Let's Talk: Enhancements!

[Aashrym]

That math seems deceptive to me. Any multiclass character would not have access to a full tree and would be giving up 2/3 of the enhancements his level split would currently allow him to access from those classes.

The math isn't so much deceptive as unrealistic. Obviously not all those combinations would be effective. Hundreds (possibly thousands) could be effective and more melee effective than caster due to spell slots / access and caster level but without knowing what each can do we can't really judge how many would work out for us. I expect a much smaller number than 427378. My guesstimates were in the 550-1200 range but could easily be off by a lot. :D

2/3 of the enhancements his level split would currently allow is also a bit misleading because 1/3 of over 3 times as much is still more options and no one can spend more AP than they have no matter how many options there are. There are clearly a lot more enhancements being demonstrated in the mockups and almost as many per tree as we had per class previously plus more for races.

Every multiclass can still have access to 2 full trees, though. Race tree and racial PrE unlock would still follow character level instead of class level. That wouldn't provide access to every enhancement for every class taken but it does dispute the no access to a full tree comment. It also limits choices by race that restriction can limit the competitive number of choices more but even skipping the PrE unlock every character can develop the race enhancements in a full tree.

Whether the potential is actually realized depends on what options there are going to be in those trees and that isn't provided yet. That's where the changes could be a huge win or a borked up mess.

[Desonde]

...With thirteen classes coming (yay Druids!) (http://www.ddo.com/underdark/), there's potentially 39 PREs to choose from. That presents more PRE combinations than anyone can reasonably expect to play through in a lifetime.

Two-class characters (including some pure-class characters, but as a severe minority) provides approximately 1482 choices (39*38). Since you can't have alignment-breaking combos like Barbarian Paladins the real number is a bit lower, but that's still an awful lot of combinations. With triple-class characters, that estimate is over 50,000 (39*38*37). That variety still ignores the difference between building 18/2 or 2/18, 12/6/2, 10/10, 9/6/5. Or how far you take each PRE, racial options, epic levels...

If you want to avoid the 100 most popular "cookie cutter" builds, there's still about 49,900 options to look into! Players may keep discovering new and interesting combinations for a long time to come...


Sure, but how many of those combinations can result in enough HP/DPS to actually make it past lvl 13 in this game? Due to the massive imbalance between class dps, monster dps/hp/attack combinations like 10fighter/10wizard don't work, the build doesn't have enough strength/class development/caster levels to perform respecably against a monster with 50,000hp and deals 100+dmg a hit.

50,000 possible then returns to 100 plausable, 10 cookie cutter that can go anywhere. Just cause someone places a glass of water and a glass of cyanide in front of you, doesn't mean you have thousands of choice options for drinking. If you select the glass of water you will be fine, start to mix cyanide into it and you start an exponential curve of survival.

[Missing_Minds]

You mean Barbarian Monks, and Paladin Bards, right? Because Barb Bards are possible.

Edit: Nm. I missed the 137th page, and was beaten to it. With the very same class splits. :D

Well... actually with the new system they could build it so you could. To be fair, you could in PnP as well you just never could go back after the alignment shift.

Spend several AP to allow an alignment shift, shift the alignment, never be allowed to go back to that class now from then on. Just like PnP. (I know the pnp faithful will want paladins/monks to follow that explicitly now but... I wouldn't change it there. For the sake of a video game I'd allow the multiclassing swapping around as it currently is to stand.) Make such spending have NO level gating, and should ap ever go into it, the code to check for such "allowances" during a reset is fairly easy. So even during a reset you have those pre spent. Only way to get them back is though a multi step alignment shift sort of like a multi step LR/GR to swap out classes and change alignment.

[Aashrym]

Sure, but how many of those combinations can result in enough HP/DPS to actually make it past lvl 13 in this game? Due to the massive imbalance between class dps, monster dps/hp/attack combinations like 10fighter/10wizard don't work, the build doesn't have enough strength/class development/caster levels to perform respecably against a monster with 50,000hp and deals 100+dmg a hit.

50,000 possible then returns to 100 plausable, 10 cookie cutter that can go anywhere. Just cause someone places a glass of water and a glass of cyanide in front of you, doesn't mean you have thousands of choice options for drinking. If you select the glass of water you will be fine, start to mix cyanide into it and you start an exponential curve of survival.

