gnome stats all the way (+2 Int/Dex, -2 Str/Wis...known as a Tinkere Gnome in 3.5)

Those aren't old school gnomes. Those are middle school gnomes. Old School gnomes were illusionists, practical jokers, and nature lovers with nary a thought for mad science, mechanical devices, or any of that.

Tinker gnomes came out about 10 years after the original D&D gnomes did.

[Feithlin]

A part of the difficulty of making racial PrEs identical to class PrEs is that it will lead to some combinations in favor of specific classes.

A stalwart defender and a defender of siberys are mostly on par atm, with each having its own strengths and weaknesses. If the stalwart PrE can be taken as a racial PrE, a dwarf / WF / human (if SD is one of their PrEs) DoS will have a much higher defense than any Stalwart defender, who won't be able to stack his enhancements with another defensive racial PrE.

This is why I think the racial PrEs should be independant from class PrEs. It would also add a nice dimension to the game, as these racial PrEs could be used with a wide variety of classes (just like DD3.5 Prestige classes).

Of course, this would require working on a lot of additional sets of enhancements, but I think it's worth it. And I'm sure you could get a lot of good ideas from players.

[jkm]

A part of the difficulty of making racial PrEs identical to class PrEs is that it will lead to some combinations in favor of specific classes.

A stalwart defender and a defender of siberys are mostly on par atm, with each having its own strengths and weaknesses. If the stalwart PrE can be taken as a racial PrE, a dwarf / WF / human (if SD is one of their PrEs) DoS will have a much higher defense than any Stalwart defender, who won't be able to stack his enhancements with another defensive racial PrE.

This is why I think the racial PrEs should be independant from class PrEs. It would also add a nice dimension to the game, as these racial PrEs could be used with a wide variety of classes (just like DD3.5 Prestige classes).

Of course, this would require working on a lot of additional sets of enhancements, but I think it's worth it. And I'm sure you could get a lot of good ideas from players.

I think the reason that they are reusing the class PrEs is that the unique racial ones were descoped.

[LeLoric]

A part of the difficulty of making racial PrEs identical to class PrEs is that it will lead to some combinations in favor of specific classes.

A stalwart defender and a defender of siberys are mostly on par atm, with each having its own strengths and weaknesses. If the stalwart PrE can be taken as a racial PrE, a dwarf / WF / human (if SD is one of their PrEs) DoS will have a much higher defense than any Stalwart defender, who won't be able to stack his enhancements with another defensive racial PrE.

This is why I think the racial PrEs should be independant from class PrEs. It would also add a nice dimension to the game, as these racial PrEs could be used with a wide variety of classes (just like DD3.5 Prestige classes).

Of course, this would require working on a lot of additional sets of enhancements, but I think it's worth it. And I'm sure you could get a lot of good ideas from players.

The bulk of the benefits of the two defender prestiges is the stance. You can't be in both stances so theres little to no gain. While there would be a small benefit I don't think getting both would be game breaking and theres probably much better choices within different trees.

[Failedlegend]

I don't think those are racial PrE markers on the bottom of the race tree. I think those are free race bonuses similar to the free PrE bonuses but for spending points in the race tree.

Hmm...wonder what will go there?



The race PrE unlocks the ability to swap a class PrE for a full class PrE tree unrestricted by class level until we get more info.

I thought that was the way it worked but the fact that race has the 5/10/15/etc. progression I thought I may have been wrong.


Anyways Using the Tempest example I put together a quick Swiftblade Mock-up


Swiftblade:

Requires: One Arcane PrE & One Martial PrE (I'm thinking you don't need a specific amount of points they just need to be locked in)

Note: Most of these bonuses only function while under the effect of haste and all bonuses stack with the base effects of Haste

5 Points Spent: Gain Spring Attack
10 Points Spent: Swiftblade I, 10% Blur Effect, +1 AC, To-Hit & Reflex Save
15 Points Spent: Haste Lasts 50% Longer
20 Points Spent: Swiftblade II, 20% Blur Effect, +2 AC, To-Hit & Reflex Save, All Hits deal an extra 1d6 Untyped Damage
25 Points Spent: Haste Lasts 100% Longer & Cannot be Dispelled
30 Points Spent: Swiftblade III, 30% Blur Effect, +4 AC, To-Hit & Reflex Save, All Hits deal an extra 2d6 Untyped Damage
41 Points Spent: Perpetual Celerity - When any Haste effect is on you it lasts until Rest/Death

As for enhancements in the Tree it would consist of stuff like increased Run Speed, Spell Resistance, Freedom of Movement, Increased Balance, Jump and Tumble...anything to do with movement or speed basically.

Oh and with Multiclass PrEs any Level Gates should be based off of Character level

[Aashrym]

Hmm...wonder what will go there?



I thought that was the way it worked but the fact that race has the 5/10/15/etc. progression I thought I may have been wrong.


Anyways Using the Tempest example I put together a quick Swiftblade Mock-up


Swiftblade:

Requires: One Arcane PrE & One Martial PrE (I'm thinking you don't need a specific amount of points they just need to be locked in)

Note: Most of these bonuses only function while under the effect of haste and all bonuses stack with the base effects of Haste

5 Points Spent: Gain Spring Attack
10 Points Spent: Swiftblade I, 10% Blur Effect, +1 AC, To-Hit & Reflex Save
15 Points Spent: Haste Lasts 50% Longer
20 Points Spent: Swiftblade II, 20% Blur Effect, +2 AC, To-Hit & Reflex Save, All Hits deal an extra 1d6 Untyped Damage
25 Points Spent: Haste Lasts 100% Longer & Cannot be Dispelled
30 Points Spent: Swiftblade III, 30% Blur Effect, +4 AC, To-Hit & Reflex Save, All Hits deal an extra 2d6 Untyped Damage
41 Points Spent: Perpetual Celerity - When any Haste effect is on you it lasts until Rest/Death

As for enhancements in the Tree it would consist of stuff like increased Run Speed, Spell Resistance, Freedom of Movement, Increased Balance, Jump and Tumble...anything to do with movement or speed basically.

Oh and with Multiclass PrEs any Level Gates should be based off of Character level

Might be for multiclass per character level. I was thinking it was an incentive to spend points on the tree because there would be more incentive to spend points on the pre trees for the freebies if they didn't add similar functionality to the race tree. I was thinking the character level was for the race unlocked PrE and the points spent was still the deciding factor for that tree's unlocks and free abilities.

[Failedlegend]

I think I may not be understanding what you said correctly so I apologize If I got it wrong but here goes


I was thinking it was an incentive to spend points on the tree because there would be more incentive to spend points on the pre trees for the freebies if they didn't add similar functionality to the race tree.

Are you saying that the 5/10/15/etc. in the racial tab is just to give it equal footing with the Prestige Tree

ie. Human

5 Points Spent: Unlock Racial PrE
10 Points Spent: 10% Healing Amp, +1 to All Skills
15 Points Spent: Human Versatility 1
20 Points Spent: 20% Healing Amp, +2 to all Skills, Human Versatility 2
25 Points Spent: Human Versatility 3
30 Points Spent: 30% Healing Amp, +3 to All Skills, Human Versatility 4
41 Points Spent: ????

Personally though I think two things need to be done

1) Remove the fact that Racial PrEs are just copies of class PrEs...even if it means it won't make it into the summer update....here's some examples of racially specific PrEs

Warforged: Reforged AND Juggernaut (let players if they so choose to embrace or stray from being a war machine)

Halfling: Luck Stealer or Whistler

Dwarf: Dwarven Defender

Drow Elf: Scorpion Wraith

Elf: Arcane Archer AND Eldritch Knight

Half-Orc: Bloodfist or Eye of Gruumsh

Human: Adroit Explorer or Steelsky Liberator

Half-Elf: Can take any Class PrE associated with their Dilly


2) The Racial Prestiges should be the 5/10/15/etc. of the Racial Tab



Might be for multiclass per character level.

Your agreeing that any Multiclass Level gates should be based on character level.....because otherwise no one would ever get the highest point as you can't have a multiclass PrE w/o multiclassing thus you wouldn't have a class at lvl 20 :P



I was thinking the character level was for the race unlocked PrE and the points spent was still the deciding factor for that tree's unlocks and free abilities.

I was more thinking that one of the 5/10/etc. unlocks it than any level gates would be character levels...although I still don't think it's a good idea to make them copies of the Class PrEs

[orakio]

It took them 3 years to add the handful of PrE's we have gotten. What makes you think that they would be able to finish 7+ new racial PrE's plus the other unifinished class PrE's before their midyear timeline?

There are a couple reasons I would imagine that they are using currently planned class PrE's as the racial PrE's.
1) It limits the amount of development to get this system out in a reasonable time
2) Less options than if racial PrE's are unique means it is easier to balance
3) Allows you to build the same type of character multiple ways, if you want a tempest FB assassin you don't necessarily need ranger levels.

Having unique racial PrE's is a good idea eventually but not a reasonable expectation for the initial release of the new system.

[Failedlegend]

Having unique racial PrE's is a good idea eventually but not a reasonable expectation for the initial release of the new system.



1) Remove the fact that Racial PrEs are just copies of class PrEs...even if it means it won't make it into the summer update....here's some examples of racially specific PrEs


Response in orange...it's from the post your replied to



2) Less options than if racial PrE's are unique means it is easier to balance


I disagree even though its the same PrE it's a different source....ie. Elven AAs became kind of irrelevant when Half-Elfs were released since they had AA as well

[Chai]

I'm saying there is no difference between being limited to advancement in a tree by level req's or being limited by advancement in a tree because of AP spend req's or lack of AP left to spend in a tree. A grayed out option is a grayed out option. That cuts vertical movement in trees for pure classes.


This supports what Im saying that there needs to not be a further arbitrary limitation based on the UI. The checks and balances are already in place due to the number of points that can be spent. It doesnt matter how many points worth of good options you put in front of me, I can only take 80 points of enhancements.


Players do not go 12/6/2 because of the enhancements on that 2nd level character and it would be just as viable. Players hit the splash for the abilities the class that come with it and the enhancements are a small concern or small perk.

My 18 bard 2 fighter uses str 1, toughness 1, and fighter haste boost currently, as does by 16/2/2 bard. Its not jsut the 2 feats that make the 2 fighter splash worth it.

So the 12 fighter 6 paladin 2 rogue doesnt use rogue haste boost or SA damage 1?

Its like I said before, let the players decide. Put it in front of the players and let them decide why they splash or why theyre staying pure.


What they normally do is multiclass the higher levels for the PrE's they want and that option has not changed. Instead what has changes is the fact they have more options to mix more PrE's by multiclassing and more free abilities from which to select with those tree choices. Losing some choices and gaining other choices is not a net loss.

And if those options dont make the 12/6/2 split as good as their current character, then they are forced into TRing most likely.


An individual class within the multiclass does hit some choice restrictions compared to the old system but those choices move to the character instead and we build for a character, not one class within the character.

Arbitrary choice restrictions, based on the UI, and for no other reason. Its the DA of character building. :p


I'm inclined to think new builds might be Horc 12/6/2 splits with Kensei II, Tempest I, and Ravager III; or maybe Drow 12/6/2 Tempest Capstone and Kensei II -- I'm sure drow won't mind a boost in popularity if it works although changing the ranger levels to rogue levels for Assassin I might be better for the free benefits, sneak attack, and assassin tree because the feat restriction on tempest just dropped and I don't need the ranger levels -- or forget assassin completely and still take the sneak attack for rogue at 5 levels and 3 monk levels -- or drop monk for rogue at 2 levels for sneak attack and evasion and take barbarian 6 for fast movement, rage, and occult slayer I. A pure class can't do any of that.

And a multiclass cant do ALL of that. Once they have options selected in 2 trees and put one point into the third tree, thats all she wrote. You now get to put more points into ONLY what you already put points into.


This system looks incredibly multiclass friendly. Why on earth would I make a pure fighter and limit myself to the choice of fighter trees when I can make a race with a nice melee unlock, pick from the best trees available to those classes, still have access to high level enhancements, have access to a capstone if I wanted it, and still have more options than I can possible spend points on?

Because if you like options in all 3 fighter trees, or you like options in 2 fighter trees and your racial tree, you get no enhancements in any of the classes you multiclassed into.


Multiclassing does not cost a tree, there are still 3 for the character regardless. Multiclassing provides a choice of what trees will be available until those trees are locked in. Choosing from 12 classes with 3 trees each means 36 tree combinations to select from by multiclassing before considering at what level to preplan them out. Pure classing has less than 10% of the options available to multiclassing.

Taking enhancements in any tree costs a tree - even a class you multi'd or splashed into.


The vertical movement is still there whether it's in the race tree, the race PrE unlock, or high enough up in a main class on something like a 16 or 18 level break point with multiclasses.

Arbitrary limitation is arbitrary. Its a "Because we said so" limitation.


Going pure class, at best, means I have limited the number of tree options that I won't be able to spend points in because spending the points in 1 means limiting my vertical advancement in the others. Spending 30+ in one and possibly the same in race leaves **** to spend on the other 2. Which I guess is okay because going pure means I don't have the option of getting better choices to suit my build design anyway.

Going pure means you can advance all the way up in 4 trees potentially. The racial + 3 class PRE. A 12/6/2 can advance all the way up in 1 - the racial - and then everything else is level restricted. They SHOULD gain lateral choices but they do not because once they make a choice in a third tree, the lateral choices they gained from multiclassing are closed off. Thus it is MORE limiting.


I'm seeing a whole lot of potential reasons to not make a pure class. The most options seem to be coming from 12-18 levels in 1 class and 2-8 levels in a second class, possibly with a 3rd splash just to cherry pick the class abilities. I might agree it's not an equal system but not because it's better for pures, because it's the other way around.

I disagree. Multiclassing is about the trade off. The builder traded vertical advacement for lateral advancement, only they dont get MORE lateral advancement. They get just as much lateral advancement as the pure, 3 trees, but less vertical advancement. Thats not a trade off, its a limitation, and an arbitrary one at that.

[Aashrym]

I think I may not be understanding what you said correctly so I apologize If I got it wrong but here goes



Are you saying that the 5/10/15/etc. in the racial tab is just to give it equal footing with the Prestige Tree

ie. Human

5 Points Spent: Unlock Racial PrE
10 Points Spent: 10% Healing Amp, +1 to All Skills
15 Points Spent: Human Versatility 1
20 Points Spent: 20% Healing Amp, +2 to all Skills, Human Versatility 2
25 Points Spent: Human Versatility 3
30 Points Spent: 30% Healing Amp, +3 to All Skills, Human Versatility 4
41 Points Spent: ????



Something like this, yes. Having 4 trees when each AP spent costs the same should have similar value. So that is where racial paragon features or whataver fit in. Free abilities for hitting those same AP spend thresholds and a race capstone of some sort if we were to spend enough points in there.

That way spending 15 AP in a PrE tree has similar value to spending 15 AP in a race tree.

[Aashrym]

stuff

I don't want to get into a big stretch of long responses.

1) Multiclass can do all that. I never went over 3 trees.

2) A pure class fighter cannot take rogue haste boost either. A multiclass has the option of taking it if he splashes rogue, grabs the tree, and spends his points. The ability to choose 3 trees from 12 classes and start the build from there over 3 trees from one class is enough versatility IMO. It's not actually any more restrictive than locking out choices in the pure class trees than the AP spent per tree req's. Barring alignment restrictions from bards and barbarians with paladins and monks in combination 36 available trees is a lot of choices over 3.

3) We don't know that rogue haste boost will even exist in the new system or at what tier it will be evaluated to belong in. We do know there will be more options that we have now.

4) It's not an arbitrary limitation. It's a consistent building process for all characters whether they multiclass or not.

5) Going pure does not mean you can advance in all 4 trees potentially unless you limit that vertical progression. If I spend 20 AP in each I hit a bunch of PrE II's just like a multiclass could but without the advantage of choosing which PrE II's I want, and I would not have any points left over to spend in those tiers I just opened up. There is zero potential to advance up in all the trees.

6) If I liked all three fighter trees I could make a fighter and have them. If I liked all three fighter trees, 2 monk trees, and a rogue tree I cannot have them. If I multiclass I cannot have all of them but I have more choices on the ones I do take. Going pure locked out 33 PrE trees. Multiclassing did not. They both get 3 trees and one has a lot more control over which trees those are.

7) My pure bard uses wand and scroll, full IC, song magic IV, and lingering song IV. Placing those in 3 different trees means my existing pure bard can lose access to some of those too.

If I have to give up lingering song IV. If you give up haste boost I, 10 hp, and STR I (which usually only means waiting longer because you need a +4 tome instead of a +3 tome because of it) will not impact you significantly when you are likely making use of those 2 fighter feats, 10 hp out 600+ won't break anything, haste boosts are limited uses for short durations. Both are if's, both are relevant to existing builds, that does not specifically target multiclass, and new builds will emerge for everyone.

I don't doubt some existing builds will need to be rebuilt under the new system. The fact that they can be rebuilt effectively under the new system with more options indicates it is not restricting multiclassed players excessively. The end result is they still have a lot more choices in PrE tree options and class options and free PrE abilities. That choice in free PrE abilities is worth the change but also on of the reasons I would want to restrict the number of trees available.

[Failedlegend]

I don't doubt some existing builds will need to be rebuilt under the new system. The fact that they can be rebuilt effectively under the new system with more options indicates it is not restricting multiclassed players excessively. The end result is they still have a lot more choices in PrE tree options and class options and free PrE abilities. That choice in free PrE abilities is worth the change but also on of the reasons I would want to restrict the number of trees available.

The problem isn't whether we can make effective characters after the change the problem is the 3 Tree system will LIMIT our options which is the exact opposite of what multiclassing is supposed to do. Like I said before either we need to get an extra 1 or 2 Panes per extra class or we need something like my Multiclass PrEs.

Lets put it this way while you may not agree we NEED more trees you can agree that even if we did have more and decided to spend X amount of AP in Tree 4+ for a few cherry picked bonuses it would equalize since we can't spend as much in our "Main" PrEs. I still say the Multi-Class PrEs w/ 3 Trees would be the better option but that will take alot more work which the devs may not have time for since their "reinventing the wheel" and all.

Oh and why were on limiting options Racial PrEs should not be Class PrE copies.

[Aashrym]

The problem isn't whether we can make effective characters after the change the problem is the 3 Tree system will LIMIT our options which is the exact opposite of what multiclassing is supposed to do. Like I said before either we need to get an extra 1 or 2 Panes per extra class or we need something like my Multiclass PrEs

That's not multiclass specific and the options are not limited when you can just decide which PrE's you want and how high you want them, then choose the class splits you need compared to a pure class and total lack of options in that regard.

The class abilities outside of the enhancements also provide reasons to multiclass. There is little incentive to remain pure class.

I like your idea that a PrE tree becomes available for unlock based on the other 2 trees locked in and still remain on the 3 tree system, but that would be a tree only available to multiclasses. Even then we could still be looking at nothing but incentive to multiclass. Right now it's mostly melee because the higher levels offer little over a multiclassing. I don't see that changing by moving to 3 trees just because some of those players might need to spend a few of those AP on different benefits.

[Failedlegend]

The 3 tree limits the available options to pure classes compared to now too tho. Splitting up the abilities in trees determines what enhancements will be available to pure classes in the same way it does to multiclasses because of that unlock costs.

That's not multiclass specific and the options are not limited when you can just decide which PrE's you want and how high you want them, then choose the class splits you need compared to a pure class and total lack of options in that regard.

The class abilities outside of the enhancements also provide reasons to multiclass. There is little incentive to remain pure class.

I disagree Single classes get ALOT out of this new system.

- Currently only Multiclasses and AAs (The only current Racial PrE) have access to the ability to have multiple PrEs in the new system Multiclasses lose that advantage and due to racials they even lose the advantage of having PrEs from DIFFERENT classes

- Capstones (If Tempest represents the Standard) have got a wicked power boost and only a Single Class Lvl 20 can take a non-racial capstone as the 41 pt. bonus has a 20 Lvl gate

- ALL Tier 3s are being completed or revamped if their too weak...alot of the reasoning for multiclassing was either because a tier 3 was outclassed by a Tier 2+ Tier 1 or the Tier 3 just didn't exist yet...thats being removed under the new system

- Single classes lose nothing in this change they still have access to what they have now as unlike multiclasses even if your a 20 Palemaster you can cherry pick from Wild Mage or Archmage. Multiclasses on the other hand DO lose access to some key enhancements either from their main class or their splash class(es) since they will be limited to 3/6 or 3/9 Trees...honestly the content doesn't matter the point is we WON'T have access to what we can do now...and frankly since their redoing the whole system each PrE will likely be relatively equal in power


So really there's nothing that multiclasses gain that Pures don't and they lose plenty while Pure classes gain the above...I don't get how you fail to see that.


That's not multiclass specific

How the 3 Tree limit not limited to Multiclasses...yeah sure single classes have the same limit but they only HAVE 3 Trees so again I say..Single Class No Loss + Plenty Of Gains vs. Multiclass Big Loss + Less Gain than Singleclass



The class abilities outside of the enhancements also provide reasons to multiclass.


Agreed there's also plenty of reasons to stay pure...that system is not changing nor is it the system in question...although from the looks of The Tempest Capstone Single-Classes are getting a boost here too

[Chai]

I don't want to get into a big stretch of long responses.

1) Multiclass can do all that. I never went over 3 trees.

2) A pure class fighter cannot take rogue haste boost either. A multiclass has the option of taking it if he splashes rogue, grabs the tree, and spends his points. The ability to choose 3 trees from 12 classes and start the build from there over 3 trees from one class is enough versatility IMO. It's not actually any more restrictive than locking out choices in the pure class trees than the AP spent per tree req's. Barring alignment restrictions from bards and barbarians with paladins and monks in combination 36 available trees is a lot of choices over 3.

3) We don't know that rogue haste boost will even exist in the new system or at what tier it will be evaluated to belong in. We do know there will be more options that we have now.

4) It's not an arbitrary limitation. It's a consistent building process for all characters whether they multiclass or not.

5) Going pure does not mean you can advance in all 4 trees potentially unless you limit that vertical progression. If I spend 20 AP in each I hit a bunch of PrE II's just like a multiclass could but without the advantage of choosing which PrE II's I want, and I would not have any points left over to spend in those tiers I just opened up. There is zero potential to advance up in all the trees.

6) If I liked all three fighter trees I could make a fighter and have them. If I liked all three fighter trees, 2 monk trees, and a rogue tree I cannot have them. If I multiclass I cannot have all of them but I have more choices on the ones I do take. Going pure locked out 33 PrE trees. Multiclassing did not. They both get 3 trees and one has a lot more control over which trees those are.

7) My pure bard uses wand and scroll, full IC, song magic IV, and lingering song IV. Placing those in 3 different trees means my existing pure bard can lose access to some of those too.

If I have to give up lingering song IV. If you give up haste boost I, 10 hp, and STR I (which usually only means waiting longer because you need a +4 tome instead of a +3 tome because of it) will not impact you significantly when you are likely making use of those 2 fighter feats, 10 hp out 600+ won't break anything, haste boosts are limited uses for short durations. Both are if's, both are relevant to existing builds, that does not specifically target multiclass, and new builds will emerge for everyone.