I'm voting drow tempest druid 18/monk2 for my cookie cutter build now. :D

[ArkoHighStar]

We do have some thoughts on why this is not where DDO would be headed even if we do go with a three tree limit, but the exact number of trees remains under discussion and isn't set yet.

With thirteen classes coming (yay Druids!) (http://www.ddo.com/underdark/), there's potentially 39 PREs to choose from. That presents more PRE combinations than anyone can reasonably expect to play through in a lifetime.

Two-class characters (including some pure-class characters, but as a severe minority) provides approximately 1482 choices (39*38). Since you can't have alignment-breaking combos like Barbarian Paladins the real number is a bit lower, but that's still an awful lot of combinations. With triple-class characters, that estimate is over 50,000 (39*38*37). That variety still ignores the difference between building 18/2 or 2/18, 12/6/2, 10/10, 9/6/5. Or how far you take each PRE, racial options, epic levels...

If you want to avoid the 100 most popular "cookie cutter" builds, there's still about 49,900 options to look into! Players may keep discovering new and interesting combinations for a long time to come.

Obviously this isn't everything that matters, and we're still wrestling with issues arising from possible "class trees", more than three trees, enhancements existing in multiple trees (stacking and not), various interesting ideas for race trees and racial PREs, etc. We're not settled yet, and continue reading what you have to say. And reading, and reading, and reading! It's pretty clear that there isn't 100% agreement how enhancements should work, and that many players have strong feelings on enhancements.



All hail Lolth!

What? I'm an evil flying bloodsucking head. Yeah, Lloth is cool in my book. A little wild at times for my tastes, but generally pretty cool.


Edit: Derf, Barbarian PALADINS are a true example of things you can't have. Barbarian Bards are all the rage, music to my frenzied ears.

That's great that we have 39 PrE's, but what if I don't want a PrE and want generalized class enhancements like I can get now.

[Cyr]

We do have some thoughts on why this is not where DDO would be headed even if we do go with a three tree limit, but the exact number of trees remains under discussion and isn't set yet.

With thirteen classes coming (yay Druids!) (http://www.ddo.com/underdark/), there's potentially 39 PREs to choose from. That presents more PRE combinations than anyone can reasonably expect to play through in a lifetime.

Two-class characters (including some pure-class characters, but as a severe minority) provides approximately 1482 choices (39*38). Since you can't have alignment-breaking combos like Barbarian Paladins the real number is a bit lower, but that's still an awful lot of combinations. With triple-class characters, that estimate is over 50,000 (39*38*37). That variety still ignores the difference between building 18/2 or 2/18, 12/6/2, 10/10, 9/6/5. Or how far you take each PRE, racial options, epic levels...

If you want to avoid the 100 most popular "cookie cutter" builds, there's still about 49,900 options to look into! Players may keep discovering new and interesting combinations for a long time to come.

Obviously this isn't everything that matters, and we're still wrestling with issues arising from possible "class trees", more than three trees, enhancements existing in multiple trees (stacking and not), various interesting ideas for race trees and racial PREs, etc. We're not settled yet, and continue reading what you have to say. And reading, and reading, and reading! It's pretty clear that there isn't 100% agreement how enhancements should work, and that many players have strong feelings on enhancements.



Edit: Derf, Barbarian PALADINS are a true example of things you can't have. Barbarian Bards are all the rage, music to my frenzied ears.

Hmm, how do I put this nicely. Okay, forget nice.

This is exactly the type of thing we talk about when players complain about developers not having a clear understanding of the game.

Cookie cutter builds arise because some options are better then others. There is not magic about this. It is simple numbers. No not simple numbers of anyone can build a gimp with some random combo. That is not useful nor relevant at all.

Players are discussing the worries that we will have less NEAR THE TOP END OF THE SCALE OPTIONS not that we will have less any random flavor build options. No one cares about the theoretical max number of builds. That is a pointless number.

[Riggs]

Hmm, how do I put this nicely. Okay, forget nice.

This is exactly the type of thing we talk about when players complain about developers not having a clear understanding of the game.

Cookie cutter builds arise because some options are better then others. There is not magic about this. It is simple numbers. No not simple numbers of anyone can build a gimp with some random combo. That is not useful nor relevant at all.

Players are discussing the worries that we will have less NEAR THE TOP END OF THE SCALE OPTIONS not that we will have less any random flavor build options. No one cares about the theoretical max number of builds. That is a pointless number.

*ding ding*points to nose*

Each change makes some options good, or some of so little use to be useless.

Example - previous version of defender lines.

Aside from the hate stance being broken forever, the small bonus to str/con/ac was not enough to make up for the lack of dps, lake of hate, and a couple more points of ac wont matter unless you also still have every single piece of ac in the game and have +3 tomes all around and double tr and every item slot is filled with epic gear with most of the slots filled.

Ergo - people 'tanked' Tod with barbs. Because Turbine likes to keep adding undefendable sources of damage, and everyone rolls a 1 on disintegrate at some point anything under 600-700 hp was pointless as a 'tank'.

Result - if the top end raid at the time doesnt want your build - then everyone is forced to either not play high end content, be a gimp and hope someone else does the heavy lifting for you - which means getting rejected from a lot of raids - or you make a cookie cutter build to fit what is required for endgame.

So - Eventually after a long time of 'hey look defenders suck rocks' Turbine goes and instead of looking at the metagame of why they are making massive hp the default setting and so on - defenders get a bigger set of stat bonuses, remove most of the lame speed penalty, finally fix the hate gen, and add - 20% hp in stance.

Combined with some newer items that can help get ac even higher, new changes to shields and blocking and mastery etc - now defender is back to being a go-to tank. Out with the barbs again - cause it sucks up massive healing vs a well geared tank taking less damage AND being able to soak up a disintegrate on top of 3 medals and aoe and cleaves.

Lob? "Hey you have a 55 ac and 600 hp? sorry we already have a couple pikers and trash beaters in the group - have a nice day"

Fast forward to U13 - Since it is pretty much a guarantee that monsters are going to get more powerful in the next updates - there are going to be very few valid multiclass builds, or pure class builds. Only ones that combine and stack key stats effectively are going to matter - because all the other mutts will be cute, and playful, and be versatile and great to solo with or play around in level 16 content - whatever the new benchmark in the top end raid is going to be is what you need to meet - or you dont play.

People call it cookie cutter because the game forces it to be that way - not because people all want to be exactly the same as every other player out there.

A three tree limit combined with what should be clear and obvious power creep and potential stacking benchmarks only points a big fat arrow to the conclusion that as things are being discussed right now - there is going to be a few types of uber builds, and anything that doesnt stack or hit the top benchmarks will be cute - but not wanted for endgame, and if you cant compete in the endgame what is the point of making a build at all.

"We are building options for people to solo low level content" is not a grand vision for a game.

[dotHackSign]

Ranged Kamehameha Exploding Exalted Smite of a Thousand Flaming Kobolds. We can even make up names for some of the new pally capstones. :D

Take out the Kamehameha, or the charge up time will be ridiculous :)

[Aesop]

I think I agree with Riggs right now.

I would truly like more builds to be viable. I like coming up with fun alternative options. I'm NOT a fan of Pure Classing overall as it just feels boring to me. So please keep that in mind when determining Enhancements and the power of them throughout the levels and tiers.

Aesop

[Aesop]

page 139?

sorry I always seem to be the last one on a page and then thoughts and comments get over looked because by the bottom of the page most people have come across something else they want to comment on.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

"We are building options for people to solo low level content" is not a grand vision for a game.

I'm going to chock this statement up to your lack of vision, not Turbine's.

There are two forces at play that cause cookie cutter building. The devs and the gamers ourselves.

There are many ways to blend player ability, player preference and game mechanics into an effective build. Hopefully, this new system expands on this simple formula, and allows many other build designs that will be viable/acceptable at end game, despite those few gamers (compared to total playerbase) who label any build they dont like or cant conceive as effective, flavor builds.

From the way this is being proposed thus far, it seems clear to me Turbine's goal is to accomplish just that.

The current system has many limiting options that simply aren't effective at "endgame" (the fact that the end game reticule keeps changing, as well as chronological changes that nerf weapons/spells/builds havent helped any.)