I don't doubt some existing builds will need to be rebuilt under the new system. The fact that they can be rebuilt effectively under the new system with more options indicates it is not restricting multiclassed players excessively. The end result is they still have a lot more choices in PrE tree options and class options and free PrE abilities. That choice in free PrE abilities is worth the change but also on of the reasons I would want to restrict the number of trees available.

I disagree. Again you are not addressing the trade off.

A pure character gets access to 4 full trees of which they can put points into 3.
A 12-6-2 character gets access to 10 trees with level restrictions (vertical sacrifice) - still can only put points into 3.

Multiclassing is all about the trade off. They are making a vertical sacrifice to gain lateral choices. However, having more lateral choices gets cancelled out the minute the builder puts a point into the third tree.

This is an arbitrary mechanic that specifically restricts multiclassing more than it is being restricted currently.

And again I say: Let the player decide why they will multiclass. There is no reason to place an arbitrary restriction on this to further restrict choices.

There is no current factual information that supports your statement that toons can be rebuilt under the new system to be more effective. There is factual information that has been laid out here that shows us how this will be more restricting to multiclass builds than pure class builds. If they change this, it will likely be due to the feedback received indicating players are not in favor of arbitrary limitations.

Also understand that "rebuilding to be more effective" for 12-6-2 builds will likely come at a cost of either real life money, or in game time to farm + in game time to run a TR back to 20. This should not be forced on players simply due to an arbitrary limitation placed into the system for no other reason than "the UI only has 3 slots". This restriction doesnt exist right now. Why does it need to in the future?

[Aashrym]

I disagree Single classes get ALOT out of this new system.

- Currently only Multiclasses and AAs (The only current Racial PrE) have access to the ability to have multiple PrEs in the new system Multiclasses lose that advantage and due to racials they even lose the advantage of having PrEs from DIFFERENT classes That would happen as they are added to the existing system as well. That has nothing to do with the 3 tree system as more Race PrE's became available, but that's why it might be worth losing access to some enhancements for pure class. There is no reason to remain pure for that benefit, however, because it is more available with more options by multiclassing. PrE's within the same class do not necessarily complement each other.

- Capstones (If Tempest represents the Standard) have got a wicked power boost and only a Single Class Lvl 20 can take a non-racial capstone as the 41 pt. bonus has a 20 Lvl gate Why go pure if I can get the capstone I want without going pure? This entirely depends on what race unlocks become available but if human does end up with a wide variety then there is less point in going pure for he capstones. The general idea would be capstones should have roughly equal value for roughly equal cost so with equal value then we have roughly equal value without going pure. This is still very dependent on what becomes available but not needing to go pure for a capstone removes that incentive in at least 5 cases compared to now so far.

- ALL Tier 3s are being completed or revamped if their too weak...alot of the reasoning for multiclassing was either because a tier 3 was outclassed by a Tier 2+ Tier 1 or the Tier 3 just didn't exist yet...thats being removed under the new system I can hit 2 that on an 18/2 or any race unlock, and it looks like in the actual race tree as well. There is no reason to go pure for that.

- Single classes lose nothing in this change they still have access to what they have now as unlike multiclasses even if your a 20 Palemaster you can cherry pick from Wild Mage or Archmage. Multiclasses on the other hand DO lose access to some key enhancements either from their main class or their splash class(es) since they will be limited to 3/6 or 3/9 Trees...honestly the content doesn't matter the point is we WON'T have access to what we can do now...and frankly since their redoing the whole system each PrE will likely be relatively equal in power Single classes don't keep the upper tier enhancement availablility in all trees because of AP unlock requirements. They lose access to higher level enhancements because of the 3 tree system based on what is split up from where. I can cherry pick the lower stuff better by having access to more trees to replaces the ones I'm stuck with on a pure class with more appropriate trees by multiclassing. A pure class will NOT have all the option he does now on those 3 trees. I CANNOT select from the top tiers in all 4 trees to get the same options I can now at those levels. If the top abilities currently available to a pure class are split up into 3 trees that class does NOT have the AP to spend for minimum unlock requirements to select them. They are gone. There are no top tier enhancements in the current system that require 20AP to unlock let alone several and trying locks out tier III PrE's and any chance for a capstone. I fail to understand why losing access to a low level option for a multiclass is detrimental to multiclassing but losing access to to high level enhancements for pure classes seems to continue to be ignored as non-existent. ;)


So really theres nothing that multiclasses gain that Pures don't and they lose plenty while Pure classes gain the above...I don't get how you fail to see that.

Pure classes gain nothing but the ability to have more a some extra pre abilities with no choice in them and lose access to high level enhancements they would normally have access to. They lose sole access to capstones.

If I don't need to go pure for a capstone and lose access to high level enhancments I would have still had under the current system and cannot afford to spend a lot of AP in several trees and and can change to better trees for my build by multiclassing what is my incentive for remaining a pure class? ;)

[MrWicae]

Pure classes gain nothing but the ability to have more a some extra pre abilities with no choice in them and lose access to high level enhancements they would normally have access to. They lose sole access to capstones.

If I don't need to go pure for a capstone and lose access to high level enhancments I would have still had under the current system and cannot afford to spend a lot of AP in several trees and and can change to better trees for my build by multiclassing what is my incentive for remaining a pure class? ;)

This is assuming that they throw level requirements right out of the window. If you are not a level 20 fighter maybe you wont have access to the cap stone unless you meet requirements.

[Chai]

Pure classes gain nothing but the ability to have more a some extra pre abilities with no choice in them and lose access to high level enhancements they would normally have access to. They lose sole access to capstones.

If I don't need to go pure for a capstone and lose access to high level enhancments I would have still had under the current system and cannot afford to spend a lot of AP in several trees and and can change to better trees for my build by multiclassing what is my incentive for remaining a pure class? ;)

Lets let the players decide whats "better" on a player by player basis. In order to do this, there cannot be more arbitrary limitations placed on the system. The more limitations placed into the system, the more the system pushes players toward specific build options, and the more cookie cutter characters we end up with.

They made a statement that customization options are the bread and butter of this game, but then are planning a system that places arbitrary limitations on building that are not part of the current system.

DDO has a chance to use this revamp to correct alot of errors in balancing the game and lift restrictions, however it is moving toward DDO becomming a game where players are only allowed to build within specific boundries, more restricting than the current system. This could end up the best thing that ever happened to this game, or it could end up an SWG-esque disaster. The more they restrict building options arbitrarily, the more it looks like the latter.

[Lence]

Skill (enhancement) trees are so WoW....yuck. My concern being when worthless stuff gets thrown below something I want to actually have.

D&D is about building the character I want, not what some developer thinks I want or thinks should be forced onto me. That my concern with this. If you force me to take some dumb enhancement that has 0 value to my build to get something I do want...well...congrats on not knowing how the game "should" be and steering it more in some joke direction that it should be going away from, not towards (ie sucky tree based games like WoW).

Plus, this sounds like it will kill multi-class more than single class toons which is terrible if all of a sudden my build is limited to some abstract 3 tree system that might have nothing to do with my build.

I don't want your forced opinions of what I need or have to take...I like the freedom I have with my builds.

[MrWicae]

Skill (enhancement) trees are so WoW....yuck. My concern being when worthless stuff gets thrown below something I want to actually have.

D&D is about building the character I want, not what some developer thinks I want or thinks should be forced onto me. That my concern with this. If you force me to take some dumb enhancement that has 0 value to my build to get something I do want...well...congrats on not knowing how the game "should" be and steering it more in some joke direction that it should be going away from, not towards (ie sucky tree based games like WoW).

Plus, this sounds like it will kill multi-class more than single class toons which is terrible if all of a sudden my build is limited to some abstract 3 tree system that might have nothing to do with my build.

I don't want your forced opinions of what I need or have to take...I like the freedom I have with my builds.

I agree fully with this post. Sure the current system is ugly but forcing us into a prepackaged build is infinitely worse!

[Vormaerin]

They made a statement that customization options are the bread and butter of this game, but then are planning a system that places arbitrary limitations on building that are not part of the current system.



There are arbitrary restrictions in the current system, too. They are going to change what the restrictions are, not stop restricting builds entirely. Its impossible to say right now which system will have the greater restrictions overall.

[AylinIsAwesome]

A part of the difficulty of making racial PrEs identical to class PrEs is that it will lead to some combinations in favor of specific classes.

A stalwart defender and a defender of siberys are mostly on par atm, with each having its own strengths and weaknesses. If the stalwart PrE can be taken as a racial PrE, a dwarf / WF / human (if SD is one of their PrEs) DoS will have a much higher defense than any Stalwart defender, who won't be able to stack his enhancements with another defensive racial PrE.

This is why I think the racial PrEs should be independant from class PrEs. It would also add a nice dimension to the game, as these racial PrEs could be used with a wide variety of classes (just like DD3.5 Prestige classes).

Of course, this would require working on a lot of additional sets of enhancements, but I think it's worth it. And I'm sure you could get a lot of good ideas from players.

I don't think that a Dwarf/Warforged/Human/Half-Elf Paladin with both SD and DoS would be that powerful.

First, that's going to be a pretty hefty AP requirement (60 APs to get to the current level 3 in both, not including racial enhancements and enhancements in other trees), so that character's ability to spread out into say the KotC line will be limited. Plus, getting SD 3 would provide that character with a whopping +3 AC, +6 intim, and some extra DR when using a shield (assuming things will be the same). Unless the other enhancements in the other available trees are just strictly inferior, I'm not sure it would be worth it to sink that many APs into it. (On the other hand, getting the DoS capstone and perhaps some of the lower-level SD benefits might be worthwhile). Fighter SDs will still have a lot more feats to play with though, and unless I'm mistaken can get to a higher AC than Paladins can at the moment anyway (especially if we take for granted that both are in the same quest/raid).

Plus there's also the possibility of Human pure Fighters with both SD and DoS (again, depending on AP costs and the actual enhancements), so I think that's pretty fair.

[Vormaerin]

That my concern with this. If you force me to take some dumb enhancement that has 0 value to my build to get something I do want...


The current system is ALL about this exact thing right now. Buying worthless feats (spring attack), worthless enhancements (Fighter Critical Accuracy), and so on to get the ones you do want. Changing this is exactly what they want to do. However, if they drop the existing restrictions, they will have to be replaced by something else.

It can be complicated, enhancement by enhancement restrictions or it can be broader based, simpler set like the tree structure could prove to be.

[AylinIsAwesome]

Skill (enhancement) trees are so WoW....yuck. My concern being when worthless stuff gets thrown below something I want to actually have.

D&D is about building the character I want, not what some developer thinks I want or thinks should be forced onto me. That my concern with this. If you force me to take some dumb enhancement that has 0 value to my build to get something I do want...well...congrats on not knowing how the game "should" be and steering it more in some joke direction that it should be going away from, not towards (ie sucky tree based games like WoW).

Plus, this sounds like it will kill multi-class more than single class toons which is terrible if all of a sudden my build is limited to some abstract 3 tree system that might have nothing to do with my build.

I don't want your forced opinions of what I need or have to take...I like the freedom I have with my builds.

Lence, I'm not sure what game you've been playing for the past 6 years, but you are aware that Fighter Critical Accuracy 3 is completely useless to a Kensai fighter, Improved Heal 2 is completely useless to a Radiant Servant Cleric, Favoured Soul Smiting 3 is completely useless to an Angel of Vengence FvS, that the Aura of Courage enhancements are completely useless to a KotC Paladin...(the list goes on and on)...yet we're required to take them now, right? At least in the new proposed system a Paladin would be able to get the KotC 3 benefits while being able to choose which enhancements in the KotC s/he wants to take to qualify for the PrE with. That I like the best about the new system.

[Lence]

The current system is ALL about this exact thing right now. Buying worthless feats (spring attack), worthless enhancements (Fighter Critical Accuracy), and so on to get the ones you do want. Changing this is exactly what they want to do. However, if they drop the existing restrictions, they will have to be replaced by something else.

It can be complicated, enhancement by enhancement restrictions or it can be broader based, simpler set like the tree structure could prove to be.


The restrictions now are pretty limited compared to any 3 tree structure I have ever seen...and I have seen ALOT of them. Tree structures always end with every game acting the same, looking the same, playing the same, with every character built the same...its completely token of a cookie cutter game.

I am not saying that this is how it will be...I am just saying this has been the same with every tree system game I have ever seen with the exception of 1 game. Historically speaking, unless they have some creative approach to this and not just jumping on the clone WoW bandwagon, its generally a bad idea and not in line with anything D&D or anything DDO has been so far to date.

There would definitely need to me more definitive answers on how this would work and details before a definite opinion could be made one way or another.

[Failedlegend]

There would definitely need to me more definitive answers on how this would work and details before a definite opinion could be made one way or another.

Yeah I think everyone pretty much has made their opinions and ideas for improvement known...at least as far as much as we can with the current information (As the supporters of the current mock-up keep pointing out) it would be nice to know what the Devs think about it so far.

Also any possible (subject to change) changes or even just stuff they liked from our feedback and if there IS any chance of Multiclass PrEs, REAL racial PrEs, Extra Tabs for Multi's, Racial PrEs being part of racial tab,The "Favored PrE" System, A Sample Tree..not a mockup a ACTUAL (subject to change) example of the tree and its contents, anything really.

[Chai]

There are arbitrary restrictions in the current system, too. They are going to change what the restrictions are, not stop restricting builds entirely. Its impossible to say right now which system will have the greater restrictions overall.

Actually no its not impossible to tell which system will have the greater restrictions, because from the details they have already given us we can clearly see that the three tree restriction is clearly more limiting than the current system. Myself and others have already provided numerous concrete examples of stuff we can build now that we cannot in the new planned system with its arbitrary three tree restriction.

Yes, we are operating on the information they provided to us which is subject to change, but using that as an excuse to not be able to provide feedback, we could say that in any thread on any topic, because the entire game is always subject to change. Its too generic of an excuse and too easy to use it as a blanket clause to waive away any arguement whatsoever.

Instead we take the information we have on the current system, and compare it to the information they have provided us in this thread, and when we do, we see the new system is more limiting. DDO will look more like WOW, EQ2, Asherons Call, Diablo, etc than it did in the past once this goes live. Once the optimizers get their hands on it, they will flesh out what the 4 or 5 accepted cookie cutter builds are for specific roles, and everything else will get relegated to being a "flavor build".

Let the players decide in '12. Arbitrary limitation is arbitrary.

[Vormaerin]

The restrictions now are pretty limited compared to any 3 tree structure I have ever seen...and I have seen ALOT of them. Tree structures always end with every game acting the same, looking the same, playing the same, with every character built the same...its completely token of a cookie cutter game.



The reason tree systems tend to create cookie cutters is because in most games they exist to allow speccing in different roles. My warrior is specced to tank or specced to DPS and you don't really have enough choices to do a hybrid that's effective.

DDO's system is entirely different for two reasons. First, you can go pretty far up two trees. Second, multiclassing exists. So My Fighter/Paladin/Monk has "pick 3 of 9", not just "have these three".

The only reason you'd have cookie cutters out of that system is if the trees themselves were imbalanced for some reason.

[Vormaerin]

Actually no its not impossible to tell which system will have the greater restrictions, because from the details they have already given us we can clearly see that the three tree restriction is clearly more limiting than the current system. Myself and others have already provided numerous concrete examples of stuff we can build now that we cannot in the new planned system with its arbitrary three tree restriction.



Sort of. You can tell me what you probably can't build in the new system that you can build now. But you can't tell me anything yet about what you can build in the new system that you can't build now.

Multiclass characters are going to lose the ability to pick some of the enhancements they have now. That /could/ be bad if what we get in return isn't good enough. No one has a problem expressing concern about that.

But the insistence that you are absolutely going to be less effective/flexible/whatever than you are now is overstating your case by a lot.

[kingfisher]

Each different gaming table I would sit at would show another prime example of Oberoni fallacy coming into play. People house rule things in and out to fit what they were willing and not willing to allow.

Usually when I would do this it would be for a specific reason. Those reasons would have things to do with current lore, current locale, setting, available trainers, etc. It usually didnt have to do with "Im not going to allow this because its too powerful" or "I dont like optimized multiclasses because I deem them unrealistic" - but every once in a while that decision needed to be made.

The one thing I do like when games get this concept correct is the pure choice is a safe choice. A new player with little to no D&D knowledge can log on and roll up a pure 20 single class toon and still have an effective character. On the converse someone with a decent understanding of the class mechanics and how they interact can decide what type of character they want, then build for it through mixing and matching of abilities in an optimized fashion.

The point here is to allow the players to decide. Having one more powerful than the other will just push the majority of players - especially the optimizers - to the obviously more powerful incarnations. Ruling something out Oberoni style because we dont like it or we feel it should be one way is just setting limitations into place that all will not agree with. D&D (and DDO) is not a game that is played one way. Turbine has a vested interest in satisfying alot of different playstyles and preferences. If they were to put measures into place that insure pure builds will be more powerful or disallow too many options, optimizers who enjoyed multiclassing would be put off by that, as well as the cost associated with straightening out their builds they have created and geared over the years. Sure they could use a TR, but forcing that time committment onto someone who has a number of alts on their account just to make their builds viable would not be a good move to make.



I disagree that it would be the only reason. Versitility is not a munchkin character. The 12/6/2 helves angel is a versitility build that simply does more than a pure fighter. Theres nothing munchkin about it however. Splashing a couple levels of fighter does not make a munchkin character, and its done quite as bit with other melee classes. I understand your preference to pure builds and splashes, but not everyone plays the same style you play. To disallow builders from being able to build a certain way simply due to personal preference is not a good business decision.

Even if the "munchkin toon builders" are lined up eagerly waiting to see all these new options and how they interact, their ability to build a "munchkin toon" doesnt impact your ability to have fun playing a pure toon or splashed toon. There should be no limitations to the system due to personal preference, because the player has the ability to excersise their own personal preference within a wider set of game parameters.

Bottom line: Someone who chooses to limit vertical progression in order to take more lateral progression should be able to do so. A trade off is already being made. Limiting lateral progression through the UI is arbitrary, and hampers multiclassing because the vertical progression sacrifice is made to gain nothing laterally. Being "munchkin" or "cookie cutter" should have nothing to do with it.

Perfect. This is exactly why the 3 tree limit is a nerf to multiclassing. Well said chai.

[Aashrym]

This is assuming that they throw level requirements right out of the window. If you are not a level 20 fighter maybe you wont have access to the cap stone unless you meet requirements.

It's already been stated the that race unlocks use character level instead of class levels. There was a suggestion to change that but no word from the devs on any changes yet from the original mock up. It's not an assumption when the dev's tell us that is how it works.

That means the limitation is with the actual PrE's available through the unlock system. That has the potential to be a nice perk and incentive for some multiclasses or it has the potential to almost completely destroy pure classes if it goes too far.

[Chai]

Sort of. You can tell me what you probably can't build in the new system that you can build now. But you can't tell me anything yet about what you can build in the new system that you can't build now.

Multiclass characters are going to lose the ability to pick some of the enhancements they have now. That /could/ be bad if what we get in return isn't good enough. No one has a problem expressing concern about that.

But the insistence that you are absolutely going to be less effective/flexible/whatever than you are now is overstating your case by a lot.

Someone has an account with X number of currently built toons that are multiclassed in such a way that they are limited so they cant be built to be more effective using the new system. That means the class split has to be changed, which is either: at least 2 LRs, or 1 TR. The third option is to abandon the toon they played and geared over years of play. The player is now committed to spending time, money, or both, to fix their multiple toons on their account - all due to a changed system with a limitation in place that did not exist previously when the toon was built.

In this situation it doesnt matter that there are better options in the new system. If someone cant use their free enhancement respec to create something equal or better than what they were playing previously, then they are relegated to being worse off than they were previous to the change due to a class tree limitation that did_not_exist at the time the character was built and played. Its either that or pay money and spend more time LRing or TRing to fix the class split.

If Turbine wants to change their game, fine, but it shouldnt cost players a dime to redo their toons simply because of the limitations put in place that did not exist previous to the change, which were the conditions the toons were built and played in. If that means LRing 10 characters out of 8 levels each to pure, who is fronting that cost?

Overstating? Not at all. I am showing you the possible dilema many players will face for many toons on their account if this goes live in such a way that limits multiclassing - solely because those players built and played toons in an era of the game that wa smore multiclass friendly.

Are you going to tell those players to stop complaining, because hey, you can build something better now than you had before. It will just cost you ~8 dollars per toon. If you do, please alert me beforehand so I can buy up all the stock in popcorn on the market and become a billionaire overnight. :p Im just sayin'

[Failedlegend]

It's already been stated the that race unlocks use character level instead of class levels. There was a suggestion to change that but no word from the devs on any changes yet from the original mock up.

Well there hasn't really be any info given since that initial burst

Anyways what would be the point of a racial PrE if its based on Class Lvl if your ALREADY that class you may as well just go with the actual class PrE...actually wait yes this is an AWESOME idea it will make Racial PrEs that are just copies of Class PrEs useless thus forcing them to switch to ACTUAL Racial PrEs...Aash your BRILLIANT!!! :eek:

http://successbeginstoday.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/accidental-genius-book.jpg

[Vormaerin]

Are you going to tell those players to stop complaining, because hey, you can build something better now than you had before. It will just cost you ~8 dollars per toon. If you do, please alert me beforehand so I can buy up all the stock in popcorn on the market and become a billionaire overnight. :p Im just sayin'

We've been through this before. Only now we at least have LRs and the possibility that Turbine *might* give a time limited token or something. Which was literally impossible before. The first time they altered the enhancement system, you were SOL. You were pretty SOL the second time, too, when they added PrEs and capstones to your poor 17/3 build that used to be good...

Your argument is "nothing can ever change, because the game has been out for a while," in effect. If they can't add limitations that don't currently exist, then they are severely limited in their ability to relax existing limitations. I'm pretty sure they don't want to see someone with 8 tier 1 PrEs, for example. That may not prove to be particularly effective, but the point is that it becomes increasingly difficult to avoid overpowered combinations the more parts you have in motion.

[Chai]

We've been through this before. Only now we at least have LRs and the possibility that Turbine *might* give a time limited token or something. Which was literally impossible before. The first time they altered the enhancement system, you were SOL. You were pretty SOL the second time, too, when they added PrEs and capstones to your poor 17/3 build that used to be good...

Your argument is "nothing can ever change, because the game has been out for a while," in effect. If they can't add limitations that don't currently exist, then they are severely limited in their ability to relax existing limitations. I'm pretty sure they don't want to see someone with 8 tier 1 PrEs, for example. That may not prove to be particularly effective, but the point is that it becomes increasingly difficult to avoid overpowered combinations the more parts you have in motion.

I dont bank my feedback on what *might happen, and "we simply dont know." I am basing my feedback on already provided information.


This particularly is incorrect.

Your argument is "nothing can ever change, because the game has been out for a while," in effect.

You saying this is my argument, is like me saying that your stance is: "Its OK for Turbine to screw up thousands of builds on hundreds of accounts simply because they did so in the past." Is it correct to be that absolute when interpreting someone elses viewpoint? I dont believe it is.

And then to do it over a simple arbitrary game mechanic, put into the game for no other reason than "because we said so?" This suggests there is a reason for this to occur, but it isnt game balance. Doesnt matter how many good options you put in from of me, im only walking away with 80 points worth. The REAL POINT I AM MAKING is the players, not the system, THE PLAYERS should be able to decide which options are good for their playstyle, within the class split they chose. This is how it is now, why limit this in the future?