I can be completely wrong, but the way I envision the end result of this new UI/enhancement/prestige overhaul, is that there will be many more viable build options at each level of play. I'm looking forward to Turbine's pending release of this UI on Lama so I can start rolling & play-testing builds. (I've already have several new ones in mind, including a kick arse druid.)

[Aashrym]

Take out the Kamehameha, or the charge up time will be ridiculous :)

Aww, c'mon haven't you ever wanted one attack to take 8 gaming sessions to complete? :D

[Failedlegend]

Aww, c'mon haven't you ever wanted one attack to take 8 gaming sessions to complete? :D

EP1 - KAaaaaaa
Ep2 - MAAAAAAAAAAAA
EP3 - YAAAAAAAAHHHHH
EP4 - MAAAAAAAAA
EP5 - AAAAAAAAAAA
Ep6 - YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
EP7 - AAAAAA!!!!
EP8 - He missed


The funny part is DBZ was made as a parody and for some dumb reason became wicked popular...the writers had to scramble to catch up since there were only planning on doing a few episodes as a joke

[Aldured]

Shure it could... if they were alll BACON!!!:D

You sir are correct, a wiser man than myself once said "nothing burps like bacon" (Al Bundy)

[dkyle]

With thirteen classes coming (yay Druids!) (http://www.ddo.com/underdark/), there's potentially 39 PREs to choose from. That presents more PRE combinations than anyone can reasonably expect to play through in a lifetime.

Two-class characters (including some pure-class characters, but as a severe minority) provides approximately 1482 choices (39*38). Since you can't have alignment-breaking combos like Barbarian Paladins the real number is a bit lower, but that's still an awful lot of combinations. With triple-class characters, that estimate is over 50,000 (39*38*37). That variety still ignores the difference between building 18/2 or 2/18, 12/6/2, 10/10, 9/6/5. Or how far you take each PRE, racial options, epic levels...

If you want to avoid the 100 most popular "cookie cutter" builds, there's still about 49,900 options to look into! Players may keep discovering new and interesting combinations for a long time to come.

Simply having options available isn't enough. There have to be many competitive options. My concern isn't that the new enhancement will make deep multis impossible, but that it'll make it an extremely poor choice in many more cases than it is currently. Also, that racial PrEs will make certain race-class combos obvious choices, and alternatives obviously terrible.

"Cookie-cutter" happens when a few choices are clearly the best and most powerful, not just that few choices are possible.

I want a game where the optimizing powergamer has thousands of builds to choose from, all of which are compelling to him, and difficult to chose between. A game where the optimizing powergamer knows that only a few builds are actually worth bothering with, is a bad game, whether there are thousands of other possible combinations, or not.

I'm glad to hear that you all are still reading, and still discussing, but just telling us how many combinations will be possible isn't really telling me anything I didn't already know and fully expect.

[Artos_Fabril]

Yet you haven't seemed to express any concern over the more likely possibility of stacking similar enhancements from different trees of the same pure class, or the potential side effects of a pure class gaining significant benefits from a racial tree that supports their primary tree while sacrificing little to swap out a tree that doesn't benefit their build goals. That would be because 3 locked in trees where the old class enhancements have all be slit up are less likely to be stackable than 5 trees that can be swapped out for similar bonuses each instead, not more. I seriously doubt there is a CHA bonus in each bard or sorc tree but I'm willing to bet there could be one in a bard tree, a sorc tree, a fvs tree, and a paladin tree. A pure class won't get significant benefits from the racial tree not available to multiclassing so a rather moot point of contention.
Eladrin disagrees with your assertion that enhancements within a class which appear in multiple trees would be less likely to stack.

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.