[Maelwyn]

The new enhancement revision seems like a good idea. Of course, only time will tell. But, I do like how MadFloyd and the Devs have introduced this to us, and I hope they continue to keep us informed, as well as listen to our ideas. I've been skimming through this thread (at nearly 120 pages...sigh). Lots of good info, but I'm still left with tons of questions and thoughts.

The racial PrE idea for each race is a good one. The idea of taking the Tempest PrE from the human racial tree (for more Dex and better DPS and Shield AC) on my existing Sentinel-marked human 18 Pally/2 Monk Dual-wield Evasion Tank sounds great!...especially, if she'll have 2 more feats to spend (with Dragonmark Feat spending changes that have been suggested) is sooooo awesome! I'm seeing all kinds of ideas of how to increase my AC on this toon. Even taking Improved Uncanny Dodge via Acrobat PrE could prove incredibly useful on a tank--imagine 10 clickies of +6 stacking AC bonus for 30 seconds each, on an AC tank?! Wow! Anyway, I can't wait to see how this all looks when it is finalized and ready to go live! Could it even be possible to stack SD and DoS stances in this design of Racial PrEs and Class PrEs (e.g. Dwarven Defender + DoS from 18 or even 20 Pally)? Tier 3 on each would be +12 to Str and Con. Seems, OP, for sure. Hmmm.

However, I would ask that, if possible, could you make the racial PrEs for each race unique, and not just a carbon copy of existing class PrEs (e.g. don't make Dwarven Defender exactly like Stalwart Defender, nor WF Juggernaut exactly like Frenzied Beserker, or what have you)??? Perhaps this is too lofty a request, that would require too much time to develop. If so, I can understand if this is not the way the PrE/Enhancement pass goes.

While on the topic of racial PrEs, could you please update the Arcane Archer so that there could be a synergy with Arcane classes (i.e. add choices of Ability modifers to the 'to hit' bonus, like Intelligence for Wizards, Charisma for Sorcerers, similar to the Zen Archery Feat, without being forced to take a Feat)? See, the idea is that Arcane Archers draw power from Arcane sources, not Divine. I mean, they are ARCANE Archers, right? Not Divine. So, it has always seemed silly to me that you could play an Elven Cleric/Monk or FvS Arcane Archer that used Zen Archery to gain a Wisdom bonus 'to hit', but could not get the same kind of 'to hit' bonus from the primary stat of a true Arcane class like Wizard or Sorcerer. I mean, why are they even called Arcane Archers in DDO then? My suggestion would be to keep the Divine Archer situation the same, but make them spend the feat on Zen Archery, however allowing the Wizard and Sorcerer to save a Feat by only spending 1 or 2 APs to gain their respective primary stat bonus (e.g. Int or Chr) to their 'to hit' bonus. IMO, this makes a lot of sense, and much more sense than the idea that a Divine 'Arcane' Archer is Arcane at all. What I'm suggesting is, make it very beneficial and synergistic for an Arcane class to take Arcane Archer as a PrE. I just makes sense.

So, Devs, please make sure that the changes you make to PrEs, classes, and enhancements make sense, okay? If Artificers get UMD skill AP enhancements, then any class that has UMD as a class skill should get the same option (i.e. Bards and Rogues). Just some food for thought, while you are giving Enhancements a well-deserved make-over.

[Vormaerin]

Well, I don't agree with that point. Its the developers obligation to create a balanced, flexible mechanic from which the players can make choices.

The developers are obliged to put in "arbitrary" limits because not doing so means you'll have massive imbalances. Right now, the arbitrary limits are "doing X absolutely prohibits doing Y" on an individual enhancement basis.

MadFloyd's statements make it seem like the current methodology is a significant hindrance to adding more enhancements and PrEs.

They want to remove an assortment of enhancements that don't do anything useful, rebalance some that are useful but not useful enough to pick, and generally have fewer niggling 'case by case' restrictions like arbitrary prereqs and stacking exclusions.

If they do all that and want to avoid massively powering up the characters (which seems unnecessary and undesireable at this point), then they need to introduce new restrictions. New restrictions absolutely will break some builds (though probably not many; monk multis are the most likely to be completely screwed) and result in many more being not quite as well designed as they used to be (but still usable). On the other hand, some builds will work better than they do now.

If they aren't allowed to do anything that will damage existing characters, they pretty much aren't allowed to do anything at all. Heck, when they added the Bard capstone, Madmatt and others were screaming because it made their 19Bard/Sorcerer1 builds less relatively good.

That's why I think your argument amounts to paralysis, whether you think so or not. No matter what they do, they are going to "force" players to respec.

[Aashrym]

Well there hasn't really be any info given since that initial burst

Anyways what would be the point of a racial PrE if its based on Class Lvl if your ALREADY that class you may as well just go with the actual class PrE...actually wait yes this is an AWESOME idea it will make Racial PrEs that are just copies of Class PrEs useless thus forcing them to switch to ACTUAL Racial PrEs...Aash your BRILLIANT!!! :eek:

http://successbeginstoday.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/accidental-genius-book.jpg

The point would be to bypass the class level restrictions for a full tree. If I wanted ravager I could go 12 fighter 8 barbarian and have kensai II ravager III instead of ravager I by using the Horc unlock. That is a huge gain for multiclassing as far as enhancement limits go. Alternatively you can take race with a PrE unlock completely separate from any of the classes (which should work for pure classes too for some flexibility).

Which is why it's obvious multiclassing does not limit vertical progression for a character between the race tree and the race PrE unlock. I would prefer race specific PrE's instead of class PrE unlocks, personal opinion.

I would agree that the individual class level limit were actually limiting if it were not for the AP costs to access higher tiers of enhancements anyway. That cost looks more limiting to me than the class level restrictions.

The reason I use the info from the initial burst is because it is the only info provided. I'm hoping for an update. ;)

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

Perfect. This is exactly why the 3 tree limit is a nerf to multiclassing. Well said chai.

He actually didnt state any reasons how multi-class character building is definitively going to be more restrictive.

Without knowing the enhancements, the access rules to each tree, what stacks, whats granted, the prestige reqs and new math, and the capstones, there's simply no way how to definitively make that conclusion.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

THE PLAYERS should be able to decide...

This is not tabletop.

This is an instanced graphical PvE combat-exclusive D&D game where 90% of the playerbase jumped on a very limited number of enhancements/feats/skills. The dev challenge was to create game balance among such few choices.

Turbine is telling us they have found a way to expand those choices. They've already said that multi-class builders will have MANY more choices to make.

The mistake made by those on your side is you are thinking of TODAYs characters, TODAYs enhancements, and trying to fit them into a futuristic three tree model with details you don't possess yet. Of course thats going to appear limiting.

You watch Chai, that when this ships, we will all be rolling new toons like crazy, and adjusting our current toons into the new system... I think we will all lose some, but gain much more than we lost.

[EnjoyTheJourney]

A couple more thoughts on "simple and reliable":

1. Above all please make the enhancement system (and the related UI) simple. Simple means that players who aren't hardcore don't need a wiki page or a flowchart or a guide to figure out how to make at least reasonably functional choices; they also won't need a lot of time to make those choices. Simple means also that there would be few (or no) utterly dysfunctional choices that draw in newer players and wreck their builds; that would be a particularly frustrating kind of complication, the feeling of navigating a mine field every time you select enhancements. Simple means there would be no nested "If X, then Y" rules for choosing enhancements and as few nested "If X, then No Y" rules as possible, as well. Hopefully, there will be none.

2. Make it work reliably -- meaning "WYSIWYG" and non-buggy.

The problem is that you have a number of prolific posters (typically who contribute a lot to the community, as well) discussing and arguing across thousands of posts for a flexible, choice-laden, complicated enhancement system so that they can take their finely tuned "Ferrari" characters to new heights of customizability and power, and then take those Ferrari characters out on the nearest racetrack / highway / offroad / pick your track. On the other side are probably the (vast?) majority of players who aren't even following this conversation and who want a simple and reliable system so they can take their Toyota Yaris or their Ford Fiesta out to do a little sightseeing -- and to beat down a few local thugs.

The devs get to take their pick about which group will get the lion's share of what they're hoping to receive. No matter which group gets their wishes fulfilled to a greater extent, though, some characters are almost certainly going to end up getting nerfed. I would go so far as to venture that the simpler the system that comes out of this, the more characters there are that end up getting nerfed; I don't know that, of course, but it seems likely.

It might be prudent to request that every character receive the ability to do a full "respec" after the new enhancement system is put in place. Some builds will end up getting nerfed, and that seems to be a virtual certainty no matter whether it's those looking for complexity and flexibility above other considerations who get their way, or those who want something simple and reliable. Having a respec banked for every character would make it easier for all players to deal with the changes.

I'm hoping for simple and reliable, in case that wasn't clear.

[gloopygloop]

This is not tabletop.

This is an instanced graphical PvE combat-exclusive D&D game where 90% of the playerbase jumped on a very limited number of enhancements/feats/skills. The dev challenge was to create game balance among such few choices.

Turbine is telling us they have found a way to expand those choices. They've already said that multi-class builders will have MANY more choices to make.

The mistake made by those on your side is you are thinking of TODAYs characters, TODAYs enhancements, and trying to fit them into a futuristic three tree model with details you don't possess yet. Of course thats going to appear limiting.

You watch Chai, that when this ships, we will all be rolling new toons like crazy, and adjusting our current toons into the new system... I think we will all lose some, but gain much more than we lost.

I would be surprised if characters ended up substantially more powerful than they are today since the designers are still interested in game balance and will attempt to maintain something close to today's balance if possible.

If single class characters end up with more flexibility, but similar power, then limitations on multiclass characters that aren't found on single class characters will end up meaning that multiclass characters will end up less powerful than they are today.

They will probably be somewhat more flexible than they are today in at least some aspects, but when single class characters see a greater increase in flexibility and power than multiclass characters get AND when the designers attempt to maintain game balance, that will most likely end up meaning an effective nerf for multiclass characters.

Is it a guarantee that multiclass characters will be weaker? Not really. It's possible that both multiclass characters and single class characters will end up substantially more powerful than they are today - and that would be terrible for the game since so many players can already just smash their way through so much of DDO's content already. It could end up that everyone gets more flexible, but the overall power level is decreased. It could end up that AC is finally both useful and well balanced and handwraps are fully functional. I'm expecting that single class characters will remain about where they are now and multiclass characters will be relatively weaker, though.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

It could end up that everyone gets more flexible, but the overall power level is decreased.

Nice, honest outlook there. I believe, but naturally I can be wrong, that we get more flexible, and each get slightly more powerful. I also believe however that "more powerful" and "nerfed" are relative whenever the discussed goals are improved game balance. I believe many multis will become more powerful. I also believe some multis that were ill-conceived previously will probably still be wiffle-balls, or with proper planning be much greater, finally achieving their toons' original goals.

To assume that all multis will be nerfed is purely unfounded. There's nowhere near enough data to assume it. Toons that built oddball just to open up the front end of a class's benefits (one level sorc, one level fighter, etc) are going to need to understand the new system inside-out. There should be plenty of ways to empower some, most, all of these abilities for our old/current builds in the new system. In fact, I think the great majority of our mixed class builds WILL benefit from the new system. Im still optimistic, in fact, very optimistic that for the most part we will like the new build options.

[sephiroth1084]

You watch Chai, that when this ships, we will all be rolling new toons like crazy, and adjusting our current toons into the new system... I think we will all lose some, but gain much more than we lost.
And depending on what we lose from an unnecessarily restrictive tree model, many players may not care what they've gained. There's simply no reason to restrict players along that axis.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

And depending on what we lose from an unnecessarily restrictive tree model, many players may not care what they've gained. There's simply no reason to restrict players along that axis.

Naah, they may not restrict players much at all. There's probably more restrictions in the game now having PrEs tied to class as tightly as they are, imo. I believe it will be a net gain for the majority of us and dont really see doom written on the wall. This might be the best thing that's come down the pike in a long time for the game .... and at least they are giving us all a chance to discuss the possibilities, all of which will probably help shape the enhancements and the access rules to the trees so that we DONT realize the fears of some in this thread once this gets the green light on the live servers. I do understand the fears. I simply have faith in Turbine's skills to create a better system (after all, they created the one we have now).

[kingfisher]

He actually didnt state any reasons how multi-class character building is definitively going to be more restrictive.

Without knowing the enhancements, the access rules to each tree, what stacks, whats granted, the prestige reqs and new math, and the capstones, there's simply no way how to definitively make that conclusion.


Taking something away is a nerf, period. It does not matter what new options both pure and multi have, multi's still lose some of what they had, which is a nerf, as has been shown multiple times, and just because u don't agree does not make it untrue. Besides you have stated several times that its your belief that multi's need a nerf and all that nonsense so you now trying to say its not a nerf looks silly. Please stop.

[kingfisher]

This thread is worn slick, ssdd.

Funny thing is if they take away the silly arbitrary 3-tree limit and the wowification that will follow it, pretty much everyone would be excited by the possibilities of this change. Give us general class tabs with class lvl limits and get it overwith.

[ThomasMink]

I love the people tossing the word nerf out there in a horribly wrong context. You know.. I don't care how much stuff they take away, or how many options they limit. Limiting options in and of itself is NOT a nerf. It's simply limiting options.

Now keep in mind, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anything here. I just find it silly that some people are saying the removal of options is a nerf. Until you become a meaningless foam dart, and maybe it's just me who thinks so, you have no reason to call nerf.

[Aashrym]

Taking something away is a nerf, period. It does not matter what new options both pure and multi have, multi's still lose some of what they had, which is a nerf, as has been shown multiple times, and just because u don't agree does not make it untrue. Besides you have stated several times that its your belief that multi's need a nerf and all that nonsense so you now trying to say its not a nerf looks silly. Please stop.

Taking away something and adding something else is not a nerf. Period. It's a change, nothing more.

It has not been proven in this thread that this is a nerf. What has been discussed is the desire to keep more options on multiclass.

Calling it a nerf ignores the fact all classes lose choices and a person cannot say it is worse for multiclasses as a fact because the is an opinion and not necessarily more or less of a loss for the pure classes. It also ignores the gains. You have stated opinions based on the information available, not facts, and things like capstones are a clear win for multiclassing while a relative loss for pure classes.

[sephiroth1084]

Naah, they may not restrict players much at all. There's probably more restrictions in the game now having PrEs tied to class as tightly as they are, imo. I believe it will be a net gain for the majority of us and dont really see doom written on the wall. This might be the best thing that's come down the pike in a long time for the game .... and at least they are giving us all a chance to discuss the possibilities, all of which will probably help shape the enhancements and the access rules to the trees so that we DONT realize the fears of some in this thread once this gets the green light on the live servers. I do understand the fears. I simply have faith in Turbine's skills to create a better system (after all, they created the one we have now).
Those are two completely separate statements/arguments.

If the devs discard the tree restrictions, yeah, everyone is probably happy, as we all end up getting more options that are more interesting and more flexibility. That's what half the people in this thread want. Having faith that they will do it is irrelevant, as we won't know until we see the results or comments indicating such.

As for there being more restrictions in the game now, that is irrelevant. The restrictions we have now are different. Giving us fewer restrictions will be good, but if they also add new restrictions, it will upset people, and break characters. Maybe the whole thing will change completely tomorrow, but you can't argue that stance. Saying that people raising a ruckus over this are being silly is ridiculous. The whole point of this thread is to discuss this stuff and lay out our hopes and fears based on what we've seen so far. If you want to sit back and have faith that the devs just get it right, then there's no reason to be posting here.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

Those are two completely separate statements/arguments.

If the devs discard the tree restrictions, yeah, everyone is probably happy, as we all end up getting more options that are more interesting and more flexibility. That's what half the people in this thread want. Having faith that they will do it is irrelevant, as we won't know until we see the results or comments indicating such.

As for there being more restrictions in the game now, that is irrelevant. The restrictions we have now are different. Giving us fewer restrictions will be good, but if they also add new restrictions, it will upset people, and break characters. Maybe the whole thing will change completely tomorrow, but you can't argue that stance. Saying that people raising a ruckus over this are being silly is ridiculous. The whole point of this thread is to discuss this stuff and lay out our hopes and fears based on what we've seen so far. If you want to sit back and have faith that the devs just get it right, then there's no reason to be posting here.

Its the same argument for me. Its just not a big deal to me at this point. Some refuse to look at anything besides "restrictions". You are ignoring the "new" and "changed" parts. They are equally as important. Instrumental in fact.

[mezzorco]

I think, if we're gonna have three trees for each class, it means that each class will have three PrEs.
So welcome ravager, warpriest, divine avenger, wild mage...

[sephiroth1084]

Its the same argument for me. Its just not a big deal to me at this point. Some refuse to look at anything besides "restrictions". You are ignoring the "new" and "changed" parts. They are equally as important. Instrumental in fact.
No.

No one is just looking at restrictions. The difference here is that, for you, restrictions don't matter, so you don't care about them, and you are looking forward to the new stuff, meanwhile, I (and others) am looking forward to the new stuff, while at the same time I don't want to see unnecessary restrictions break existing characters or render many of the increased flexibility we should be getting moot due to the trees cutting out the option to benefit from some of the new stuff.

It may only be 5% of the characters in the game that get totally screwed by the sort of treed limiting we've been presented with, but that's too many, and I don't think I have any characters that would get ruined by any of the upcoming changes, though I have a few that probably would benefit less from the new options.

They are not equal. You can give someone 100 more options, but if the one thing you take away ends up forcing him to LR or TR, that may be too much, even if they gave every +5 Lesser Hearts of Wood, True Hearts of Wood and the ability to retain tomes on TRing, all of which I seriously doubt we'll receive.

[budalic]

They are not equal. You can give someone 100 more options, but if the one thing you take away ends up forcing him to LR or TR, that may be too much, even if they gave every +5 Lesser Hearts of Wood, True Hearts of Wood and the ability to retain tomes on TRing, all of which I seriously doubt we'll receive.

They could give everyone free respec of everything (stats, levels, whatever) from level 1-20, which you have to take immediately after first time logging in; otherwise you're left enhanchment-less.

Granted there is some opportunity of abusing that system.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

No.

No one is just looking at restrictions. The difference here is that, for you, restrictions don't matter, so you don't care about them, and you are looking forward to the new stuff, meanwhile, I (and others) am looking forward to the new stuff, while at the same time I don't want to see unnecessary restrictions break existing characters or render many of the increased flexibility we should be getting moot due to the trees cutting out the option to benefit from some of the new stuff.

It may only be 5% of the characters in the game that get totally screwed by the sort of treed limiting we've been presented with, but that's too many, and I don't think I have any characters that would get ruined by any of the upcoming changes, though I have a few that probably would benefit less from the new options.

People are clearly leaning pessimistic/optomistic, adding weight to elements they fear or want the most. Never would I say restrictions dont matter. The new system in its entirety is imperative to ALL of us. Everyone would benefit caring about restrictions AND IMPROVEMENTS in the new system.

We are both looking forward to the new candy. But the problem I see from many of ya'll that are pessimistic is that ya'll are putting too much weight into the unknown.

I think after well over 2000 posts they got it that we don't want restrictions. Past that, the candy is all up for discussion. I'd bet that the reason they havent released much is because they are still shaping the clay.

Those on our side just aren't as pessimistic as you guys are, but we are all VERY concerned about the player base all the same.

[Vormaerin]

They are not equal. You can give someone 100 more options, but if the one thing you take away ends up forcing him to LR or TR, that may be too much, even if they gave every +5 Lesser Hearts of Wood, True Hearts of Wood and the ability to retain tomes on TRing, all of which I seriously doubt we'll receive.

So... just abandon the concept of change. Because there is only one way to add useful stuff without weakening some existing characters. And that's across the board power inflation. Which I sure as heck hope is not happening.

When they added PrEs and capstones, they effectively nerfed a lot of builds. Many class combinations that were not built around the 6/12/18/20 schema instantly became inferior because they couldn't take advantage of the new schema.

Eladrin is planning on taking WF improved fortification out of the game. I assume he shouldn't do that, because there's probably some players that actually use it (static groupers or soloists, most likely)?

What are the devs allowed to do in your view? Just rearrange the layout and otherwise don't touch anything?

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

You guys are nailing it. Its the fear of change. RPG and "change" have had historical collisions in the past. Due to this year's new mmo competition tho, change is the gamble Turbine needs to embrace, in my eyes. I think they are being proactive about it for once, and doing it right so far.

As long as they continue to listen to our fears and concerns, and our wishes, I think they'll have a good year. And if they have a good year, we should have a good year.

[sephiroth1084]

So... just abandon the concept of change. Because there is only one way to add useful stuff without weakening some existing characters. And that's across the board power inflation. Which I sure as heck hope is not happening.

When they added PrEs and capstones, they effectively nerfed a lot of builds. Many class combinations that were not built around the 6/12/18/20 schema instantly became inferior because they couldn't take advantage of the new schema.

Eladrin is planning on taking WF improved fortification out of the game. I assume he shouldn't do that, because there's probably some players that actually use it (static groupers or soloists, most likely)?

What are the devs allowed to do in your view? Just rearrange the layout and otherwise don't touch anything?
There's a difference between giving incentives and imposing limitations.

If we get more worthwhile enhancements, and ways to dip into other places to take even more of those, being able to spec into 5 or 10 trees will be less meaningful, but will keep things open and flexible. We have limiters already that look like they're being carried over:


character level
class level
AP available
AP already spent
prerequisites

Tacking on the trees seems like in unnecessarily hurts some people.


There were characters that didn't adhere to a model that maximized PrEs, but they didn't have any options taken away. They gained a few things here and there and were pressed to find a way to change over to the new system, but they didn't have to. That isn't the way things are looking here.



Also consider that one of the stated goals of the trees system, and the way PrE prerequisites are being adjusted is to free players from taking a lot of junk just to qualify for the enhancements that they want. Let's say someone really wants a few AP from a class they merely splashed...well, that's going to cut out a whole tree's worth of options without really replacing them, possibly forcing players to take a bunch of junk in the remaining trees because they wanted something like Skill Boost I from their 2 rogue splash. That seems rather contrary to the intent here, and an unnecessary penalty. Taking the Skill Boost doesn't represent a power increase, so why should it cause such a narrowing of potential?

[Astraghal]

I haven't read through the thread in full but here are some ideas. To boost the melee classes in general, particularly the Fighter in this case, I think what they are getting out of their Enhancements needs to be looked at. Fighters perhaps shouldn't be getting as much out of the 2nd tier Enhancement 'Fighter Kensai II', or at least be getting more from a 3rd tier. For example they could get +4 to STR from the tier2 action boost, with an additional +8 at tier3 for a total of +12 to STR at tier3/level 18.

Taking 'Fighter Weapon Mastery' should give more than +1 to damage, it should also add a status effect such as 'Crippling' or 'Destruction' to any attacks made by that weapon type. Tier2 might offer some 'Enhanced Tactical Mastery' which gives an additional +5/+10 to 'Vertigo', 'Shatter' or 'Stunning' or adds a chance for these effects to proc while making attacks with the weapon.

Same for the PrE's, 'Fighter Kensai I' should offer more than it does. I'd also like to see many of the Fighter's Enhancments stack up on combat effects like 'Vorpal', 'Smiting', 'Banishing' as they go deeper into particular paths. A Fighter should be getting way more out of being a Fighter than they currently do and there are already a lot of tools available in the game to facilitate that.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

character level
class level
AP available
AP already spent
prerequisites

Tacking on the trees seems like in unnecessarily hurts some people.