Meanwhile, you propound the notion that these exact same advantages will compensate multi-classes for a loss of options for which they were built, including access to 2/3rds of the enhancements they should have access to based on their class levels. Yes, actually, because different options does not equal poor options. The reality is that 2/3's of the new options still looks like more than the total number of old options. The choice to add a 5 AP requirement just to spend 1 AP on a level 2 enhancement you could have on the old system instead of just spending those 6 AP in what you have unlocked in the other trees seems like those 6 AP could easily be better spent on higher tier (more powerful) enhancements while still taking advantage of the widest selection of trees to choose from. Aside from that even limiting oneself to level 1 enhancements in another class tree is still giving up a higher level enhancement for a lower level enhancement. It might be nice to have the choice but as far as necessary not so much. That cost might make the stacking concern moot aside from PrE .5's and level 2 enhancements for the most part, tbh, but that's why I have no problem admitting that the trees can't really hurt anything beyond my few concerns if they turn out to be non-issues.
You are making several assumptions here based on far less information than the assumptions made by people advocating against limitations to the number and depth of trees. They are:
1) Low-tier enhancements are intrinsically less powerful and less desirable than higher tier enhancements (They could just as easily be more general compared to the higher tier enhancements being more specific to the intended function of that tree, in order to allow pure class characters more access to class enhancements outside of their chose PrE, while still being class-level gated to prevent splashes from gaining the ability to take full ranks in low-tier enhancements)
2) (related to 1)The 5 points spent in a tree to unlock the second tier of the tree have no value other than unlocking the higher tier and granting rank 0.5 of that tree's PrE. (Of course, we can't definitively answer this without knowing what enhancements are in each tier. However, if as has been stated by the Devs, they intent to reduce the number of junk enhancements, this will not be the case.... unless the do it by combining +1 listen, +1 swim, +1 repair, and +1 heal into a single enhancement called "Jack of All Worthless Trades" and make it the only tier one enhancement in every tree.)
3) Taking a racial PrE will be the only optimal choice for every multiclass build. (To me, this is a strong argument against whatever it is you envision the new system to be, as it basically says "all X-type builds will be Y race, all W-type builds will be Z race, only exceptions being pure classes." If you view that as desirable, then we have a basic disagreement about the direction the game should be taking that is irreconcilable. If not, please explain why you don't think this is the likely result, or how you think the system could be fixed to avoid it)


Then you claim that because neither build can afford all possible enhancements under a 3-tree system, there is no need to retain options currently available which are moved into a PrE rather than a general tab. Because that is true. There is no need. Vertical advancement exists to the same degree as not multiclassing so there is no need. It's a desire for more options but not a need.
The option for full vertical advancement on 1-2 (race and race PrE) trees, and some X-amount less on class trees is not equivalent to the option for full vertical advancement on 5 trees (race, racial PrE, 3 class trees). Even though in either case, only one full option can be exercised, the existence of options is a benefit itself. Furthermore, the change from multi-class to pure-class as offering more options would be a radical shift in game balance, as well as being counter-intuitive (for those who are enamored of simplicity).


You say that access to higher tier racial PrE enhancements is an overbalancing factor for the multi-classes, but ignore or minimize the benefit those same enhancements provide to pure class characters, presumably because a choice between 4 capstones is equivalent to a choice of one or zero capstones, because no character can ever have more than one capstone at a time anyway.

I don't recall saying multiclasses were overbalanced at all. I recall saying that adding the capstone to the PrE's for multiclassing is a nice feature and I like it.[...]You misunderstand, Overbalance (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/overbalance) Transitive verb, first sense. Ill try again. You have said (http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p=4268882&postcount=2635), that the ability of a multi-class character to advance fully in the racial or racial PrE tree outweighs the loss of options caused by denying access to 2/3rd of the characters class-level earned trees at any given time.


What I said was it removes incentive not to multiclass depending on the capstones available. If capstones are the incentive for going pure then creating a situation where removing that capstone would remove that particular incentive. Wizard 18 / Monk 2 is a good example there. If a person doesn't need wizard 20 for the capstone there is less incentive to go wizard 20. If a person does need or want that capstone and it is not available through a racial PrE unlock then there would still be incentive for the capstone. Either way there is still incentive for 2 levels of monk but the difference is where there would be more incentive. If humans can just open up any PrE capstone that would completely remove the incentive for not multiclassing based on capstone needs and be a bad idea IMO.Ignoring completely for a moment the intrinsic benefits of taking those two wizard levels. If a human can unlock a wizard tree to capstone as a racial PrE, they will still have to spend whatever points are required to unlock the PrE from the race tree, reducing the number of points available for actual enhancements. We can assume they will replace the equivalent wizard PrE tree with the racial PrE in this case, unless of course the enhancements stack between the two. They will have sacrificed n AP and 2 wizard levels for 2 monk levels. If n does not balance the gains and losses, then you have a problem. If it does, then you don't, and you have just traded some focus for some versatility, which is exactly what multi-classing has traditionally been about.