Exactly how do you come to the conclusion that 3 trees would "hurt some people" if you dont know whats in the trees or method(s) of access to and through the trees? You made that assumption based on the apparent fact that we will still have character levels, class levels, APs and prerequisites? Thats all you are going on? Really??

Anyway you flip the coin, you need more data to make your argument that multis will categorically get nerfed.

On the contrary, I believe we will be gaining ground by having these trees, especially if they untie the limitations imposed by attaching PrEs to the classes in the first place. If race is going to be playing a bigger role, that will grant us many new options we didnt have before. If they address dragonmarks (I mean seriously boost them) now or down the road that will be even better. Id recommend doing them at the same time, because if they do them right, many may want to build them right in at the same time we'll be "transferring" our toons into the new system..

As a side benefit, this may make it easier to turn the dial up and down on a broader range of builds, making it easier to seek a better game balance that many have been asking for, for a long time. Devs have already mentioned that "melee" should see a noticeable boost, which would be a great. I think they are on the right track here...

[Failedlegend]

The point would be to bypass the class level restrictions for a full tree. If I wanted ravager I could go 12 fighter 8 barbarian and have kensai II ravager III instead of ravager I by using the Horc unlock. That is a huge gain for multiclassing as far as enhancement limits go. Alternatively you can take race with a PrE unlock completely separate from any of the classes (which should work for pure classes too for some flexibility).

A 20 Half-orc fighter and take Ravager 3 its not limited to Multiclasses



I would prefer race specific PrE's instead of class PrE unlocks, personal opinion.

Naw I think that one has pretty much become the general consensus.

AnywaysI remember a dev saying something about the choice of racial was based on their "Favored Class" but I don't think they should get access to a full CLASS PrE instead make it so they can take enhancements of their "Favored PrE" 6 Lvls earlier (I know at least the "Free" bonuses are level gated) this would allow A Lvl 12 Dwarven fighter to be a Tier 3 Stalwart instead of Tier 2.

Also there should probably be a enhancement that has a Lvl 26 Requirement so only a Single Class Character of the right race could get it...doesn't need to be super powerful but enough that people will care

Now if they went with racial PrEs it would be alot easier to balance since by adjusting their power you would only be adjusting ONE PrE instead of multiples (ie. Under the current proposed system adjusted Stalwart would affect Warforged,Dwarves, Humans, H-Elves and Fighters) and it would make Half-Elves special as they'd be the only race that could take Class PrEs (Based of their Dilettante)...something like this (although I'd love to hear other peoples racial PrE suggestions

Warforged: Reforged AND Juggernaut (let players if they so choose to embrace or stray from being a war machine)

Halfling: Luck Stealer or Whistler

Dwarf: Dwarven Defender

Drow Elf: Scorpion Wraith

Elf:Arcane Archer AND Eldritch Knight

Half-Orc: Bloodfist or Eye of Gruumsh

Human: Adroit Explorer or Steelsky Liberator

Half-Elf: Can take any Class PrE associated with their Dilly (Free access to AA though)



The reason I use the info from the initial burst is because it is the only info provided. I'm hoping for an update. ;)

Me too

[Angelus_dead]

Exactly how do you come to the conclusion that 3 trees would "hurt some people" if you dont know whats in the trees or method(s) of access to and through the trees? You made that assumption based on the apparent fact that we will still have character levels, class levels, APs and prerequisites? Really??
That is the only valid assumption to make...

It's been explained completely already, so it probably won't be helpful to repeat it for you yet again. But anyway, here it is:
In a system with a limit of 3 trees per character, pure class characters can train from 75% of their available trees while multiclass can train from only 42% or 30%. Therefore multiclass characters are relatively weaker with a 3 tree limit than if the limit were from 4 to 10.

"Relatively weaker" = "hurt". A case could be presented that those types of characters were overpowered to begin with and therefore deserve a nerf, but to claim they're not being nerfed at all simply won't work. It's very nearly an inescapable conclusion.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

That is the only valid assumption to make...

It's been explained completely already, so it probably won't be helpful to repeat it for you yet again. But anyway, here it is:
In a system with a limit of 3 trees per character, pure class characters can train from 75% of their available trees while multiclass can train from only 42% or 30%. Therefore multiclass characters are relatively weaker with a 3 tree limit than if the limit were from 4 to 10.

"Relatively weaker" = "hurt". A case could be presented that those types of characters were overpowered to begin with and therefore deserve a nerf, but to claim they're not being nerfed at all simply won't work. It's very nearly an inescapable conclusion.

A blackboard with a few scribbles on it, that doesnt really tell us much. Why shouldnt a pure build, who is likely to be more focused, not be able to pick "from 75% of their available trees?" Sounds perfectly logical, on the surface. A multi gets to train in 42 or 30%. Ok. What else are they getting access to, or granted? What enhancements are in the trees themselves that they CAN have access to? How do prestiges come into play? Etc etc.

Choosing between 12 classes with 3 trees offers 36 tree combinations to select from before considering at what level to plan everything out.. Pure class builds get 3 trees. Pure class builds have less than 10% of the options vs multi-classing. There are plenty of ways to make multiclass builds more powerful then pures. It all depends on whats in those trees and the access given.

Of course some builds will need to be rebuilt. If their choices are better then they were before in this system, it will probably be considered a net positive to those who choose to go that route. It may very well be the case that the fact that they can rebuild with a plethora of new options is not a restriction at all, but a benefit of choosing to go multi-classed over pure.

There's a lot of unanswered questions. It all depends how they lay it out, and who has access to what. The "what" is also important because by adding subtracting and blending enhancements together, its very logical that an acceptable system can be put into place which offers more variety, and more power, to multi-class builds. As its been said, boosting the number of choices for multiclass toons is a main objective. "There will be many more choices for multis to choose from." -- will devs eat their words? No one knows, yet.

[Vormaerin]

That is the only valid assumption to make...

It's been explained completely already, so it probably won't be helpful to repeat it for you yet again. But anyway, here it is:
In a system with a limit of 3 trees per character, pure class characters can train from 75% of their available trees while multiclass can train from only 42% or 30%. Therefore multiclass characters are relatively weaker with a 3 tree limit than if the limit were from 4 to 10.

.

This holds true only if there is negligible benefit to getting the best 3 of 9 trees instead of the three that go with your class. This seems unlikely.

It also assumes that a multiclass character will get less benefit from some or all of his trees than a pure character will. This is possible, but not a given.


If character A is a Fighter 20 with Kensai, Purple Dragon Knight, and Stalwart Defender trees and character B is a Fighter12/Ranger6/Rogue 2 with Kensai, Purple Dragon Knight, and Tempest trees, can you be sure that Character B is relatively weaker than Character A? Both can only afford 80 of the 160 APs worth of enhancements available to them.

If the class level limits are as strict as they are now, then its likely that multiclass characters won't be able to take advantage of their flexibility advantage. If many of the class specific level restrictions are relaxed, though, its a different story.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

If the class level limits are as strict as they are now, then its likely that multiclass characters won't be able to take advantage of their flexibility advantage. If many of the class specific level restrictions are relaxed, though, its a different story.

Exactly. And I think a lot of those pessimistic are looking at today's system and trying to morph our current enhancements/prestiges (restrictions and all) into the new 3 tree system. Under that set of criteria I can see ample opportunity for possible restrictions. But that's not going to be the case.

Thats why when you break PrEs away from class, add granted enhancements, add racial benefits, combine enhancements (some of which you may never of had originally) you change the landscape entirely. And this is only part of the picture. We havent even discussed prestige perks or capstones.

The biggest mistake Turbine made was crazy-gluing PrEs to classes. The restrictions this move made cost many their builds a few years ago.

I hope, and firmly believe they need to relax some of the restrictions currently in place. If they do, then we may be in for a very fun end to 2012.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

removed

[Vormaerin]

OF COURSE we assume there still going to be Levels and APs and Pre-Requisites...first if you don't your a moron...second off all three of those things are CLEARLY shown in the mockup



What is shown is a small number of linked enhancements (example being sneak attack accuracy and sneak attack damage being paired), class level restrictions on the "Free bonus abilities", and....not a lot else.

We don't know what's required for the different rows. Points in tree? Class levels? Character levels?

If it is strict class levels, how is it distributed? Does Ranger 6 get access to 75% of the enhancements? 30% of the enhancements? 10% of the enhancements? Makes a big difference.

Especially since, for all we know, it could be entirely points in tree except for the bonus abilities.

[LucidLTS]

... this will be major inconvenience for those who don’t enjoy having to make a ton of decisions – especially when there are ‘new’ enhancements to digest ...

The difference between an improvement and yet another fiasco here could hinge on descriptions.

The current descriptions in DDO largely suck, and players have to go to the wiki or the forums to figure out what things do. When you start over, the wiki will be out of date and players will have to rely on the description you provide in game.

Invest the time to make all the enhancement descriptions comprehensive and unambiguous, and people will find re-allocating much less frustrating.
*If something stacks or doesn't, say so.
*If something has a proc rate, state the %.
*If something has a save, state the type and DC or state no save.
*If something deals extra damage, state if it gets multiplied on a crit.
*If something has a cool down, state the cool down.
*If something is uses per day, give the count.
*If some opponents are immune (colored bosses, undead) state who is immune.

That should be a template all enhancements must use, like spell descriptions use for components, level, etc.

I'm cautiously optimistic, but the DDO track record over the past half year has me gun shy. Currently the enhancement UI *is* hard to figure out, and I can't tell you how many hours I spend trying to help guildies figure out what they need to take now to have access to something they want later. And I still make mistakes on my own character.

This change has the potential to be very helpful, but it also has the potential to be a train wreck. If you are going to undertake an unasked for major change, take the time to do it right.

It's better to do just this well than to do this and something else, both half arsed.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

The difference between an improvement and yet another fiasco here could hinge on descriptions.

The current descriptions in DDO largely suck, and players have to go to the wiki or the forums to figure out what things do. When you start over, the wiki will be out of date and players will have to rely on the description you provide in game.

Invest the time to make all the enhancement descriptions comprehensive and unambiguous, and people will find re-allocating much less frustrating.
*If something stacks or doesn't, say so.
*If something has a proc rate, state the %.
*If something has a save, state the type and DC or state no save.
*If something deals extra damage, state if it gets multiplied on a crit.
*If something has a cool down, state the cool down.
*If something is uses per day, give the count.
*If some opponents are immune (colored bosses, undead) state who is immune.

That should be a template all enhancements must use, like spell descriptions use for components, level, etc.

I'm cautiously optimistic, but the DDO track record over the past half year has me gun shy. Currently the enhancement UI *is* hard to figure out, and I can't tell you how many hours I spend trying to help guildies figure out what they need to take now to have access to something they want later. And I still make mistakes on my own character.

This change has the potential to be very helpful, but it also has the potential to be a train wreck. If you are going to undertake an unasked for major change, take the time to do it right.

It's better to do just this well than to do this and something else, both half arsed.

+1. Amen.

I was thinking of maybe having a simple description and a little "+" that could open up a small window to explain in further detail for many choices we need to make. Or, maybe the detailed description can open in a separate frame. Either way it should be easy to read and intuitive.

Clear descriptions will definitely go a long way to making this a much smoother process for all.

By the way, I'm with you in the cautiously optimistic camp. They need a big year imho, after some horrid decision making in 2011. 2012 I see as a make or break year for DDO, and maybe Turbine itself. Since I've been enjoying playing this game for over 6 years, I have a vested interest in them succeeding :)

[orakio]

That is the only valid assumption to make...

It's been explained completely already, so it probably won't be helpful to repeat it for you yet again. But anyway, here it is:
In a system with a limit of 3 trees per character, pure class characters can train from 75% of their available trees while multiclass can train from only 42% or 30%. Therefore multiclass characters are relatively weaker with a 3 tree limit than if the limit were from 4 to 10.

"Relatively weaker" = "hurt". A case could be presented that those types of characters were overpowered to begin with and therefore deserve a nerf, but to claim they're not being nerfed at all simply won't work. It's very nearly an inescapable conclusion.

It's been explained already, so it probably won't be helpful to repeat it for you yet again. But anyway, here it is:
In a system with 4 to 10 trees per character, multiclass characters can potentially train 150% more enhancement options than pure class characters who only have access to 3 or 4 trees. Therefore pure characters are relatively weaker with a 4 to 10 tree system."

Understand that the increased tree limit is possible but entirely dependent on how the implement the vertical restrictions within trees for accessing higher end enhancements. Either you get the heavily restricted vertical progression that we see in the current system, or less to no vertical restriction with the same number of horizontal options. Everyone having the same number of trees creates a point of balance that you can work around. Giving more trees just to multiclasses or more than a pure can access creates significantly more opportunity to min-max for the multiclass player a creates an unbalanced situation in which multiclasses are favored.

Both your statement and my statement are possible with the current information and the proposed ideas, that is why you need more information before jumping to conclusions and proposing additional ideas for the system.

[UniqueToo]

The difference between an improvement and yet another fiasco here could hinge on descriptions.

The current descriptions in DDO largely suck, and players have to go to the wiki or the forums to figure out what things do. When you start over, the wiki will be out of date and players will have to rely on the description you provide in game.

Invest the time to make all the enhancement descriptions comprehensive and unambiguous, and people will find re-allocating much less frustrating.
*If something stacks or doesn't, say so.
*If something has a proc rate, state the %.
*If something has a save, state the type and DC or state no save.
*If something deals extra damage, state if it gets multiplied on a crit.
*If something has a cool down, state the cool down.
*If something is uses per day, give the count.
*If some opponents are immune (colored bosses, undead) state who is immune.

That should be a template all enhancements must use, like spell descriptions use for components, level, etc.

I'm cautiously optimistic, but the DDO track record over the past half year has me gun shy. Currently the enhancement UI *is* hard to figure out, and I can't tell you how many hours I spend trying to help guildies figure out what they need to take now to have access to something they want later. And I still make mistakes on my own character.

This change has the potential to be very helpful, but it also has the potential to be a train wreck. If you are going to undertake an unasked for major change, take the time to do it right.

It's better to do just this well than to do this and something else, both half arsed.

/signed

It is also really annoying when you level to 8 for arcane archer and find that Imbue does not work on "all missiles" as the description clearly states (both in-game, and compendium).

Days of my life, plat for tomes, challenge farming for weapons - completely(?) wasted due to dev lazyness! Seriously, if you change the function; change the description! We sort of rely on them...

[EnjoyTheJourney]

The difference between an improvement and yet another fiasco here could hinge on descriptions.

The current descriptions in DDO largely suck, and players have to go to the wiki or the forums to figure out what things do. When you start over, the wiki will be out of date and players will have to rely on the description you provide in game.

Invest the time to make all the enhancement descriptions comprehensive and unambiguous, and people will find re-allocating much less frustrating.
*If something stacks or doesn't, say so.
*If something has a proc rate, state the %.
*If something has a save, state the type and DC or state no save.
*If something deals extra damage, state if it gets multiplied on a crit.
*If something has a cool down, state the cool down.
*If something is uses per day, give the count.
*If some opponents are immune (colored bosses, undead) state who is immune.

That should be a template all enhancements must use, like spell descriptions use for components, level, etc.

I'm cautiously optimistic, but the DDO track record over the past half year has me gun shy. Currently the enhancement UI *is* hard to figure out, and I can't tell you how many hours I spend trying to help guildies figure out what they need to take now to have access to something they want later. And I still make mistakes on my own character.

This change has the potential to be very helpful, but it also has the potential to be a train wreck. If you are going to undertake an unasked for major change, take the time to do it right.

It's better to do just this well than to do this and something else, both half arsed.
I think it's critical to realize that the problems you're listing here are symptoms of other, underlying problems. Unless the underlying problems are fixed, what you're describing here will continue.

I'm wary, frankly, because asking for input like this could very well signal the continued presence in the dev team of exactly the kind of values, habits, and culture that leads to highly ambitious, flexible, over-engineered, gratuitously complicated in-game systems that are buggy and not well explained, and that have a UI that requires quite a bit of patience on the part of players to come to understand, and to use. That has been a repeated pattern, over and over. And, the huge number of posts in this thread could have the perverse effect of leading to an even more complicated end result than if we hadn't been consulted.

It all comes down to self awareness, at this point, on the part of the devs. Will they learn from their previous mistakes, reign in their ambition (which needs to happen early in the project), and produce something simple and reliable? Will we end up with what's being described in the quoted text above, or worse?

[aerendhil]

Half-Elf: Can take any Class PrE associated with their Dilettante


This.
It makes senses and limit (at least a bit) the OPness of the race.

[bigolbear]

A couple more thoughts on "simple and reliable":

1. Above all please make the enhancement system (and the related UI) simple. Simple means that players who aren't hardcore don't need a wiki page or a flowchart or a guide to figure out how to make at least reasonably functional choices; they also won't need a lot of time to make those choices. Simple means also that there would be few (or no) utterly dysfunctional choices that draw in newer players and wreck their builds; that would be a particularly frustrating kind of complication, the feeling of navigating a mine field every time you select enhancements. Simple means there would be no nested "If X, then Y" rules for choosing enhancements and as few nested "If X, then No Y" rules as possible, as well. Hopefully, there will be none.

2. Make it work reliably -- meaning "WYSIWYG" and non-buggy.

The problem is that you have a number of prolific posters (typically who contribute a lot to the community, as well) discussing and arguing across thousands of posts for a flexible, choice-laden, complicated enhancement system so that they can take their finely tuned "Ferrari" characters to new heights of customizability and power, and then take those Ferrari characters out on the nearest racetrack / highway / offroad / pick your track. On the other side are probably the (vast?) majority of players who aren't even following this conversation and who want a simple and reliable system so they can take their Toyota Yaris or their Ford Fiesta out to do a little sightseeing -- and to beat down a few local thugs.

The devs get to take their pick about which group will get the lion's share of what they're hoping to receive. No matter which group gets their wishes fulfilled to a greater extent, though, some characters are almost certainly going to end up getting nerfed. I would go so far as to venture that the simpler the system that comes out of this, the more characters there are that end up getting nerfed; I don't know that, of course, but it seems likely.

It might be prudent to request that every character receive the ability to do a full "respec" after the new enhancement system is put in place. Some builds will end up getting nerfed, and that seems to be a virtual certainty no matter whether it's those looking for complexity and flexibility above other considerations who get their way, or those who want something simple and reliable. Having a respec banked for every character would make it easier for all players to deal with the changes.

I'm hoping for simple and reliable, in case that wasn't clear.


no no no you got it all wrong!

pure classes are more like feraris (rogue), monster trucks (fighters), Medivac helicopter (clerics) and maglev bullet trains (wizards). - at lvl 20 obviously, at lvl 1 its more like pinto(rogue), pickup truck(fighter), jesusarmy soup truck(cleric) and pedestrian (wizard).

Us character builders are taking a chassis from a ford focus(race), the engine from a truck(fighter), the hubs and wheels from a subaru ralleigh car(fvs) and sometimes the neon lights from a nearby glowstick waving nutta.(monk)

What were concerned with is that under the new system we wont be allowed to rebore the engine, balance the wheels, add in the nitro speed boost, and put the flahsy engine management sytem in as they are all enhanced by different trees - and now the garrage says they only work on 3 bits of the car and your not allowed to change anything your self or it invalidates your insurance.

Some of us are looking forward to the 'ford focus - rally model, race prestige tho'.

The average new player will play pure class - pureclass is simple any way, im sure this wont change.
Its more than possible to keep things simple for the new guy and let those that want chalenge their 'engineering' to try and make something that will keep up with a ferrari out of bits lying around the garage, a lot of love and hell of a lot of duct tape.

the enhancemnets and feats are often the duct tape - please dont take our duct tape.

[Failedlegend]

no no no you got it all wrong!

pure classes are more like feraris (rogue), monster trucks (fighters), Medivac helicopter (clerics) and maglev bullet trains (wizards). - at lvl 20 obviously, at lvl 1 its more like pinto(rogue), pickup truck(fighter), jesusarmy soup truck(cleric) and pedestrian (wizard).

Us character builders are taking a chassis from a ford focus(race), the engine from a truck(fighter), the hubs and wheels from a subaru ralleigh car(fvs) and sometimes the neon lights from a nearby glowstick waving nutta.(monk)

What were concerned with is that under the new system we wont be allowed to rebore the engine, balance the wheels, add in the nitro speed boost, and put the flahsy engine management sytem in as they are all enhanced by different trees - and now the garrage says they only work on 3 bits of the car and your not allowed to change anything your self or it invalidates your insurance.

Some of us are looking forward to the 'ford focus - rally model, race prestige tho'.

The average new player will play pure class - pureclass is simple any way, im sure this wont change.
Its more than possible to keep things simple for the new guy and let those that want chalenge their 'engineering' to try and make something that will keep up with a ferrari out of bits lying around the garage, a lot of love and hell of a lot of duct tape.

the enhancemnets and feats are often the duct tape - please dont take our duct tape.

I approve of your metaphor :D

[Meat-Head]

It's been explained already, so it probably won't be helpful to repeat it for you yet again. But anyway, here it is:
In a system with 4 to 10 trees per character, multiclass characters can potentially train 150% more enhancement options than pure class characters who only have access to 3 or 4 trees. Therefore pure characters are relatively weaker with a 4 to 10 tree system."




Am I missing something? The system proposed by devs would limit multis verticle progression based on level in that class. So, how do they get more ENH? Sure they get more OPTIONS (or should), but isn't that part of the point of MCing?

[Chai]

He actually didnt state any reasons how multi-class character building is definitively going to be more restrictive.

Without knowing the enhancements, the access rules to each tree, what stacks, whats granted, the prestige reqs and new math, and the capstones, there's simply no way how to definitively make that conclusion.

This is incorrct, yet it keeps being stated. We are well aware of the information that was presented to us, and we can discern that regardless of what enhancements go into those boxes, it is restrictive to multiclassing, and arbitrarily so.

Now: sacrifice vertical progression for lateral progression by multuiclassing.

New system: multiclass, and sacrifice vertical advancement for (wait for it) nothing - due to the fact that lateral advancement is still restricted by the arbitrary 3 tree rule. There is no gain of lateral advancement as a trade off for sacrificing vertical advancement.

Pure: access to 4 trees all the way up, can only put points into 3.
Multiclass w/ 3 classes. access to 10 trees as high as each level you you built each class (vertical sacrifice) - can STILL only put points into 3 of those trees (no lateral gain).

[sephiroth1084]

This holds true only if there is negligible benefit to getting the best 3 of 9 trees instead of the three that go with your class. This seems unlikely.

It also assumes that a multiclass character will get less benefit from some or all of his trees than a pure character will. This is possible, but not a given.


If character A is a Fighter 20 with Kensai, Purple Dragon Knight, and Stalwart Defender trees and character B is a Fighter12/Ranger6/Rogue 2 with Kensai, Purple Dragon Knight, and Tempest trees, can you be sure that Character B is relatively weaker than Character A? Both can only afford 80 of the 160 APs worth of enhancements available to them.

If the class level limits are as strict as they are now, then its likely that multiclass characters won't be able to take advantage of their flexibility advantage. If many of the class specific level restrictions are relaxed, though, its a different story.
Let's look at a Wizard 18/Rogue 2 instead. If they are set-up for traps, they probably would like to take Rogue Skill Boost I, (maybe Improved Spot, Search and Disable as well). Not a big deal from a power perspective, but rather helpful for the secondary role of trapmonkey. If they do so, with the 3-tree limitation, that tiny splash of AP will completely remove access from all of the enhancements that fall into one of their 3 PrE trees, which may be things like Efficient Metamagic, Energy of the Scholar, or an element line. Picking up Skill Boost doesn't eat into their AP heavily in any way, but it would have a dramatic impact upon the character's flexibility and maybe power as well.

Does that seem reasonable to you? Giving up an entire tree in your main class for 1 AP spent in your splash? The argument so far from that side of the table has been that such a character just won't spend AP in their splash class, because that isn't why they splashed, and the stuff they get there is negligible. My point is that this worked before, and has worked for basically the entire life of DDO, and should remain intact. Will the character be broken because it looses Skill Boost? No, but it will be HURT. For some, that will be enough to feel that they have to reroll or delete their character, and some others will quit the game over something like that.

And you know what? It's a very easy fix. Don't introduce a new limitation on the system when there are already several in place that work.

[kingfisher]

no no no you got it all wrong!

pure classes are more like feraris (rogue), monster trucks (fighters), Medivac helicopter (clerics) and maglev bullet trains (wizards). - at lvl 20 obviously, at lvl 1 its more like pinto(rogue), pickup truck(fighter), jesusarmy soup truck(cleric) and pedestrian (wizard).

Us character builders are taking a chassis from a ford focus(race), the engine from a truck(fighter), the hubs and wheels from a subaru ralleigh car(fvs) and sometimes the neon lights from a nearby glowstick waving nutta.(monk)

What were concerned with is that under the new system we wont be allowed to rebore the engine, balance the wheels, add in the nitro speed boost, and put the flahsy engine management sytem in as they are all enhanced by different trees - and now the garrage says they only work on 3 bits of the car and your not allowed to change anything your self or it invalidates your insurance.

Some of us are looking forward to the 'ford focus - rally model, race prestige tho'.

The average new player will play pure class - pureclass is simple any way, im sure this wont change.
Its more than possible to keep things simple for the new guy and let those that want chalenge their 'engineering' to try and make something that will keep up with a ferrari out of bits lying around the garage, a lot of love and hell of a lot of duct tape.

the enhancemnets and feats are often the duct tape - please dont take our duct tape.

SAVE THE DUCT TAPE! I dig it bigs

[Chai]

Let's look at a Wizard 18/Rogue 2 instead. If they are set-up for traps, they probably would like to take Rogue Skill Boost I, (maybe Improved Spot, Search and Disable as well). Not a big deal from a power perspective, but rather helpful for the secondary role of trapmonkey. If they do so, with the 3-tree limitation, that tiny splash of AP will completely remove access from all of the enhancements that fall into one of their 3 PrE trees, which may be things like Efficient Metamagic, Energy of the Scholar, or an element line. Picking up Skill Boost doesn't eat into their AP heavily in any way, but it would have a dramatic impact upon the character's flexibility and maybe power as well.

Does that seem reasonable to you? Giving up an entire tree in your main class for 1 AP spent in your splash? The argument so far from that side of the table has been that such a character just won't spend AP in their splash class, because that isn't why they splashed, and the stuff they get there is negligible. My point is that this worked before, and has worked for basically the entire life of DDO, and should remain intact. Will the character be broken because it looses Skill Boost? No, but it will be HURT. For some, that will be enough to feel that they have to reroll or delete their character, and some others will quit the game over something like that.

And you know what? It's a very easy fix. Don't introduce a new limitation on the system when there are already several in place that work.

This is a pretty good outline as to why this new limitation is unreasonable.

I outlined something similar using bard with a 2 level splash of fighter. If I want damage song enhancements (warchanter tree) and extra song (virtuoso tree) and song magic 1-4 (spellsinger tree) - Now I cant take fighter haste boost 1, fighter toughness 1, or fighter str 1.

I can take all that stuff now, but I cannot take it in the new system, due to another layer of limitations that will exist in the new system which does not currently exist.

Even if we can build more powerful toons in the new system due to the enhancements being more powerful, we cannot build a higher variety of toons. If people think we are in cookie cutter land now, wait til this comes out and restricts huge amounts of possible selections simply because choices were already made in 3 trees.

Arbitrary limitation is arbitrary. Let the players decide what benefits their build, not the system.

[orakio]

Am I missing something? The system proposed by devs would limit multis verticle progression based on level in that class. So, how do they get more ENH? Sure they get more OPTIONS (or should), but isn't that part of the point of MCing?

One message from a dev indicated that a 2 level splash would have access to the first 2 tiers of the tree, which amounts to significantly more than they had access to before, and other people have suggested no class just char level restrictions on enhancement trees. In both cases the vertical options of multiclass chars has almost certainly increased.

More than anything that post was just calling out how lack of hard information leads to uninformed or potentially false statements like the one i had quoted.

[Aashrym]

A 20 Half-orc fighter and take Ravager 3 its not limited to Multiclasses

That's correct.

But there is no incentive to for that half orc to make a pure fighter if he's taking Ravager 3 unless he wants a fighter capstone to go with that ravager III and that means he'll have no points left to spend in the race tree or 3rd PrE tree because he's already spent 71 points to hit the fighter PrE capstone (likely Kensei I suspect) and ravager III, plus the racial PrE unlock costs. That means giving up that 3rd tree and the horc race tree enhancements. If the horc enhancements are similar to what they are now that is a lot to to give up to get that 1 fighter capstone to go with ravager III

There is plenty of incentive for him to taking at least 2 levels in another class and a lot of opportunity for him to take more because Kensei III and Ravager III leaves him 20 points for other trees and he gains the benefits from the splash. Like a bit of sneak damage. It's more likely that Kensei II or II.5 (at 25 AP spend) will give him plenty of benefits to take more sneak attack damage. More like Fighter 12 / Rogue 8 Ravager III Kensei II Assassin I for 60 AP more damage from the assassin PrE and rogue levels than a few more tiers of Kensei bring.

The enhancements themselves may or may not be worth it on the assassin I vs another tier of kensei but the sneak attack has some value, evasion could if reflex is high enough.

Those last few levels of fighter don't bring much regardless compared to multiclassing. Like I said, there is not much reason to go pure on a fighter and many reasons to multiclass under the proposed changes.

[Chai]

no no no you got it all wrong!

pure classes are more like feraris (rogue), monster trucks (fighters), Medivac helicopter (clerics) and maglev bullet trains (wizards). - at lvl 20 obviously, at lvl 1 its more like pinto(rogue), pickup truck(fighter), jesusarmy soup truck(cleric) and pedestrian (wizard).

Us character builders are taking a chassis from a ford focus(race), the engine from a truck(fighter), the hubs and wheels from a subaru ralleigh car(fvs) and sometimes the neon lights from a nearby glowstick waving nutta.(monk)

What were concerned with is that under the new system we wont be allowed to rebore the engine, balance the wheels, add in the nitro speed boost, and put the flahsy engine management sytem in as they are all enhanced by different trees - and now the garrage says they only work on 3 bits of the car and your not allowed to change anything your self or it invalidates your insurance.

Some of us are looking forward to the 'ford focus - rally model, race prestige tho'.

The average new player will play pure class - pureclass is simple any way, im sure this wont change.
Its more than possible to keep things simple for the new guy and let those that want chalenge their 'engineering' to try and make something that will keep up with a ferrari out of bits lying around the garage, a lot of love and hell of a lot of duct tape.

the enhancemnets and feats are often the duct tape - please dont take our duct tape.

Yes!!! Sheminanaya, shouldaboughtahonda!!! Yes!!!


a lot of love and hell of a lot of duct tape.

Wisconsin approved. We even got some crates of duct tape on order to patch up the Packers Defense after that last playoff game. I want to see the look on Dom Capers' face when the truck pulls up to drop that off, heh.

http://www.clker.com/cliparts/7/0/2/7/1195423550187356949molumen_red_approved_stamp.svg. med.png

[CanuckWisdom]

I stopped reading every post in this thread a long way back, so I may be way off base here.. but...

A) (I dont think this is the case but Ill say it) Being able to take prestige lines outside of your race or class would be stupid.

and more relevant

B) Why would you do anything to enhancements to add more limitations through a tree system? Enhancement AP costs need to be reviewed, some useless ones need to removed or made useful. PrE's need to be finished. What we don't need is something that will completely alter builds or limit choices (through tree's you need climb).

The only 'trees' in the current system are some pre-reqs and extra smite 2 requires extra smite 1 type trees. This should continue.

The last thing I want is my character to desire to be prestige line A, but also want ONE ability that is now associated with prestige line B (but previously was independent in terms of AP cost) and have to spend points climbing line B tree to get an ability that the Dev's decided was associated with PrE B (otherwise undesired) and not A (my characters desired path).

If the tree's are only intended to be a means of organization and not pre-reqs, then thats awesome.

[Angelus_dead]

But there is no incentive to for that half orc to make a pure fighter if he's taking Ravager 3 unless he wants a fighter capstone
Have you seen the Fighter capstone? It is good.


If the horc enhancements are similar to what they are now that is a lot to to give up to get that 1 fighter capstone to go with ravager III
Incorrect: If the horc enhancements are similar to what they are now that means spending points on Kensei would be far far better. That's even true if you weren't able to get all the way up to kensei capstone.

[Aashrym]

That is the only valid assumption to make...

It's been explained completely already, so it probably won't be helpful to repeat it for you yet again. But anyway, here it is:
In a system with a limit of 3 trees per character, pure class characters can train from 75% of their available trees while multiclass can train from only 42% or 30%. Therefore multiclass characters are relatively weaker with a 3 tree limit than if the limit were from 4 to 10.

"Relatively weaker" = "hurt". A case could be presented that those types of characters were overpowered to begin with and therefore deserve a nerf, but to claim they're not being nerfed at all simply won't work. It's very nearly an inescapable conclusion.

Horse pucky.

Number of options is not relative to the strength of each of those options. Not having the options to take a lower tier enhancement does not make that higher tier enhancement the player is left with a weaker choice. The fact is multiclasses have a lot of choices under the new system compared to the old system. More available choices than the old system because each tree has almost as many choices than the entire class did on the old system.

Your pure class cannot train from 75% of the available enhancements because that would take at least 123 AP realizing that each of 4 trees (quit pretending players won't want to spend AP on the race tree - they will) just realizing that each tree has a minimum of 41 AP to spend and likely more. That mock up also looks 2 dimensional but it's actually 3 dimensional; those enhancements on the trees can be selected multiple times so if a person tried to spend 75 AP to unlock the top tiers in each tree he or she would not have all of the enhancements in each row taken, let alone taken multiple times to develop them, and they would all be weaker.

Number of choices has nothing at all to do with the strength of each individual choice.

You also cannot nerf something that never existed. The proposed system was 3 class trees per character. Requesting more trees for multiclassed characters might potentially be a buff for them if they provide some munchkin / min-max unintentionally but the fact they were not in the proposal means the fact if the proposed system went through as is they would still not be in the proposed new system. That would not be a nerf in the new system at all.

If you want to compare it to the old system you still have no nerf. 30% of 150 enhancements is more than 42% of 50 enhancements. We are looking at almost as many options per tree than we currently have per class and those percentages would be of completely different things comparing old new to old. That is still more choices and still not a nerf.

Besides that, the most common threads on these boards are requests to fix 'x' class because it needs improvements and frequent requests to complete the PrE's because they have taken so long to get this far.

MF stated that the new system makes adding PrE's easier and this change provides the opportunity to work on those individual classes at the same time for some improvements to existing classes. If the new system makes that easier I'm all for waiting 6 months for a full list of PrE's over waiting another 3-5 years to complete them and rework the existing ones. That time frame is significantly better for the game in my opinion.

[Chai]

Horse pucky.

Number of options is not relative to the strength of each of those options. Not having the options to take a lower tier enhancement does not make that higher tier enhancement the player is left with a weaker choice. The fact is multiclasses have a lot of choices under the new system compared to the old system. More available choices than the old system because each tree has almost as many choices than the entire class did on the old system.

Number of options is relative to the strength of any game using the name D&D.



Number of choices has nothing at all to do with the strength of each individual choice..

The conversation regarding the 3 tree restriction being more limiting than the current system has NOTHING to do with strength of each option. You keep trying to to justify further limitations to multiclassing by saying we will likely be able to build equally powerful toons under the new system. This is not even what the statement is about.

If you think we are in cookie cutter land now with the current build restrictions, wait til this new limitation is put into the system.


You also cannot nerf something that never existed. The proposed system was 3 class trees per character. Requesting more trees for multiclassed characters might potentially be a buff for them if they provide some munchkin / min-max unintentionally but the fact they were not in the proposal means the fact if the proposed system went through as is they would still not be in the proposed new system. That would not be a nerf in the new system at all.

If you want to compare it to the old system you still have no nerf. 30% of 150 enhancements is more than 42% of 50 enhancements. We are looking at almost as many options per tree than we currently have per class and those percentages would be of completely different things comparing old new to old. That is still more choices and still not a nerf. ..

Sorry, but this is a nerf to multiclassing in general. Many do not feel it is justified by saying "just go pure then because your pure toon will still be more powerful than what you had previously." We also dont agree withthe justification that Turbine already changed the system twice and destroyed alot of builds during those eras, so its cool if they do it again.

There are quite a few MMOs on the market that box you in to having to limit youself to X number of trees. Alot of us play this because its based on D&D, and not those other MMOs. We play DDO literally BECAUSE OF the number of options abailable, and NOT due to the strength of those options. We master the system so we know which options can be combined to create a strong character for a specific role we wish that toon to play. Being boxed in to three trees will limit this.



MF stated that the new system makes adding PrE's easier and this change provides the opportunity to work on those individual classes at the same time for some improvements to existing classes. If the new system makes that easier I'm all for waiting 6 months for a full list of PrE's over waiting another 3-5 years to complete them and rework the existing ones. That time frame is significantly better for the game in my opinion.

You think it takes less time to revamp the entire system than it does to finish one that was 3/4 done already?

[Aashrym]

This is incorrct, yet it keeps being stated. We are well aware of the information that was presented to us, and we can discern that regardless of what enhancements go into those boxes, it is restrictive to multiclassing, and arbitrarily so.

Now: sacrifice vertical progression for lateral progression by multuiclassing.

New system: multiclass, and sacrifice vertical advancement for (wait for it) nothing - due to the fact that lateral advancement is still restricted by the arbitrary 3 tree rule. There is no gain of lateral advancement as a trade off for sacrificing vertical advancement.

Pure: access to 4 trees all the way up, can only put points into 3.
Multiclass w/ 3 classes. access to 10 trees as high as each level you you built each class (vertical sacrifice) - can STILL only put points into 3 of those trees (no lateral gain).

I can demonstrate a pure class cannot access more than 2 trees all the way up. And a multiclass can access 2 trees all the way up.

You have not refuted that yet. Are you not able to do so?

[Aashrym]

Let's look at a Wizard 18/Rogue 2 instead. If they are set-up for traps, they probably would like to take Rogue Skill Boost I, (maybe Improved Spot, Search and Disable as well). Not a big deal from a power perspective, but rather helpful for the secondary role of trapmonkey. If they do so, with the 3-tree limitation, that tiny splash of AP will completely remove access from all of the enhancements that fall into one of their 3 PrE trees, which may be things like Efficient Metamagic, Energy of the Scholar, or an element line. Picking up Skill Boost doesn't eat into their AP heavily in any way, but it would have a dramatic impact upon the character's flexibility and maybe power as well.

Does that seem reasonable to you? Giving up an entire tree in your main class for 1 AP spent in your splash? The argument so far from that side of the table has been that such a character just won't spend AP in their splash class, because that isn't why they splashed, and the stuff they get there is negligible. My point is that this worked before, and has worked for basically the entire life of DDO, and should remain intact. Will the character be broken because it looses Skill Boost? No, but it will be HURT. For some, that will be enough to feel that they have to reroll or delete their character, and some others will quit the game over something like that.

And you know what? It's a very easy fix. Don't introduce a new limitation on the system when there are already several in place that work.

Why would that wizard need access to wild mage if he's focusing in Pale master? If he can unlock a capstone with a race (which is not determined yet for a wizard) or does not needs a capstone why wouldn't he remove one of the wizard trees for a rogue tree to get trap skills. He is most certainly going to take advantage of evasion and he wouldn't be paying for the enhancements up in 3 wizard trees regardless because the AP do not exist to do that.

If there is something in that 3rd tree he wants he won't be able to get it anyway if it's up a couple tiers and still get his higher enhancements in the other trees so giving up the tree would not cost him something he can't get in the first place.

What is his incentive not to multiclass?

[gloopygloop]

I can demonstrate a pure class cannot access more than 2 trees all the way up. And a multiclass can access 2 trees all the way up.

You have not refuted that yet. Are you not able to do so?

The pure classes have access to 4 trees all the way up. That does not mean that they have the available points to go all the way up those trees at the same time, but they have full access to those trees.

[Chai]

I can demonstrate a pure class cannot access more than 2 trees all the way up. And a multiclass can access 2 trees all the way up.

You have not refuted that yet. Are you not able to do so?

A pure class can access 2 trees all the way up. You have demonstrated how they can CHOOSE not to, not how they cant do so.

Multiclassing is all about the trade off, with this arbitrary limitation in place, there is no lateral gain for the sacrifice made to vertical advancement.

[orakio]

The pure classes have access to 4 trees all the way up. That does not mean that they have the available points to go all the way up those trees at the same time, but they have full access to those trees.

Yes but the only known class level restriction in the new system is "a 1 or 2 level multi probably couldnt go past the second tier of enhancements" in a 4-5 tier tree...we have no idea how deep of an investment a 12 or 15 level class could make

[Aashrym]

Have you seen the Fighter capstone? It is good.


Incorrect: If the horc enhancements are similar to what they are now that means spending points on Kensei would be far far better. That's even true if you weren't able to get all the way up to kensei capstone.

There is no fighter capstone. Those are getting moved to PrE's. That's why the PrE race unlocks are what dictate multiclassing capstones. The fighter capstone might move to kensei but if a human can unlock that with a race unlcok then there is still no point in going to a level 20 fighter. If a person wants the stawart capstone instead, there would be no point as well.

That same horc could multi barbarian, fighter, rogue and take a ravager capstone. You cannot state that the ravager capstone would not be as good as the kensei capstone at this point but he can take the ravager capstone and supplement it with kensai and assassin and horc enhancements. A pure class has limited options on how to supplement his main tree and if capstones do not draw players out of multiclassing now access to capstones while multiclassing means capstones are less likely to draw them out of multiclassing.

[gloopygloop]

Why would that wizard need access to wild mage if he's focusing in Pale master?\

It very much depends on what enhancements end up in the Wild Mage tree. If all of the metamagic cost reductions are in the Wild Mage tree and all of the Spell Penetration boosts are in the Archmage tree, then a Pale Master is ABSOLUTELY going to want to dive into both of those other PrE trees and have no tree left to throw a few AP into the Rogue tree to help his trap-related abilities.

[sephiroth1084]

Why would that wizard need access to wild mage if he's focusing in Pale master? If he can unlock a capstone with a race (which is not determined yet for a wizard) or does not needs a capstone why wouldn't he remove one of the wizard trees for a rogue tree to get trap skills. He is most certainly going to take advantage of evasion and he wouldn't be paying for the enhancements up in 3 wizard trees regardless because the AP do not exist to do that.
Because the little information we have indicates that all enhancements will be tied up in the PrE trees for a class, which means that essential wizard AP may be in the Wildmage tree. But if you don't like that explanation, go look at Chai's bard explanation, where picking up 2 or 3 enhancements in a fighter tree (and very likely in 2 different fighter trees) would lock out essential enhancements from one of the bard PrE's trees.


If there is something in that 3rd tree he wants he won't be able to get it anyway if it's up a couple tiers and still get his higher enhancements in the other trees so giving up the tree would not cost him something he can't get in the first place. We're not talking about losing access to high level enhancements in one of your class trees, we're talking about losing all enhancements in one of your class trees for a small gain, usually versatility over power, in a multiclassed tree. I really don't understand why this is so hard to comprehend.


What is his incentive not to multiclass?
Access to higher level enhancements, like capstones and class abilities, the same incentives we have now to not multiclass.

There is no fighter capstone. Those are getting moved to PrE's. Which will be the same effect probably...requires 20 [class] to access, since the PrE tiers have class level requirements as well.

[sephiroth1084]

It very much depends on what enhancements end up in the Wild Mage tree. If all of the metamagic cost reductions are in the Wild Mage tree and all of the Spell Penetration boosts are in the Archmage tree, then a Pale Master is ABSOLUTELY going to want to dive into both of those other PrE trees and have no tree left to throw a few AP into the Rogue tree to help his trap-related abilities.
This. Thanks.

[Chai]

Why would that wizard need access to wild mage if he's focusing in Pale master? If he can unlock a capstone with a race (which is not determined yet for a wizard) or does not needs a capstone why wouldn't he remove one of the wizard trees for a rogue tree to get trap skills. He is most certainly going to take advantage of evasion and he wouldn't be paying for the enhancements up in 3 wizard trees regardless because the AP do not exist to do that.

If there is something in that 3rd tree he wants he won't be able to get it anyway if it's up a couple tiers and still get his higher enhancements in the other trees so giving up the tree would not cost him something he can't get in the first place.

What is his incentive not to multiclass?

His incentive to not multiclass is there are no more trees to take AP in anyhow.

If there is a wild mage enhancement line he wants, a PM line he wants, and a racial line he wants - the benefits to multiclassing just got alot narrower. The fact that they can not go up all three lines is not relevant. If someone wants one or two things from WM, one or two things from AM, and use most points in PM, they are locked out of racial and any multiclassing options they could have chosen, ARBITRARILY.

Let the players, and not the system, decide which benefits are good for their build. Theres already a limit on the number of points we can spend and cutoff points on how many need to be spent to unlock stuff. No other arbitrary limitation is necessary.

[Aashrym]

Number of options is relative to the strength of any game using the name D&D.

False logic. The ability to choose from 6 options that are +1 to an individual attribute would not make have 6 choices better than having 1 choice that is +2 to all attributes just because there are 6 to choose from instead of 1. The number of choices is irrelevant to the strength of each. The hope that comes from requesting more options is in the synergy in those options to make the overall character superior. This is wishful thinking at this point because no one knows what those actual options are.

The conversation regarding the 3 tree restriction being more limiting than the current system has NOTHING to do with strength of each option. You keep trying to to justify further limitations to multiclassing by saying we will likely be able to build equally powerful toons under the new system. This is not even what the statement is about.

The statement is about the number of options available to the character. 30% of 150 options would still be more options for the character than 42% of 50 options would be. This is in no way more limiting than the current system. Adding more trees is a request to get more options from the proposed system into the proposed system for no purpose than to have more options. That might not be bad but it is in no way a nerf and not necessarily needed at all.

If you think we are in cookie cutter land now with the current build restrictions, wait til this new limitation is put into the system.

I have every intention of waiting to see what it looks like in practice. It doesn't matter what system is in place because players will still come up with whatever builds seem to be optimal in that system. Having a different set of options won't change that and doesn't mean the new system will be worse.

Sorry, but this is a nerf to multiclassing in general. Many do not feel it is justified by saying "just go pure then because your pure toon will still be more powerful than what you had previously." We also dont agree withthe justification that Turbine already changed the system twice and destroyed alot of builds during those eras, so its cool if they do it again.