The loss of diversity, on the other hand, would be crippling. If the situation becomes as you have portrayed it, all (viable) characters would fall into a narrow band of complementary race/class, or human.


I would rather see humans not get any racial PrE unlock at all (maybe dragon mark heir tho) and change the race PrE unlocks to be only race specific instead of standard class PrE's. Remove arcane archer from ranger and add initiate of the bow or extreme explorer or something. If the ability did not exist for full PrE advancement then I would have some definite concerns for multiclassing in the new systemIf the implementation is what you have predicted, I would agree with this point. But then humans would just become under-powered gimps, compared to all other races, as long as were are still assuming that you are correct about the primacy of racial PrE synergies.


A 12/8/6 with a PrE III or capstone has received some nice benefits instead of those other lower level enhancements. That doesn't mean overbalanced, it means not lacking in options or feasibility.Special mention here, because the typo amuses me: A 12/8/6 with a Tier III PrE or capstone would absolutely be overpowered... because it would be a level 26 character. But it would still have fewer options than a 12/8/6 character in the current system, because it would still be locked out of 2/3rds of the available enhancements it should be able to choose from based on class level.


And you're afraid the expansion of options will lead to more characters selecting the exact same ones. Because that isn't already happening in forums? I'm not afraid of that at all and don't recall saying I was. I expect that players will have their ideas of best builds with or without a tree limitation and post them for everyone.That isn't what you said right here?
Opening up all the trees does not open up all the choices. It opens up making master lists of the best choices and ignoring everything else.Then what were you saying?


2/3 of the enhancements his level split would currently allow is also a bit misleading because 1/3 of over 3 times as much is still more options and no one can spend more AP than they have no matter how many options there are. There are clearly a lot more enhancements being demonstrated in the mockups and almost as many per tree as we had per class previously plus more for races.
Unlike pure class characters, multiclass characters don't have access to the 4 (Race and 3 PrEs) full trees. Their level split already reduces them to, at best a full racial tree, full racial PrE, and 2 partial trees depending on the level split from which to select their enhancements, and they still only get the same 80 AP with which to purchase them as anyone else.

That is still more enhancements than they could possibly buy with 80AP, but it is also fewer choices than pure-class characters have for spending those same 80AP.

By the way, a Dwarf character can spent 78 enhancement points on racial enhancements (without Feat pre-reqs!) without ever putting a point into a single class feature under the current system. Are you sure the racial trees will provide more enhancements than that? Have you seen many Dwarf characters in the current game, pure or multi-classed, who don't manage to free up enough AP to take at least one class PrE? So can a Warforged. A halfling could spend 100, if they had it. Elves can only manage 58, because the Aerenal and Valenar lines lock each other out.

So I think we can reasonably say that just because the options exist, doesn't mean they're desirable on all characters, which you have half acknowledged. Until you turn around and state that because these options exist, other options aren't necessary or desirable, and the existence of these options justifies artificially limiting other options.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

I want a game where the optimizing powergamer has thousands of builds to choose from, all of which are compelling to him, and difficult to chose between.

Thats just it Dkyle. So do I. However, do you really think that has been the case in the last 6 years in DDO? If you listened to some (which I never did, nor will. I test my own builds and play them), there's only 1 or 2 ways how to build/play each class.... and everything else is fluff/flavor. How many times have we all heard that?

Maybethis new system will burst those myths, allow many other types of builds to succeed in the end game. If the new system accomplishes that, dont you think it would be hard pressed to arge that it wasnt all worth it in the end?

[Failedlegend]

Thats just it Dkyle. So do I. However, do you really think that has been the case in the last 6 years in DDO? If you listened to some (which I never did, nor will. I test my own builds and play them), there's only 1 or 2 ways how to build/play each class.... and everything else is fluff/flavor. How many times have we all heard that?

Maybethis new system will burst those myths, allow many other types of builds to succeed in the end game. If the new system accomplishes that, dont you think it would be hard pressed to arge that it wasnt all worth it in the end?