You keep saying that but you do not demonstrate it. There are plenty of options in the proposed system. Going from less total options to more total options is still more options and there appear to be more options per tree with the definite ability to take advantage of which tree suits your needs best. Like I said, the number of options is independent of the value of each of those options. A multiclass does have the potential for everyone of those options still until he or she chooses to lock out the other ones by making the best choices already. It's completely illogical to assume a player would have lost better options than he or she chose.

There are quite a few MMOs on the market that box you in to having to limit youself to X number of trees. Alot of us play this because its based on D&D, and not those other MMOs. We play DDO literally BECAUSE OF the number of options abailable, and NOT due to the strength of those options. We master the system so we know which options can be combined to create a strong character for a specific role we wish that toon to play. Being boxed in to three trees will limit this.

Total number of options still looks like more. Your are just asking for more than more.


You think it takes less time to revamp the entire system than it does to finish one that was 3/4 done already?


Some of you might dismiss this as ‘fixing something that isn’t broken’ and that’s fine – it’s totally subjective – but, hey, I’m giving you a heads up just the same.

We hate the Enhancement UI. It’s been 4 years and I still cringe every time I see it, let alone use it. It does a poor job of letting players plan out character goals and you need the patience of a saint to use it. I could go on and on, but I won’t (feel free to use this thread to vent your frustrations with it if you share our opinion).

We’re re-doing it – replacing it with a tree-based design that should make character planning and advancement much better and also have the added benefit of making it easier for us to implement new enhancements (PrE’s anyone?).

It will also be the foundation for some future work.

It does mean that when this goes live, all of you will have your enhancements reset and you will have to re-spend your action points. Some enhancements will remain the same, but many will be new. The changed enhancements will also help balance out many classes (think augmentation here, not nerfs). I appreciate that forced change can be very stressful and realize that this will be major inconvenience for those who don’t enjoy having to make a ton of decisions – especially when there are ‘new’ enhancements to digest, but have no doubt it will be worth it in the end.

Read the dev posts again. That's what they think. It took over 3 years to get to where we are now so it's rather obvious it's not a quick process on this system. A full set of trees does revamp it and complete it at the same time.

MF flat out told us this would be easier for them. I'll believe him and you can argue that with him if you like. ;)

In the meantime, it still looks like a good change to me. I'll reconsider after I see what the actual enhancements are.

[Aashrym]

The pure classes have access to 4 trees all the way up. That does not mean that they have the available points to go all the way up those trees at the same time, but they have full access to those trees.

Not having the points is not having the access. An inaccessible option is still an inaccessible options and it's even done in a similar manner. Pure class chooses which trees to develop and locks out the options in the others. Multiclass chooses which trees to develop and locks out the others but with more choices on which trees to develop.

[Aashrym]

A pure class can access 2 trees all the way up. You have demonstrated how they can CHOOSE not to, not how they cant do so.

Multiclassing is all about the trade off, with this arbitrary limitation in place, there is no lateral gain for the sacrifice made to vertical advancement.

A multiclass can still choose to access 2 trees all the way up. The fact that they can choose not to is still similar and not indicative of any great disadvantage over making a pure class character.

[Aashrym]

Yes but the only known class level restriction in the new system is "a 1 or 2 level multi probably couldnt go past the second tier of enhancements" in a 4-5 tier tree...we have no idea how deep of an investment a 12 or 15 level class could make

I have no doubt there will be other class level restrictions. I don't know what they are but they will be there and they can prevent developing that tree like others have said.

What doesn't make sense is why a person would make their split at a point where he or should would remove the options in the tree he or she wanted instead of making the split in such a way as to get the enhancements he or she wanted.

It makes sense that the builders would build around what they can do and not what they cannot, which is why I expect the points available to be the real restriction and not the class level limits in a couple of trees. ;)

[gloopygloop]

Not having the points is not having the access. An inaccessible option is still an inaccessible options and it's even done in a similar manner. Pure class chooses which trees to develop and locks out the options in the others. Multiclass chooses which trees to develop and locks out the others but with more choices on which trees to develop.

If I have $20, I can't go see every movie in the theater, but I can still go see *any* movie in the theater.

Currently, multiclass doesn't have to choose which trees to develop, because they can throw a few points into any of their classes and still get all of the "base" enhancements for their main class.

The developers have said that the "base" enhancements are going to be spread across all three PrEs for each class, so if you want those "base" generic enhancements for your primary class, then you're not going to be able to spend ANY points at all in your splashed class. OR if you want to spend ANY points at all in your splashed class, then you're going to miss out on some important class enhancements in your primary class.

This is all from things that the developers have explicitly said in this thread.

[gloopygloop]

What doesn't make sense is why a person would make their split at a point where he or should would remove the options in the tree he or she wanted instead of making the split in such a way as to get the enhancements he or she wanted.

When the enhancements that you want in your main class are spread across all three PrEs in your main class, then ANY split that you make is going to either lock you out of those enhancements OR entirely lock you out of the splashed class's enhancements simply because of the limit of three PrE trees.

[Chai]

A multiclass can still choose to access 2 trees all the way up. The fact that they can choose not to is still similar and not indicative of any great disadvantage over making a pure class character.

Multiclass is CHOOSING to have access to more trees, but what it isnt doing is CHOOSING not to be able to access more than three.

The three class tree limitation is an arbitrary limitation. Period. It limits lateral progression, which is what multiclassing is SUPPOSED TO gain.

[Jandric]

Some of you might dismiss this as ‘fixing something that isn’t broken’ and that’s fine – it’s totally subjective – but, hey, I’m giving you a heads up just the same.

We hate the Enhancement UI. It’s been 4 years and I still cringe every time I see it, let alone use it. It does a poor job of letting players plan out character goals and you need the patience of a saint to use it. I could go on and on, but I won’t (feel free to use this thread to vent your frustrations with it if you share our opinion).

We’re re-doing it – replacing it with a tree-based design that should make character planning and advancement much better and also have the added benefit of making it easier for us to implement new enhancements (PrE’s anyone?).

It will also be the foundation for some future work.

It does mean that when this goes live, all of you will have your enhancements reset and you will have to re-spend your action points. Some enhancements will remain the same, but many will be new. The changed enhancements will also help balance out many classes (think augmentation here, not nerfs). I appreciate that forced change can be very stressful and realize that this will be major inconvenience for those who don’t enjoy having to make a ton of decisions – especially when there are ‘new’ enhancements to digest, but have no doubt it will be worth it in the end.

I hope that many of you will welcome this sort of change, but either way, feel free to share your thoughts and concerns. Again, I invite PMs for those who prefer to voice their opinions that way.

EDIT: See a mockup/explanation on page 29 of this thread: http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p=4250712&postcount=578

If the presentation is similar to the D&D 3.5 Players Handbook, I would be all for it. Please look into balancing the racial enhancements as well, though. Races like Drow, in particular, are notorious for having almost no useful enhancements whatsoever.

[Aashrym]

It very much depends on what enhancements end up in the Wild Mage tree. If all of the metamagic cost reductions are in the Wild Mage tree and all of the Spell Penetration boosts are in the Archmage tree, then a Pale Master is ABSOLUTELY going to want to dive into both of those other PrE trees and have no tree left to throw a few AP into the Rogue tree to help his trap-related abilities.

It does. And he still cannot have them all. So he chooses which trees will do him the most good. And he still has more options in which trees do him more good as a multiclass than as a pure class that way and he still has the class feature benefits from other classes in a multiclass.

If those enhancements above are in each of those trees then he's SOL whether he is pure or multiclassed because he cannot develop all those trees regardless. That pure class would need to make hard choices to get the most benefits and not having all the enhancements available either way is not a negative impact to a multiclass over a pure class.

Allowing for adding more trees would not allow for gaining those enhancements regardless. The fact that it is in the tree does not allow full access to the enhancements in it. We would need to remove the AP cost per tier unlock requirement in each tree for that access to be a possibility.

All your example does is demonstrate how the new system can also mess up pure classes because a pure class could lose enhancements separated in other trees.

I still see no reason not to splash for evasion if I cannot have all the enhancements I want from each tree with or without the splash.

[gloopygloop]

It does. And he still cannot have them all. So he chooses which trees will do him the most good. And he still has more options in which trees do him more good as a multiclass than as a pure class that way and he still has the class feature benefits from other classes in a multiclass.

And he has fewer options than he has today.

Do you understand why someone might see that as a problem?

Adding the option for more trees would at least allow multiclass characters to throw a couple of enhancement points into their splashed class and I can't see any game balance reason to disallow it. Why would allowing 5 trees instead of 3 cause problems for the game? You're still limited by the number of AP that you have available to spend (as you have so frequently pointed out).

[sephiroth1084]

Keep in mind that 3 trees hurts pure-classed characters that want their racial PrE as well.

Let's take a look at a better example:

I see plenty of Warchanter Bard 16/Fighter 2/Rogue 2 around in the game currently. Looking at the enhancements we see:



Bard Song Magic (Spellsinger) - because he still wants to be able to use Cure spells effectively
Bard Lingering Song (Virtuoso) - because he still wants his songs to last through the fight
Bard Inspired Damage (Warchanter) - because he's a Warchanter
Fighter Toughness I (Stalwart Defender) - because HP is important
Fighter Strength I (Kensei) - to even out his Str, because he melees
Fighter Haste Boost I (???) - again, it adds a little boost to his otherwise poor melee ability
Rogue Skill Boost I (Mechanic) - to enhance his trapmonkey ability
Rogue Improved Spot, Disable and Search (Mechanic) - ditto
Rogue Dex I (Acrobat) - to round off his Dex for making Reflex saves in traps
Rogue Faster Sneaking I (Assassin) - because he enjoys stealthy gameplay
Rogue Sneak Attack Accuracy and Training I (Assassin) - again to enhance melee

Probably can't fit all of that in, but current characters can probably pick up some of the secondary and tertiary stuff, because they are cheap: 10 AP for all of those small added abilities is probably worthwhile. With the 3 tree limitation, such a bard wouldn't be able to take any of the non-bard stuff without significantly reducing their main abilities of singing, and off-focus of healing, and absolutely wouldn't be able to pick up more than one PrE's worth of options from either of their splashes without totally gimping their character.


Most of that isn't really a raw increase in power, but it is a boost in versatility. Should such characters be forced out of those options? If so, what is the justification in doing so?

And if you want an incentive to stay pure, Warchanters will be getting their third tier and likely a more useful capstone than they had before, neither of which will be available to this character, because he won't meet the minimum class level prerequisites, and he will be missing 2 level 6 spell slots, and 1 spell slot from each of his other levels.

Sure, some bards with this sort of split will LR or TR to gain access to the new options bards will be getting at level 17-20, but plenty will be attached to their varied playstyle here, being able to back-up heal in tough quests, maybe main heal in easier ones, melee, and hit traps while fulfilling their primary bard role of buffing. Should they be forced to abandon their character?

[boomer70]

It does. And he still cannot have them all. So he chooses which trees will do him the most good. And he still has more options in which trees do him more good as a multiclass than as a pure class that way and he still has the class feature benefits from other classes in a multiclass.

If those enhancements above are in each of those trees then he's SOL whether he is pure or multiclassed because he cannot develop all those trees regardless. That pure class would need to make hard choices to get the most benefits and not having all the enhancements available either way is not a negative impact to a multiclass over a pure class.

Allowing for adding more trees would not allow for gaining those enhancements regardless. The fact that it is in the tree does not allow full access to the enhancements in it. We would need to remove the AP cost per tier unlock requirement in each tree for that access to be a possibility.

All your example does is demonstrate how the new system can also mess up pure classes because a pure class could lose enhancements separated in other trees.

I still see no reason not to splash for evasion if I cannot have all the enhancements I want from each tree with or without the splash.

I guess what I don't understand here is why you seem to feel that enhancements are not part of the class features. The only way to get access to certain enhancements is by having levels in that class which sort of by definition makes them class features doesn't it?

I don't see you arguing that classes are good enough as it is that you would build characters without using any of the AP you have on enhancements because hey I have the class features that should be good enough for me.

Effectively what you are arguing is sure you can multiclass with rogue but first you can pick one class feature you get to use for every class feature you give up in your "pure" class. So if you want to take a 2 level rogue splash you can get +1d6 sneak attack OR evasion OR trapping as long as you give up say smite evil or divine grace. That would be a pretty big disincentive to multiclassing to me and is exactly what limiting trees is doing.

[Aashrym]

Because the little information we have indicates that all enhancements will be tied up in the PrE trees for a class, which means that essential wizard AP may be in the Wildmage tree. But if you don't like that explanation, go look at Chai's bard explanation, where picking up 2 or 3 enhancements in a fighter tree (and very likely in 2 different fighter trees) would lock out essential enhancements from one of the bard PrE's trees.
We're not talking about losing access to high level enhancements in one of your class trees, we're talking about losing all enhancements in one of your class trees for a small gain, usually versatility over power, in a multiclassed tree. I really don't understand why this is so hard to comprehend.

Access to higher level enhancements, like capstones and class abilities, the same incentives we have now to not multiclass.
Which will be the same effect probably...requires 20 [class] to access, since the PrE tiers have class level requirements as well.

With access to capstones without needing to go pure that provides less incentive to not multiclass. That still depends on what all of the racial unlocks can open up but that still leaves us with several build options that provide for a capstone without multiclassing.

And again, multiclasses have access to higher level enhancements. The more racial PrE unlocks that are available the more options they are going to have.

NO ONE HAS HIGH LEVEL ENHANCEMENTS IN ALL OF THEIR TREES.

In case anyone missed the bolded fact, developing one full tree just locked out developing enhancements in other trees because of the per tree AP unlock requirements. ;)

It's actually very easy to comprehend. I face the same issue with a pure class bard. If that capstone goes to spellsinger and those IC enhancements are only found in war chanter and the song durations with MotD and MoTM are only found in virtuoso that pure class bard cannot access them either. All of them become inaccessible at the same time.

How many CC virts out there are going to want to give up +3 DC's on their enchantment spells? How many pure war chanters are going to want to either give up wand and scroll or lingering song and mtod/motm? How many CC spellsingers are going to want to give up either their IC lines for the group or their motd/motm & lingering song; or give up 3 DC's on their enchantment spells so they can get a bit better at IC? How many melee spellsingers will want to give up IC enhancements or motd/motm & lingering song & maybe wand and scroll?

None of that has anything to do with being a multiclassed character or not. That tree limitation could hit destroy a lot of pure classed builds. In all cases the player is going to choose the best selections he can for his character and at least multiclassing offers more choices, a lot more choices, of which tree and hopefully for better results.

I'm not sure why players would think those lower level enhancements on a multiclass that get locked out would have more impact than the higher level enhancements on a pure class that would also end up getting locked out.

[Aashrym]

His incentive to not multiclass is there are no more trees to take AP in anyhow.

If there is a wild mage enhancement line he wants, a PM line he wants, and a racial line he wants - the benefits to multiclassing just got alot narrower. The fact that they can not go up all three lines is not relevant. If someone wants one or two things from WM, one or two things from AM, and use most points in PM, they are locked out of racial and any multiclassing options they could have chosen, ARBITRARILY.

Let the players, and not the system, decide which benefits are good for their build. Theres already a limit on the number of points we can spend and cutoff points on how many need to be spent to unlock stuff. No other arbitrary limitation is necessary.

His incentive to multiclass is for class abilities and to swap in a tree he can make better use of.

The term arbitrary is not as meaningful as you seem to think. The arbitrary decision on where the limitation would be would be an arbitrary decision whether they met what you wanted or did not meet what you wanted. It's just a decision that was made at that time.

Having no more AP to spend in more trees kind of makes them superfluous anyway.

[Fomori]

I would have to agree that limiting multiclasses to 3 of their combined trees is an arbitrary limitation that doesnt seem to make sense.

Why? Unless they are planning on front loading the trees. If that is the case I think they should stop that nonsense right now.

Personally I don't mind the current system. I think its cluttered, and could use some UI love, but its much better than the original enhancement system. This new system would be like moving back toward that then forward.

The "tree" concept makes me think that I am picking a single enhancement (ala tree) but this time they are sugar coating it as a package deal. Making it so I can only pick a few of my enhancement packages makes it eerily similar to the old hated enhancement system.

[boomer70]

I think the proposal as presented is not at all how I would like to see the direction of the system moving.

I agree with many that this smacks of a dumbing down of the system, a move away from the D&D roots that many of us play this game for.

Concretely, I don't like the idea of having prestige trees that all abilities fit into and then grant "free" abilities for selecting an arbitrary number of points in the "correct" tree. This, to me, takes all the flavor out of builds and simply makes it a numbers game. Which of and how many of the "dev approved" options do I have to select to get the "free" candy. Seems very railroaded to me.

Additionally, prestige classes would cease to be meaningful definitions of character abilities and/or goals. They are simply a count of the number of approved choices I made. I could well end up with a "prestige" bonus simply because one or two abilities fit the build I was looking for.

Now you may say why complain about getting free stuff and this is exactly the problem. By having a carrot available when you are a good lemming and pick the options we think you should in the number you should then you get some sugar water before we put you back in the maze and make you run it again.

Now for what I would actually like to see happen.

1. As others have suggested make prestige enhancements separate from class enhancements. Give the ability to qualify for those enhancements in ways other than simple class levels.

2. "Racial Prestige" classes are fine as long as they follow all the same rules as above.

3. Rebalance all the enhancements. Currently there are virtually zero enhancements above level 12. Virtually all enhancement trees are terribly front loaded (Haste Boost 15% +5%/level). Whats even worse is that except for a very few the AP cost actually also goes up as the benefit goes down. If this were more linear or even back loaded there would be less need for a powerful capstone to stay pure. Capstones should not be so powerful that you are crazy for stopping at level 19.

4. Change the UI if you like to make it easier to navigate but DON'T let the UI drive the system. Come up with a good UI to display the system not the other way around.

[Fomori]

I'm not sure why players would think those lower level enhancements on a multiclass that get locked out would have more impact than the higher level enhancements on a pure class that would also end up getting locked out.

Because it limits choices.

Why do you think its such a bad decision to allow someone the CHOICE to put points in all their trees as opposed to just 3 trees? There is no power creep unless the first levels in the trees are poorly designed.

This is not about what gets locked out 70-80 points into a character. This is what could get locked out FOUR points into a character. pt 1 -> tree 1, pt 2 -> tree 2, pr 3 -> tree 3.... pt 4, now I'm locked out of trees.

[Aashrym]

If I have $20, I can't go see every movie in the theater, but I can still go see *any* movie in the theater.

Currently, multiclass doesn't have to choose which trees to develop, because they can throw a few points into any of their classes and still get all of the "base" enhancements for their main class.

The developers have said that the "base" enhancements are going to be spread across all three PrEs for each class, so if you want those "base" generic enhancements for your primary class, then you're not going to be able to spend ANY points at all in your splashed class. OR if you want to spend ANY points at all in your splashed class, then you're going to miss out on some important class enhancements in your primary class.

This is all from things that the developers have explicitly said in this thread.

If you have $20 you still can't go see 36 movies. You will spend it on the one you want to see the most, and not all movies play in all theaters. The cost of each movie and the selected locations where they play are arbitrary decisions made beyond your control before you could spend your $20. The fact you have $20 and you want to see 5 of those movies will not allow you to do so and you will still make your choice and skip the rest.

Lack of agreement does not equal lack of understanding.

In my case, I would just make another character or TR my old character if my build was impacted and make what works in the new system. It wouldn't be the first time and might not be the last time.

I see multiclassing working just fine in the new system. Worrying about what might be in each tree seems a bit pointless to me until I see the trees.

Adding more trees won't significantly add options because of the per tree costs but it might create issues with the free PrE abilities.

Adding a general class tab would create a need to spend AP in another tree that a pure class is looking at not affording already and also caused by the AP per tree requirements for spending.

Using the existing system to get this done over the course of years compared to months is a strong incentive to go ahead with the new system, break a few eggs, make a nice cake, and then clean up the broken eggs. Cleaning up the broken eggs would be by making new builds instead of the old ones that might not work so well. Broken eggs can still be worth a good cake. (You seemed fond of metaphors). :D

I can see a lot of pure builds that might be better off multiclassing and I can see a lot of multiclassing that might need to be reworked. I know darned well that multiclassing will still be a viable option looking at the proposed changes so far.

[Gulain]

I think the proposal as presented is not at all how I would like to see the direction of the system moving.

I agree with many that this smacks of a dumbing down of the system, a move away from the D&D roots that many of us play this game for.



Can't say that I agree here. You are making an opinion based on limited information without even seeing it in action.... worst thing you could do.



Concretely, I don't like the idea of having prestige trees that all abilities fit into and then grant "free" abilities for selecting an arbitrary number of points in the "correct" tree. This, to me, takes all the flavor out of builds and simply makes it a numbers game. Which of and how many of the "dev approved" options do I have to select to get the "free" candy. Seems very railroaded to me.


You already have to take specific points in the "correct" enhancements. Essentially they are doing the same thing but instead of saying you need "Improved Hide +1" you can take any x number of enhancements that you want that qualify for the PRE. Seems to me that they are making it MORE flexible in that regard. Not railroaded in any way other than saying you can take any one of these 5-10 paths to go from point A to point B.



Additionally, prestige classes would cease to be meaningful definitions of character abilities and/or goals. They are simply a count of the number of approved choices I made. I could well end up with a "prestige" bonus simply because one or two abilities fit the build I was looking for.


They are still meaningful goals. From the tempest preview we say that progression through the PRE is much more stable and less jumpy. They are smoothing out the progression and the benefits all seem pretty thematic for the PRE in question. If all lines for each class are as clear cut as that then I will say I am impressed with how they are truly defining each PRE and making things not as generic.

I doubt you would end up with a "prestige" from only 1 or 2 abilities (takes 5 minimum) but if so then you were taking abilities that simulated your character building in that direction anyway.


While I don't generally agree with people that are worried about being limited in multiclasses I can understand that argument. I am still waiting at this time for more concrete information but am convinced that it will be an improvement (just like the first major enhancement change was when they introduced AP) yet I am still pleased that Turbine is taking the time to address the current system.

edit: As to the rest of your post. Yes... I think some things do still need to change. I would like to see generic enhancements shared between some of the trees that lockout in others. I would like to see Racial PREs benefitting players that already take the class that the PRE belongs to. I would like to see the number of options in trees be varied and not cookie cutter. I think as the system moves along we will be given the chance to provide more feedback in each of these areas after we see how they are initially planned for implementation.

[Fomori]

If you have $20 you still can't go see 36 movies. You will spend it on the one you want to see the most, and not all movies play in all theaters. The cost of each movie and the selected locations where they play are arbitrary decisions made beyond your control before you could spend your $20. The fact you have $20 and you want to see 5 of those movies will not allow you to do so and you will still make your choice and skip the rest.

The new system is more like saying there are 36 movies in this theater. In your lifetime you can only see 3 of them, the other 33 you can NEVER see.

[Aashrym]

And he has fewer options than he has today.

Do you understand why someone might see that as a problem?

Adding the option for more trees would at least allow multiclass characters to throw a couple of enhancement points into their splashed class and I can't see any game balance reason to disallow it. Why would allowing 5 trees instead of 3 cause problems for the game? You're still limited by the number of AP that you have available to spend (as you have so frequently pointed out).