Yes leslie since we have such a problem with cookie cutter builds we should restirct options even more and possibly make multiclassing pointless....that will fix EVERYTHING

[HalfORCastrator]

Problem with the current system is that it is clunky and confusing to operate.

For example my wife has played casually almost as long as I have played, yet trying to sort what is needed for what PRE turns into several minutes of frustrated scrolling for her that ends in calling me to come do the massive scrolling to help her. She is not stupid and she knows the system well enough, however the layout needs a facelift for sure to give it more ease of use.

The other thing I hate is the large amount of "useless" enhancements you have on the current skill tree. It does need to be looked at and fixed.

My only worry is how it will be handled. I am hoping to maintain the flexibility while cleaning up the system.
I'm not talking about the UI. The UI for enhancements is complete doodoo, and absolutely needs to be overhauled. Useless enhancements can be tweaked or thrown out in the old system, they and players know what are good attributes/effects and what aren't.


The problem is with the existing system is it's been years to get the PrE's we have and I cannot see it going any faster than experience has shown us.

I can really appreciate not needing to wait 3-5 more years to see full PrE's and if a change is needed to accomplish that the change has a huge positive going for it right there.
I was under the impression(from forum reading) that a big part of that was the lawsuit with Atari. That they've recently started getting back into the swing of things. As it is now, though, they're showing that they're already motivated to get back to PREs, this change or not.


But, since this isn't going to change anything, I'll give my two thumbs up for trying to work in a general class enhancements tree/line/whatever that all branches of that class can utilize for generic good stats. (like damage, ability points, etc)

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

So I think we can reasonably say that just because the options exist, doesn't mean they're desirable on all characters, which you have half acknowledged.

Im sure Aash will go into much more detail, but WHY would you want "the options" to be desirable "on all characters"???

The end product is one which we will have to playtest, just like any other time when the mechanics change.

Its going to take the entire DDO community's support to help envision, build and playtest these builds, and to give them a chance to flesh out. I think for the most part, this new process will influence our behavior to be more open and willing to accept change.

That's actually going to be the bar I set for success or failure of this new UI.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

Yes leslie since we have such a problem with cookie cutter builds we should restirct options even more and possibly make multiclassing pointless....that will fix EVERYTHING

Its not going to happen. I am putting my faith in the devs that they mean it when they say there will be more choices. Looking at the mockup, the potential seems obvious for more options, not less. I see more good reasons for multi-classing then I did before, not less.

There is more to building toons that people want to play, then enhancements. Race, skills, feats will all play a part, just like before, but may be even more crucial. With the cost of enhancements going down (way down in some cases), and new enhancements being added, looking at a build's full palette will be more important (and offer more options) than ever in determining how a build will work out. There will be much allure for mixed classing, in fact my first druid is set to multi-class, based on the mockup and dev explanations, I see in this thread alone.

[Artos_Fabril]

Im sure Aash will go into much more detail, but WHY would you want "the options" to be desirable "on all characters"???
I never said that all options or "the options" should be desirable on all characters. What I said was that existence of one set of options is not an excuse to deny or limit other sets of options, because no one set of options is desirable on all builds.

The more options there are to choose between, the more likely it is for more than one option to be viable, (or for more than one set of options to be "optimal"). This will tend to reduce the prevalence of "cookie cutter" builds

[Scraap]

Two-class characters (including some pure-class characters, but as a severe minority) provides approximately 1482 choices (39*38). Since you can't have alignment-breaking combos like Barbarian Paladins the real number is a bit lower, but that's still an awful lot of combinations. With triple-class characters, that estimate is over 50,000 (39*38*37). That variety still ignores the difference between building 18/2 or 2/18, 12/6/2, 10/10, 9/6/5. Or how far you take each PRE, racial options, epic levels...



That variety still ignores the difference between building 18/2 or 2/18, 12/6/2, 10/10, 9/6/5.


Your presented design, and historical usage thus-far, does not, unless you are abandoning level restrictions for AP expenditure entirely. At present, it in fact dictates how far you can take a non-race PRE. Are you saying that dropping that aspect is a serious consideration?