He doesn't have few options than he does today. He has more options than he does today. Those options can lock each other out but what is left is still just as many options from the class he had before in one single tree times 3 trees.

There are a boat load more options, there are just more stringent choices on which ones to focus towards.

Investing in 5 trees instead of 3 would limit options for pure classes even more if they were forced into them and even if they were not it would open up more free abilities to multiclassed characters and potentially throwing off the value of the point spend while providing undesirable stacking effects in those free benefits.

That's a potential issue. Since I do not know what is actually in those trees that does not go beyond speculation but I can see the potential. I would have expected that was not originally put forth that way because of balance issue the devs could see in what the had that we cannot or because of technical limitations on variable number of trees (making it rather moot to discuss).

If there ends up being no further impact to my ability to make a pure class that is just as effective as a multiclass I couldn't care less about letting them throw away their AP on tier unlock requirements to get what they want and restrict themselves more instead of less because of it.

That is what I see happening. We know it will take 2 levels and 5 AP spend to unlock that second tier. Wanting to make use of those extra trees will kill your AP to spend on better enhancements and all you are really asking for is the ability to waste AP on extra choices instead of use that AP on the existing choices.

If you want to have access to 3 enhancements in 3 different trees on your level 2 splash it is going to cost you 15 AP before you even spend 1 point in any of those 3 enhancements. Those costs will not let you keep your current build if it needed all those trees. It is a waste of time to try.

I don't have anything against allowing those options. I don't see them as necessary and actually making use of them is unrealistic. What I disagree with is the need for them in the first place but if someone were to ask me if I thought they would break the game I would say no. I would also say adding them would have such an insignificant impact in most cases due to costs that they are irrelevant and pointless.

[Angelus_dead]

With access to capstones without needing to go pure that provides less incentive to not multiclass.
I can't even count how many times this has been explained to you, but here it is again:
Giving a prestige specialty to every race is not a part of the 3-tree limitation. Racial specialties are not a consequence of the 3-tree limit, so they cannot be used to defend the existence of the 3-tree limit.


I'm not sure why players would think those lower level enhancements on a multiclass that get locked out would have more impact than the higher level enhancements on a pure class that would also end up getting locked out.
That has no resemblance to the opponent positions.

[Angelus_dead]

Lack of agreement does not equal lack of understanding.
It would be possible for someone to disagree while appearing to understand the discussion, but you haven't done that.


Adding more trees won't significantly add options because of the per tree costs
That's obviously just not true.


Using the existing system to get this done over the course of years compared to months is a strong incentive to go ahead with the new system, break a few eggs, make a nice cake, and then clean up the broken eggs. Cleaning up the broken eggs would be by making new builds instead of the old ones that might not work so well. Broken eggs can still be worth a good cake.
As has already been explained to you many times:
It's not about whether or not specific pre-existing characters need to adjust their builds when the new system comes in. It's about whether becoming a multiclass character is less attractive in the new system.


NO ONE HAS HIGH LEVEL ENHANCEMENTS IN ALL OF THEIR TREES.
And that's why the 3-tree limit appears unnecessary and counterproductive.

[Missing_Minds]

I don't know if this has been asked or not, but under the new system, could a fighter actually become Kensai in two different weapons? They have the feats for it.

[Monkey_Archer]

This.
It makes senses and limit (at least a bit) the OPness of the race.

Umm..

How does giving helf access to every PrE limit the OPness of the race when other races (besides possibly human) only get one? :confused:

Giving helf a slightly smaller list as human (+ Arcane Archer) and then requiring the correct dilettante as a prereq does make sense though...

[Chai]

I'm not sure why players would think those lower level enhancements on a multiclass that get locked out would have more impact than the higher level enhancements on a pure class that would also end up getting locked out.

We are not discussing level of impact of enhancements. We are discussing limitations placed on the number of options due to a system level arbitrary limitation.

Arbitrarily limiting lateral progression to those who sacrifice vertical progression is a turn off to multi-classing.

Its -NOT- a statement about whether or not being able to take enhancements in a lower tier splash option will have a better or worse impact as moving further up the tree within one of the three trees the user chose.

It -IS- a statement about allowing the players to choose and decide what best impacts their build, within the classes and level splits they chose, rather than boxing them into an arbitrary three tree limitation regardless of class split.




Adding more trees won't significantly add options because of the per tree costs but it might create issues with the free PrE abilities.



We arent discussing tree costs either. Id rather let the players decide which enhancements to take in all trees they opened with the multiclass options they took.


If you have $20 you still can't go see 36 movies. You will spend it on the one you want to see the most, and not all movies play in all theaters. The cost of each movie and the selected locations where they play are arbitrary decisions made beyond your control before you could spend your $20. The fact you have $20 and you want to see 5 of those movies will not allow you to do so and you will still make your choice and skip the rest.



Lets complete your analogy and make it accurate.

You have 20 dollars and you want to see some movies over the course of one week. You have the following options.

1. New just released movie on IMAX screen. 8 dollars.
2. 4 month old movie in second rate theatre with regular screen. 3 dollars.
3. Old school movie night in neighborhood theatre. 1 dollar.

You can clearly see that there are quite a few combinations of things you can do.

Now, arbitrarily as all get up, youve just been told that you can only see 3 movies. Why? Because we said so, thats why.

1. The people who like new movies dont care, because they are only seeing 2 with 20 dollars anyhow.
2. The frugal people are annoyed, because they waited 4 months so the price would drop. Why tell them they can only see 3 movies, when they have the money to see 6 with 2 bucks left over.
3. The "black belt theatre fanatics" that go to midnight showings in old school remodeled theatres are ticked off, because they have enough for 20 movies - they were planning to see 3 1970s shaw brothers kung fu films every night for 6 days straight.

BTW, we do have all three of those options where I live, and no arbitrary reason why I cant spend my 20 schmeebs the way I see fit. The limitation present in the system is the 20 dollars. Theres no reason to put a further arbitrary limitation on it, and in this analogy we see how silly that arbitrary limitation is.

[thandros]

so they wil do a tree system like Wow that with give less customization. All these new changes i see seem to be attempt to get as far away from the ddo rule set as possible. Probably in case they lose the license in a few years.

[kingfisher]

He doesn't have few options than he does today. He has more options than he does today. Those options can lock each other out but what is left is still just as many options from the class he had before in one single tree times 3 trees.

There are a boat load more options, there are just more stringent choices on which ones to focus towards.

Investing in 5 trees instead of 3 would limit options for pure classes even more if they were forced into them and even if they were not it would open up more free abilities to multiclassed characters and potentially throwing off the value of the point spend while providing undesirable stacking effects in those free benefits.

That's a potential issue. Since I do not know what is actually in those trees that does not go beyond speculation but I can see the potential. I would have expected that was not originally put forth that way because of balance issue the devs could see in what the had that we cannot or because of technical limitations on variable number of trees (making it rather moot to discuss).

If there ends up being no further impact to my ability to make a pure class that is just as effective as a multiclass I couldn't care less about letting them throw away their AP on tier unlock requirements to get what they want and restrict themselves more instead of less because of it.

That is what I see happening. We know it will take 2 levels and 5 AP spend to unlock that second tier. Wanting to make use of those extra trees will kill your AP to spend on better enhancements and all you are really asking for is the ability to waste AP on extra choices instead of use that AP on the existing choices.

If you want to have access to 3 enhancements in 3 different trees on your level 2 splash it is going to cost you 15 AP before you even spend 1 point in any of those 3 enhancements. Those costs will not let you keep your current build if it needed all those trees. It is a waste of time to try.

I don't have anything against allowing those options. I don't see them as necessary and actually making use of them is unrealistic. What I disagree with is the need for them in the first place but if someone were to ask me if I thought they would break the game I would say no. I would also say adding them would have such an insignificant impact in most cases due to costs that they are irrelevant and pointless.

So basically your ok with what you have been arguing against for 2000 posts as long as it does not effect what YOU like in this game? But when people who like multi's argue against it u tell them they r SOL or better off or have more options or whatever other irrelevant arguements u have thrown out here?

You say allowing what multi's have today to continue on in the new system won't break the game, and that these minor enhancements are pointlessto take anyway. So why, pray tell, have u spent so much time throwing the same irrelevant arguements against it back on every poster who pops in to express their opinion?

And going forward, can we expect u to discontinue said arguements? Since we know where u come from and why u believe the way u do and all now.new arguements are fine, of course.

[Aashrym]

It would be possible for someone to disagree while appearing to understand the discussion, but you haven't done that.

If you say so. So I guess if I didn't understand it you sucked at explaining it. Either that or your choice to believe being able to add a capstone to multiclassing isn't an obvious gain while I think it is leads me to disagree with your assessment.


That's obviously just not true.

After you are forced to spend 60 AP to hit that 3rd row in 6 trees what exactly do you expect to have available for those upper level enhancements? Obviously it is true. Taking those options kills the AP you have left for the other enhancements. Those 60 AP have unlocked the enhancements available to the 3rd tier. You have 20 left in those 6 trees to spend on that third tier of enhancements. That's a serious limitation.

If tier 2 enhancements open up at level 2 and 10 AP hit PrE I then we are looking at enhancements available in the levels 3-6 range to spend those AP on. That doesn't come close to being able to spend the AP to make use of all the trees effectively.

You are not able to take 3 level 12 trees, 3 level 6 trees, 3 level 2 trees, the race enhancements, and unlock those tiers for use. That forces 50 AP to unlock the 2nd tier in 10 trees, another 35 AP to unlock the 3rd tier in 7 trees, and -5 AP to spend in the tiers you have unlocked to have a full range of access of enhancements from levels 1-6. No enhancements is still no enhancements.

As opposed to taking 2 level 12 trees and a level 6 tree that have some synergy and not need to pay the minimum unlock per tier for each tree where we spend 20-30 on one tree, 20-30 on another tree, 10-20 on the 3rd tree, 15ish on the race tree and actually have some development in those trees.

A person cannot afford to develop too many trees and even getting the basic enhancements kills the AP available for the trees they can develop.

I do not see a significant gain spending my points on a lower tier and locking out my higher tiers over spending my points on higher tiers and locking out any lower tiers on those other trees I lock out.


As has already been explained to you many times:
It's not about whether or not specific pre-existing characters need to adjust their builds when the new system comes in. It's about whether becoming a multiclass character is less attractive in the new system.


And that's why the 3-tree limit appears unnecessary and counterproductive.

Repeating your opinion doesn't make it a fact. In order for multiclassing to be less attractive it would have to be less attractive than something and there would need to be an alternative to multiclassing. The only alternative to multiclassing is making a pure class and that has not become more attractive at all looking at what that gives up.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

We are not discussing level of impact of enhancements. We are discussing limitations placed on the number of options due to a system level arbitrary limitation.

Not discussing the impact of the new enhancements, newly combined enhancements, as well as dropped enhancements in a discussion involving new enhancements, newly combined enhancements, and dropped enhancements is exactly the issue those that are optimistic have with you pessimists out there. :)

We simply do not know what these enhancements will entail, how they will relate to each other, exactly how access will work within the tree structure, nor the exact costs involved.

Those that are cautiously optimistic, are simply saying without the entire picture (We dont even have 1% of said picture yet, imho) any statements that this will hurt or help multiclass or pure is 100% pure speculation.

I think it would benefit us to wait and see at this point. We are all anxious to see what's coming next.

[boomer70]

If there ends up being no further impact to my ability to make a pure class that is just as effective as a multiclass I couldn't care less about letting them throw away their AP on tier unlock requirements to get what they want and restrict themselves more instead of less because of it.

THIS is exactly what people have been asking for all along. They do not want YOU or the devs deciding what is "throwing away" AP and what is building the character they want.

You seem to be in the camp that believes that somehow remaining "pure" should confer some magical special ability to your character. In an ideal system (which doesn't and probably won't exist) a level 20 character should be equal in power to another level 20 character whether they chose to have 20 levels in a single class or 12/6/2. We should be arguing to see the system get closer to this ideal not forcing silly restrictions on multiclass characters to ensure that your pure build wont be hurt.

As you have already pointed out your "pure" class builds could easily be hurt by this system. Instead of just putting faith in the devs that they will get "it" right why not put forward alternatives to what they are proposing. A few people have done this, many more have questioned at least parts of the system. You and a few others have argued that the system as proposed is great yet clearly even you recognize potential pitfalls with it.

If, in fact, they are not simply asking us to rearrange deckchairs on the Titanic and we can actually make a difference why not point out what you want from the new system maybe with some of your own ideas as to how that could be done. The more options that are out there the more chance that they will "get it right".

[ormsbygore]

+1 For this...love the it, couldn't have said it better.


no no no you got it all wrong!

pure classes are more like feraris (rogue), monster trucks (fighters), Medivac helicopter (clerics) and maglev bullet trains (wizards). - at lvl 20 obviously, at lvl 1 its more like pinto(rogue), pickup truck(fighter), jesusarmy soup truck(cleric) and pedestrian (wizard).

Us character builders are taking a chassis from a ford focus(race), the engine from a truck(fighter), the hubs and wheels from a subaru ralleigh car(fvs) and sometimes the neon lights from a nearby glowstick waving nutta.(monk)

What were concerned with is that under the new system we wont be allowed to rebore the engine, balance the wheels, add in the nitro speed boost, and put the flahsy engine management sytem in as they are all enhanced by different trees - and now the garrage says they only work on 3 bits of the car and your not allowed to change anything your self or it invalidates your insurance.

Some of us are looking forward to the 'ford focus - rally model, race prestige tho'.

The average new player will play pure class - pureclass is simple any way, im sure this wont change.
Its more than possible to keep things simple for the new guy and let those that want chalenge their 'engineering' to try and make something that will keep up with a ferrari out of bits lying around the garage, a lot of love and hell of a lot of duct tape.

the enhancemnets and feats are often the duct tape - please dont take our duct tape.

[orakio]

We are not discussing level of impact of enhancements. We are discussing limitations placed on the number of options due to a system level arbitrary limitation.

Arbitrarily limiting lateral progression to those who sacrifice vertical progression is a turn off to multi-classing.

Its -NOT- a statement about whether or not being able to take enhancements in a lower tier splash option will have a better or worse impact as moving further up the tree within one of the three trees the user chose.

It -IS- a statement about allowing the players to choose and decide what best impacts their build, within the classes and level splits they chose, rather than boxing them into an arbitrary three tree limitation regardless of class split.


Since you are so informed Chai, what are the vertical limitations for each tier of the PrE trees and what enhancements would you be missing out on in those upper tiers of the trees? What enhancements have you picked up in the lower parts of your trees that you didn't have before, and what are you missing from your character because of the 3 tree limit? Does every multiclass split have the same problems or is it specific ones?

Your point is valid, if poorly designed the 3 tree limit could very very negatively impact multiclass characters. It could also negatively affect pure characters, most likely to a lesser degree, because it would be a poorly designed system. You are however arguing from a point of negative assumptions, automatically assuming that no matter what they do the new system can not possibly work from a 3 tree system. That is what many people in this thread have had a problem with, the system CAN be worse as a three tree system but it doesn't HAVE to be worse.

You can assume that your characters, and every characters in the game, enhancements will be changing. That is pretty much a known fact. Until you know the placement of the enhancements, the limitations on depth of investment and what the new enhancements are you can not definitively say that your character will be worse in the new system than it is now. You also can't arbitrarily claim that multiclassed characters won't be a viable choice as even without enhancements there are some very very distinct advantages to multiclassing.


As has already been explained to you many times:
It's not about whether or not specific pre-existing characters need to adjust their builds when the new system comes in. It's about whether becoming a multiclass character is less attractive in the new system.
Multiclass characters have a lot of things that currently make them extremely attractive and almost mandatory. The concept of multiclasses should be a choice, not an almost universally correct decision like you see in some of the splits right now. Being less attractive than now but still more than viable and potentially slightly superior is acceptable. Being not worth it or the only option is not acceptable. Until we know the details we don't know which is the case.

You and many others may be right in that 3 trees is not enough. I can say 1 tree for every PrE of each class you have will potentially have just as large of an unbalancing impact, this time in the favor of multi's, on the new system as well. We need hard data to be able to make either statement definitively and proceed from this point. Anything else is just opinion on the relatively unknown.


THIS is exactly what people have been asking for all along. They do not want YOU or the devs deciding what is "throwing away" AP and what is building the character they want.
Actually Angelus has been voicing his opinion that he thinks the new system will be too restrictive to multiclass characters, hasn't been pushing a pure's should be better agenda at all. As a matter of fact not many people have been pushing pure's should be BETTER, most people just want them to be relatively equal to multiclass characters. In some cases in the current system they aren't, not even close.

[Angelus_dead]

Multiclass characters have a lot of things that currently make them extremely attractive and almost mandatory.
To claim that multiclassing is "almost mandatory" in the current rules is tremendously unrealistic.

To the extent that there are some kinds of character builds for which multiclassing is much better than the closest pure alternative, it is not because multiclassing has too much power, but that some important pure class options are too weak: proper tier 3 specialties and capstones are missing from some classes, making it excessively helpful to multiclass them.

As was explained already, adding good enhancements at levels 18 and 20 will reduce multiclassing attractiveness in a proper way. And feats like IUS would help further.

[Chai]

Not discussing the impact of the new enhancements, newly combined enhancements, as well as dropped enhancements in a discussion involving new enhancements, newly combined enhancements, and dropped enhancements is exactly the issue those that are optimistic have with you pessimists out there. :)

We are discussing the information already provided, not the theoretical "what ifs" that havent been provided yet.

We know about the tree limitation, so we are talking about it.


We simply do not know what these enhancements will entail, how they will relate to each other, exactly how access will work within the tree structure, nor the exact costs involved.

Which is why we arent talking about what these enhancements will entail, how they will relate to each other, and the exact costs involved. Once we have that information, I am sure we will talk about it.


Those that are cautiously optimistic, are simply saying without the entire picture (We dont even have 1% of said picture yet, imho) any statements that this will hurt or help multiclass or pure is 100% pure speculation.

I think it would benefit us to wait and see at this point. We are all anxious to see what's coming next.

The information we DO HAVE is what we are TALKING ABOUT. We DO KNOW that there is a limitation of being able to spend points in THREE TREES, so we are discussing that.

[Angelus_dead]

That is what many people in this thread have had a problem with, the system CAN be worse as a three tree system but it doesn't HAVE to be worse.
It is trivially easy to visualize how a 3-tree limit could make multiclassing less attractive, and it's so far been impossible to concieve of a way in which it would not do so.

The logic is simple:
1. Enhancements are useful.
2. A multiclass build which can't afford even a few enhancements from the secondary class is weaker than one which can afford some.
3. Weaker multiclass builds are less attractive.

[Chai]

Since you are so informed Chai, what are the vertical limitations for each tier of the PrE trees and what enhancements would you be missing out on in those upper tiers of the trees? What enhancements have you picked up in the lower parts of your trees that you didn't have before, and what are you missing from your character because of the 3 tree limit? Does every multiclass split have the same problems or is it specific ones?

The vertical limitation is the level split you choose. We are not discussing enhancements AT ALL. We are discussing the 3 tree limitation.

I also dont buy the justification that if the new system with its arbitrary limitations allows you to build more powerful toons that this makes it better. Better is a matter of opinion, and I feel that allowing the players, and not the system, to decide which choices are "better" is the way to go. Arbitrary limitation is arbitrary.


Your point is valid, if poorly designed the 3 tree limit could very very negatively impact multiclass characters. It could also negatively affect pure characters, most likely to a lesser degree, because it would be a poorly designed system. You are however arguing from a point of negative assumptions, automatically assuming that no matter what they do the new system can not possibly work from a 3 tree system. That is what many people in this thread have had a problem with, the system CAN be worse as a three tree system but it doesn't HAVE to be worse.

I am not arguing from negative assumptions. I am arguing according to the information that has already been provided and confirmed. No assumptions are being made, at all.


You can assume that your characters, and every characters in the game, enhancements will be changing. That is pretty much a known fact. Until you know the placement of the enhancements, the limitations on depth of investment and what the new enhancements are you can not definitively say that your character will be worse in the new system than it is now. You also can't arbitrarily claim that multiclassed characters won't be a viable choice as even without enhancements there are some very very distinct advantages to multiclassing.


Again, I am not discussing the impact of enhancements AT ALL. I am discussing the arbitrary limitation placed apon the players ability to choose which enhancements they desire in their build, which is ALREADY LIMITED by the multiclass split they chose, or the choice to stay pure. Its also ALREADY LIMITED by the fact that each player receives 80 points to spend. Theres no need to further limit the selection of enhancements arbitrarily using a 3 tree system.

Regardless of what the enhancements are, or how big their impact is, let the players choose which to take, and dont use the UI of the system to further limit this.

[sephiroth1084]

If you say so. So I guess if I didn't understand it you sucked at explaining it. That's not how it works. If several people have explained the same thing in several ways and others have come to understand the point, whether agreeing with it or not, and you still haven't understood it, despite the multitude of explanations, the fault does not lie with those trying to educate you.





I do not see a significant gain spending my points on a lower tier and locking out my higher tiers over spending my points on higher tiers and locking out any lower tiers on those other trees I lock out.

And you keep on not comprehending. We aren't talking about power, we are talking about versatility. Everyone has to choose between getting higher level enhancements in one or two trees and getting higher level enhancements in one tree with some AP spread around lower level enhancements in a few trees. I've shown several examples of characters that would want 1-3 AP in 2-5 different trees on a character that has a lot, but not all of the enhancements in their primary tree, and why that would be attractive. It has nothing to do with whether or not the capstone is very attractive, or that they could get stronger enhancements if they focused more, because some people want that versatility!

A three tree limitation removes that versatility. Period. That would no longer be an option, even for people who do not share your view that obtaining capstone enhancements is the only way to play. The point of requesting the tree limitation be removed is so that the players that wish to do so may sacrifice some of their high-level powerful enhancements for more low-level ones that expand their options.

Going pure will be more attractive than it is now, because the options later in the build will be more attractive than they are now, irrespective of whether we have 3 trees or 100 trees. Multiclassing very rarely improves upon the core focus of a character, but gives a character more options, or expands upon their secondary focuses, usually. A Barbarian 18/Fighter 2 isn't better DPS than a pure Barbarian, but it has more options. The multiclassed Bard I used as an example earlier isn't a better buffer or caster than a pure bard, but he's a little bit better at melee and has the added role of being a trapmonkey. The tree limitation would say that, no, you can either be a halfway decent bard with trap skills or a halfway decent bard with mediocre melee, but you can't do both together. That's a problem.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

We are discussing the information already provided, not the theoretical "what ifs" that havent been provided yet.

We know about the tree limitation, so we are talking about it.



Which is why we arent talking about what these enhancements will entail, how they will relate to each other, and the exact costs involved. Once we have that information, I am sure we will talk about it.



The information we DO HAVE is what we are TALKING ABOUT. We DO KNOW that there is a limitation of being able to spend points in THREE TREES, so we are discussing that.

No offense bud, but you are just talking to talk now. You dont have the weights of measurements of what you perceive is being restricted. Unless of course you have found answers to these questions:

Exactly what enhancements are getting added?

Exactly what enhancements are going away?

Exactly what enhancements are getting nerfed?

Exactly what enhancements are getting combined?

What are the names of the new prestiges and capstones?

How much of a part will race play now?

How will race be balanced? Will it help or hurt game balance?

What do the new prestiges and capstones offer?

Whats abilities are granted?

What are the prereqs, and what do they cost?

Do taking certain enhancements open up options on the trees higher up?

See Chai, not a single what if question. Just a lot of unanswered questions.

What do you know Chai, just when you thought you had all the answers, it appears you never looked at the questions.

[Chai]

No offense bud, but you are just talking to talk now. You dont have the weights of measurements of what you perceive is being restricted. Unless of course you have found answers to these questions:

Exactly what enhancements are getting added?

Exactly what enhancements are going away?

Exactly what enhancements are getting nerfed?

Exactly what enhancements are getting combined?

Exactly what enhancements are getting combined?

What are the names of the new prestige and capstones?

What do the new prestige and capstones offer?

Whats abilities are granted?

What are the prereqs, and what do they cost?

Do taking certain enhancements open up options on the trees higher up?

See Chai, not a single what if question. Just a lot of unanswered questions.

What do you know Chaqi, just when you thought you had all the answers, it appears you never looked at the questions.

You keep bringing up abilities and enhancements when myself and those who agree with me are only talking about the information that was already provided and confirmed. In order for a discussion between you and I to go forward, you must understand this. All of that stuff you listed is not being discussed by myself at this time until we know what it is. What we DO KNOW, and has BEEN CONFIRMED, is what we ARE DISCUSSING.

I dont buy into your justification that because we *might be able to create a more powerful character, that means we should care less about arbitrary limitations. We are not discussing character power. We are discussing how the three tree system limits multi classing due to limiting lateral progression by sacrificing vertical progression. There is no possible way I could be more clear in defining this. The topic myself and those who agree with me are discussing is based on information already provided and confirmed about the new system. This has been stated by myself several times now. I will no longer respond to banter about needing to know what the enhancements actually are until we actually know what they are. I will continue to discuss what we already do know and has been confirmed.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

This has been stated by myself several times now.

Yep, this thread is going to 3000.....:rolleyes:

[kingfisher]

Exactly what enhancements are getting added?

Exactly what enhancements are going away?

Exactly what enhancements are getting nerfed?

Exactly what enhancements are getting combined?

What are the names of the new prestiges and capstones?

How much of a part will race play now?

How will race be balanced? Will it help or hurt game balance?

.
None of your questions have any bearing on the r tree limit. We know they won't be putting rogue or fighter enhancements in bard trees right? We know they won't be putting every bard enhancement in every bard tree. So we KNOW that a bard/fighter/rogue WILL NOT have access to the enhnacements from his base class and his splash classes. We KNOW a this toon won't be as effective in his desired professions as he is in the current system. We KNOW he will be limited. This is a nerf.

None of the other stuff matters, cause what we are talking about is how a wowified 3 tree limit is an additional uneeded limitation over what we have today. End of story.

No one has cried out for no change or whined about having to redo some builds, this happens in mmo's all the time like it or not, but people do not like unneccessary limitations and not one single person, player or dev, has provided a good reason to limit us to 3 trees each. Not one in 2000+ posts. Making up ways that it might work out ok or saying that there may be better options in the race tree, or arguing that there will be 'new' options, or even advocating a wait and see approach have nothing to do with the central complaint about the arbitrary 3 tree limitation. A new limitation is a new limitation, no matter which way u slice it.

[Artos_Fabril]

More likely he would call you to say that some people are having a really good time right then, staying awake, and you should too, because it doesn't matter whether you are tired or not, others aren't, so you shouldn't sleep.
That's what I have late-shift guildmates for.


Here is the post that most of us arguing against the arbitrary 3-tree limitation are addressing:


Where will effects that modify core class abilities go?Into the most appropriate tree, generally.


For example, the various enhancements that boost Ranger Favored Enemy damage (useful to both PrEs), Bard Extra Song, etc?The Deepwood Sniper is built up as the "forester / hunter" line for the rangers, and has the Favored Enemy modifiers.

Extra Song is in the Virtuoso tree for Bards.

Multiclassed characters will have to decide whether a couple of enhancements from a class are worth locking that tree in as one of the three selectable ones. Of the sample characters we've built, my Arcane Archer monstrosity (that I talked about in one of the ranged threads) was forced to make this choice - I ended up dropping the extra sneak attack damage from the Assassin tree. (Half-Elf / Arcane Archer / Kensei / Warchanter was my build.)

I did gain a bunch of other interesting things, though, to make up for it.


Or will these effects disappear, be made baseline for the classes, rolled into more than one PrE, or just assigned to whichever tree you feel they fit best?Any of the above are possible on a case by case basis. The spellcaster damage amplification ones are currently giving us the more interesting debates.

Some things are currently slated in multiple trees - we've got Assassin Dex I and II, for instance, alongside Thief-Acrobat Dex I and II in the Rogue trees. They're currently expected to stack.

This is either:
A) set-in-stone, in which case it is a disincentive to multi-classing (especially deep multi-classing, but also certain splashes) built into the system that limits horizontal advancement and pushes players towards specific build types (read: racial PrEs become mandatory for multiclassers). As a side effect, it is likely to make pure builds more versatile than multis.

B) open-to-debate, in which case our arguments are both desired by the Devs, and necessary to their decision-making process.

In neither case do I see any incentive for those who disagree with this plan to be silent on the issue until it goes live and we have all of the details.

I see a simple design choice here:
Allow players to build the characters they want to play, and enable them to make as many or few decisions as possible at their discretion.
Or curtail players options to build the characters they want to play and place a hard limit on the number of decisions they may choose between.

I can kind of see the Devs stance on this, the first option might be harder, because they would have to put effort into balancing options so that it would be possible to make equally powerful characters by multi-classing or pure-classing, whether that power comes through versatility or focus.

However, I prefer the first option, to allow players the choice to build great or poor characters, and to make sub-optimal choices in order to develop an enjoyable character who is able to do interesting things.

You can accommodate pure and multiclass players with a system that allows infinite trees in which to spend your finite resources, but a system which restricts trees in which you can expend your resources intrinsically favors players who choose to restrict their trees by choosing only one class.

And if the system is created such that putting 10 points in 8 different trees is always superior to putting 41 points into 1 tree and 39 into another, the answer is the fix the value of the abilities gained at 10 and 41 points, not to arbitrarily disallow taking more than 3 trees.

[Failedlegend]

However, i prefer the first option, to allow players the choice to build great or poor characters, and to make sub-optimal choices in order to develop an enjoyable character who is able to do interesting things.

You can accommodate pure and multiclass players with a system that allows infinite trees in which to spend your finite resources, but a system which restricts trees in which you can expend your resources intrinsically favors players who choose to restrict their trees by choosing only one class.

And if the system is created such that putting 10 points in 8 different trees is always superior to putting 41 points into 1 tree and 39 into another, the answer is the fix the value of the abilities gained at 10 and 41 points, not to arbitrarily disallow taking more than 3 trees.

Amen!

[kingfisher]

That's what I have late-shift guildmates for.


Here is the post that most of us arguing against the arbitrary 3-tree limitation are addressing:


This is either:
A) set-in-stone, in which case it is a disincentive to multi-classing (especially deep multi-classing, but also certain splashes) built into the system that limits horizontal advancement and pushes players towards specific build types (read: racial PrEs become mandatory for multiclassers). As a side effect, it is likely to make pure builds more versatile than multis.

B) open-to-debate, in which case our arguments are both desired by the Devs, and necessary to their decision-making process.

In neither case do I see any incentive for those who disagree with this plan to be silent on the issue until it goes live and we have all of the details.

I see a simple design choice here:
Allow players to build the characters they want to play, and enable them to make as many or few decisions as possible at their discretion.
Or curtail players options to build the characters they want to play and place a hard limit on the number of decisions they may choose between.

I can kind of see the Devs stance on this, the first option might be harder, because they would have to put effort into balancing options so that it would be possible to make equally powerful characters by multi-classing or pure-classing, whether that power comes through versatility or focus.

However, I prefer the first option, to allow players the choice to build great or poor characters, and to make sub-optimal choices in order to develop an enjoyable character who is able to do interesting things.

You can accommodate pure and multiclass players with a system that allows infinite trees in which to spend your finite resources, but a system which restricts trees in which you can expend your resources intrinsically favors players who choose to restrict their trees by choosing only one class.

And if the system is created such that putting 10 points in 8 different trees is always superior to putting 41 points into 1 tree and 39 into another, the answer is the fix the value of the abilities gained at 10 and 41 points, not to arbitrarily disallow taking more than 3 trees.

Well said +1 and let's hope like hell its Option B, cause if its option A this game will change for the worse. Nobody wants another wow clone.

[Failedlegend]

Nobody wants another wow clone.

Some people in this thread could fool me

[kingfisher]

Some people in this thread could fool me

Lol. Too true, but I was being 'optomistic' ;)

[Artos_Fabril]

What I see as the most valid point about possible issues with infinite trees (technically still limited to 10, but wutevs) is the possibility of unbalancing amounts of stacking.

So here are some possible fixes, impacts, considerations, and other methods of addressing the issue, by general class:

Issue: Stacking Stat Enhancements
-Currently: Do not stack, max out at level 10, total 12AP for +3 stat (2/4/6 for +1 each)
-Balance Issue: If stacking, take rank 1 from 3 different trees, save 50%
Fixes:
-Keep current non-stacking status (addresses issue by limiting stats to +3, same as current)
-Place in single tree within class, allow stacking (addresses pure class stacking, enable multiclass stacking
-Increase level spread, from 2/6/10 to 2/10/18 (addresses splashing for cheap stats, but not pure-class stacking)
-Equalize cost across ranks 4/4/4, 3/3/3, etc. (addresses first-rank-cheap issue of taking rank 1 several times)
-Move stat increases to racial trees, but unlock via class levels (eliminate stacking, add options to racial tree, effectively status-quo)
-Move stat increases to racial trees, unlock via character level (eliminate stacking, possible class balance issue, increases options for non-standard builds)
-reduce ranks available, place in multiple trees (reduces stacking but allows focused characters to increase stats further, significant benefit to pures over multis if trees are limited, potential benefit to multis over pures if trees are not limited)dd

Issue?: Stacking Skill Enhancements
-Currently: Do not stack, max out level 12, total 4AP for +4skill (1/1/1/1 for +1 each) appear to be tied to race, gated entry by class, gated tier by character level. (except Artificer UMD)
-Balance Issue: If moved to class trees and stacking, possible to gain greater than +4 bonus
Fixes:
-So what? +1 to (Non-UMD) skill for 1 AP does nt apprea to cause any potential balance issues. These are the underpowered enhancements that should be combined.
-Leave in racial trees (No stacking issues, Status Quo)
-Possible issue if Perform is moved into one or more bard trees?
-Possible issue if Artificer UMD is replicated across all Artificer trees (move to racial trees; allow unlock to bard/rogue as well, or not)

Issue: Stacking Boosts
-Currently: Do not stack, max at level 10, total 10 AP (+2/3/4/5 or 10/15/20/25% for 1/2/3/4 AP)
-Balance Issues: If stacking vertically, reduce AP cost by 40% (unlikely; would mean rogue skill boost 2 + artificer skill boost 2 = skill boost 4). If stacking horizontally, double/triple available boosts
Fixes:
-Keep current non-stacking status (addresses all stacking, status quo)
-Place in single tree within class, allow stacking (addresses pure class stacking, enable multiclass stacking)
-Increase level spread from 1/4/7/10 to 1/7/13/19 (addresses 10/10 split full benefit double boosts, no impact on splash stacking tier 1s, no impact on pure-class if at low tier in all trees)
-Allow capped vertical stacking, equalize AP and benefit per tier (addresses horizontal stacking, buffs multi-class splits with boosts same in multiple classes, and pure-class if boost in multiple trees)
-Allow tiered vertical stacking/combined tree e.g. boost 1 any tree unlocks same type boost 2 all trees unlocks same type boost 3 all trees, limited by total class levels in classes with boost availability (addresses horizontal stacking and pure class if in multiple trees, buffs some multiclasses by granting higher tier access for shared boosts; somewhat complicated to explain in tooltip)

[Angelus_dead]

Issue: Stacking Stat Enhancements
Issue?: Stacking Skill Enhancements
Issue: Stacking Boosts
A good way for all those things to stack is that there is no such thing as multiple identical enhancements for those different classes. Instead, class levels that provide those enhancements stack for the purpose of access to those enhancements.

For example, Cleric, Monk, and FVS levels would all stack for the purpose of qualifying for +3 Wisdom. Rogue and Fighter levels would stack for getting Haste Boost IV.

[Artos_Fabril]

A good way for all those things to stack is that there is no such thing as multiple identical enhancements for those different classes. Instead, class levels that provide those enhancements stack for the purpose of access to those enhancements.

For example, Cleric, Monk, and FVS levels would all stack for the purpose of qualifying for +3 Wisdom. Rogue and Fighter levels would stack for getting Haste Boost IV.
I sort of mentioned that under boost stacking. I didn't go back and add it to the others. I like that option, but it is a small buff to multiclassing versus the current status-quo, so the purists might cry foul.

I also didn't mention spell enhancements, although the arcane ones are currently rolled up under race like skills are, and access is gained through character levels, so no stacking kinetic spellcasting from wizard and artificer, there's only one kinetic spellcasting tree.

[orakio]

The vertical limitation is the level split you choose. We are not discussing enhancements AT ALL. We are discussing the 3 tree limitation.

I also dont buy the justification that if the new system with its arbitrary limitations allows you to build more powerful toons that this makes it better. Better is a matter of opinion, and I feel that allowing the players, and not the system, to decide which choices are "better" is the way to go. Arbitrary limitation is arbitrary.

Again, I am not discussing the impact of enhancements AT ALL. I am discussing the arbitrary limitation placed apon the players ability to choose which enhancements they desire in their build, which is ALREADY LIMITED by the multiclass split they chose, or the choice to stay pure. Its also ALREADY LIMITED by the fact that each player receives 80 points to spend. Theres no need to further limit the selection of enhancements arbitrarily using a 3 tree system.

Regardless of what the enhancements are, or how big their impact is, let the players choose which to take, and dont use the UI of the system to further limit this.

First off, regardless of if you want to ignore the importance of enhancements they are an integral part of the tree system. If you choose to ignore the fact that enhancements may effect the viability of a tree limit then that is your decision but it certainly doesn't help your arguments.

Secondly you already pointed out that multiclassing in regards to enhancements is about sacrificing vertical progression for horizontal progression. If you have better vertical progression in the new system compared to the current system then you are not losing nearly as many options as you are trying to indicate.

Thirdly, it isn't an arbitrary limitation. The tree limit matches both the max number of classes in a multiclass character and the number of PrE's for each class. You are calling it arbitrary, however, I doubt the developers picked the number out of a hat. This system also doesn't "decide which choices are better" for players, it creates an equal platform from which to balance multis and pures. If the # of trees is greater than what pures can access then that is a potential balance issue every bit as much as the limitation that you have such a clear issue with.

Again your concern with the system is valid but all depends on how it is implemented. Please at least give the dev's some time to respond and clarify on how some of the stuff works before stating that the system is a failure.

[Aashrym]

We are not discussing level of impact of enhancements. We are discussing limitations placed on the number of options due to a system level arbitrary limitation.

Arbitrarily limiting lateral progression to those who sacrifice vertical progression is a turn off to multi-classing.

Its -NOT- a statement about whether or not being able to take enhancements in a lower tier splash option will have a better or worse impact as moving further up the tree within one of the three trees the user chose.

It -IS- a statement about allowing the players to choose and decide what best impacts their build, within the classes and level splits they chose, rather than boxing them into an arbitrary three tree limitation regardless of class split.



We arent discussing tree costs either. Id rather let the players decide which enhancements to take in all trees they opened with the multiclass options they took.



Lets complete your analogy and make it accurate.

You have 20 dollars and you want to see some movies over the course of one week. You have the following options.

1. New just released movie on IMAX screen. 8 dollars.
2. 4 month old movie in second rate theatre with regular screen. 3 dollars.
3. Old school movie night in neighborhood theatre. 1 dollar.

You can clearly see that there are quite a few combinations of things you can do.

Now, arbitrarily as all get up, youve just been told that you can only see 3 movies. Why? Because we said so, thats why.

1. The people who like new movies dont care, because they are only seeing 2 with 20 dollars anyhow.
2. The frugal people are annoyed, because they waited 4 months so the price would drop. Why tell them they can only see 3 movies, when they have the money to see 6 with 2 bucks left over.
3. The "black belt theatre fanatics" that go to midnight showings in old school remodeled theatres are ticked off, because they have enough for 20 movies - they were planning to see 3 1970s shaw brothers kung fu films every night for 6 days straight.

BTW, we do have all three of those options where I live, and no arbitrary reason why I cant spend my 20 schmeebs the way I see fit. The limitation present in the system is the 20 dollars. Theres no reason to put a further arbitrary limitation on it, and in this analogy we see how silly that arbitrary limitation is.

I can understand your point that the lateral limitation can be there in some cases. That is an obvious restriction and there is no doubting that could restrict some choices and some builds.

The part I disagree on is how limiting that will realistically be or how important it actually is in my opinion because I'm just going to pick the trees that give me the most bang for my buck and primarily spend points in 1 or 2 of them. I can't spend all 80 AP in 2 trees, let alone 3 or 4, so don't see a serious need for 5 or more.

Spending your $20 as you see fit still won't get you all the movies you want, no matter how many options you have. We both see the limitation is the $20. What I don't see is the need to ask the movie theater to bring in more movies if he has enough that I can enjoy them already and I wouldn't consider the existing ones bad movies just because there are not more of them.

If I still end up with the ability to make an effective pure class or an effective multiclass I'm good with that. If adding more trees for multiclass doesn't take a lot of dev effort and doesn't negatively impact my ability to make what I want I'm good with that too. I just don't see the actual need and do not agree that multiclassing will be messed over as much as been stated.

[Aashrym]

So basically your ok with what you have been arguing against for 2000 posts as long as it does not effect what YOU like in this game? But when people who like multi's argue against it u tell them they r SOL or better off or have more options or whatever other irrelevant arguements u have thrown out here?

You say allowing what multi's have today to continue on in the new system won't break the game, and that these minor enhancements are pointlessto take anyway. So why, pray tell, have u spent so much time throwing the same irrelevant arguements against it back on every poster who pops in to express their opinion?

And going forward, can we expect u to discontinue said arguements? Since we know where u come from and why u believe the way u do and all now.new arguements are fine, of course.

Nope. I'm saying pure classes are SOL if they want the same options in every tree they have now because a pure class is also facing issues with abilities being separated among trees. It doesn't matter if you take 2 levels, 4 levels, 6 levels, 8 levels, 12 levels, 18 levels, or 20 levels in a class because no matter how many levels we want we are going to lock something out in some of those trees. Even a pure class.

I've been responding to the people who have been responding to me. I don't think anything I've said is irrelevant. I think I've been restating why those extra trees are of little value in the grand scheme of things in my opinion.

I clarified that the extra trees, as long as they do not impact my builds, is fine. If it turns out that they would, or it is complicated to implement and uses up extra development time, or pure classes will not be as feasible because of it then I would continue to provide my opinion.

Right now the new system looks like it has a lot of advanatages for multiclassing and not so many for pure classing. That is still my opinion.

And pointing the obvious for you, not having the 3 tree system would not provide all the options you have in the game now. Those options don't exist yet and from the sounds of it would not be coming any time soon. I question the ability to purchase everything you want even with more trees.

[Zorth]

This game always has huge bugs, If you can do it with very very very very very few bugs then ok, otherwise you may see a lot of us quit.

[Aashrym]

THIS is exactly what people have been asking for all along. They do not want YOU or the devs deciding what is "throwing away" AP and what is building the character they want.

You seem to be in the camp that believes that somehow remaining "pure" should confer some magical special ability to your character. In an ideal system (which doesn't and probably won't exist) a level 20 character should be equal in power to another level 20 character whether they chose to have 20 levels in a single class or 12/6/2. We should be arguing to see the system get closer to this ideal not forcing silly restrictions on multiclass characters to ensure that your pure build wont be hurt.

As you have already pointed out your "pure" class builds could easily be hurt by this system. Instead of just putting faith in the devs that they will get "it" right why not put forward alternatives to what they are proposing. A few people have done this, many more have questioned at least parts of the system. You and a few others have argued that the system as proposed is great yet clearly even you recognize potential pitfalls with it.

If, in fact, they are not simply asking us to rearrange deckchairs on the Titanic and we can actually make a difference why not point out what you want from the new system maybe with some of your own ideas as to how that could be done. The more options that are out there the more chance that they will "get it right".

You would be throwing away AP to hit the unlocks if all you want is to cherry pick a few enhancements. That one tier 2 enhancement on that one extra tab to have those options is likely going to cost 10% of your AP to unlock it and develop it.

Not having that option will not stop players from multiclassing so I'm not sure why that would turn in to a purist sentiment. I do multiclass and I see opportunity for more of it in the new system. When you say a level 20 should be equal in ability to another level 20 of the same role I absolutely agree. So if I see no reason to go to level 20 in a pure class because the multiclass is a much better option how would I be disagreeing with your sentiment?

What I am doing is putting faith in the devs that those 12/6/2 multiclasses will not have issues. How can you expect to have faith in the dev's on the level 20's when you are not demonstrating faith in the dev's on the 3 class tree system in the first place by assuming those restrictions would be an issue?

[Ungood]

Irony is when players who have been restricted to three tier 1 trees in the current system complain that they will be restricted to three tier 3 trees with the upcoming change.

Irony is when people complain about diversity when they will be getting 2 Trees open to them even if they pure class, as opposed to the one they have now.

I still would like to see how this plays out. Can we get moved to Lammy Land ASAP.

[dkyle]

Irony is when players who have been restricted to three tier 1 trees in the current system complain that they will be restricted to three tier 3 trees with the upcoming change.

A build with three tier 1 trees in the current system can get one tier 3, and two tier 1s, at most, in the new system. Only three tier 1s if they don't choose the correct race.


Also, every build could get buffed, compared to now, and there could still be good cause for complaint if a certain set of builds gets buffed much more. Buffs and nerfs are always relative (and equivalent given a different point of view). If a set of builds gets buffed more than another set, the latter set has essentially been nerfed.

[Aashrym]

It is trivially easy to visualize how a 3-tree limit could make multiclassing less attractive, and it's so far been impossible to concieve of a way in which it would not do so.

The logic is simple:
1. Enhancements are useful.
2. A multiclass build which can't afford even a few enhancements from the secondary class is weaker than one which can afford some.
3. Weaker multiclass builds are less attractive.

This is where your logic breaks down. Statement 2 is not true. A multiclass build can still afford just as many enhancement that are just different enhancements. Because number 1 is true number 2 cannot be because the different enhancements would still be useful.

It's easy to see how a 3 tree limit could limit some choices. It's not so cut and dried that that alternative choices will make a weaker character. Just a different character.

[Angelus_dead]

Irony is when players who have been restricted to three tier 1 trees in the current system complain that they will be restricted to three tier 3 trees with the upcoming change.[/COLOR]
Is that some kind of joke? Or do you really think the proposed new system will allow a character with 3 specialty enhancements at tier 1 to upgrade them all to tier 3?

If I'm a Rogue6/Fighter6/Monk6 with Assasin1, Kensei1, and Ninja1... then the new system lets me be an Assassin1, Kensei1, Ninja 1.