The more I look at it, the more I'm leaning towards the first 20 points in a tree to numerical advantages, and the other 21 to applications of them as a general philosophical design approach.

That'd make for a pure evenly spending 20 in each of the 4 trees (including raw race) a generalist of a class with few specialized tricks, or a mutt using one or two trees to meet basic player expectations, like not having to roll a 13 to disable a trap when it matters, or being able to get enough raw damage from build and gear to beat an infinitely regenerating mobs hitpoint restoration abilities. And yes, that'd likely back-load most of the fun toys till 11 or so (whether that's due to level requirements, or simply the time it takes to actually get the aps to spend em), but honestly, we're mostly at that point now, with the 12/6/2s anyway, so not as much raw level changing there.

/coffeestillkickingin

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

I never said that all options or "the options" should be desirable on all characters. What I said was that existence of one set of options is not an excuse to deny or limit other sets of options, because no one set of options is desirable on all builds.

The more options there are to choose between, the more likely it is for more than one option to be viable, (or for more than one set of options to be "optimal"). This will tend to reduce the prevalence of "cookie cutter" builds

Ok, that I agree with. However, does that mean you are now arguing in favor of this new system? Because what you just said implies you are (or should be).

[dkyle]

Thats just it Dkyle. So do I. However, do you really think that has been the case in the last 6 years in DDO? If you listened to some (which I never did, nor will. I test my own builds and play them), there's only 1 or 2 ways how to build/play each class.... and everything else is fluff/flavor. How many times have we all heard that?

I said it's what I want, not expect or demand. It's a goal. The closer we get to it, the better. I believe that just about everything we've told in this thread is likely to take us farther away, not closer.


Maybethis new system will burst those myths, allow many other types of builds to succeed in the end game. If the new system accomplishes that, dont you think it would be hard pressed to arge that it wasnt all worth it in the end?

It's possible.

But at this time, I see very little reason to believe this is likely. I'm looking at the mechanics we've been told about. And I see a much to discourage deep multiclasses, and very little to encourage. What the devs say they're goals are doesn't mean much to me, when the mechanics we've seen appear to go against what they say they want.

[Failedlegend]

However, does that mean you are now arguing in favor of this new system?

See mthis is what you don't get We want the new system we like the concept and the sleek looking design we EXPECT to have to rearrange most if not all our characters but what we DON'T want is arbitrary limitations to kill one of the more unique things about DDO vs. other MMOs.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

See mthis is what you don't get We want the new system we like the concept and the sleek looking design we EXPECT to have to rearrange most if not all our characters but what we DON'T want is arbitrary limitations to kill one of the more unique things about DDO vs. other MMOs.

Oh I get it, and I'm actually in agreement with you there.

I dont think they will however. And thats what people that agree with me are trying to say.

(What I think the arbitrary limitations, as theve been called, will help instill in DDO is game balance, but that remains to be seen.)

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

But at this time, I see very little reason to believe this is likely. I'm looking at the mechanics we've been told about. And I see a much to discourage deep multiclasses, and very little to encourage. What the devs say they're goals are doesn't mean much to me, when the mechanics we've seen appear to go against what they say they want.

Ya, but I dont believe those mechanics are set in stone either until they flesh out the enhancements/prestiges/capstones/tree access rules.

I can be wrong, but I'm seeing something very different than you are in these mockups, but I'm glad we are starting to see eye to eye, and admit our goals appear to be pretty much the same.

[AZgreentea]

I have a slight request. If you are modifying enhancements for the new system, can you make these work with Bastard Swords and Dwarvish Axes when wielded as S&B for GWA? I know that Horcs dont consider Bastard swords big enough (despite the fact that my Horc's Bastard Sword is as tall as she is) but these are the only THF type weapons that GWA dosent apply too.

[jkm]

We do have some thoughts on why this is not where DDO would be headed even if we do go with a three tree limit, but the exact number of trees remains under discussion and isn't set yet.

With thirteen classes coming (yay Druids!) (http://www.ddo.com/underdark/), there's potentially 39 PREs to choose from. That presents more PRE combinations than anyone can reasonably expect to play through in a lifetime.

Two-class characters (including some pure-class characters, but as a severe minority) provides approximately 1482 choices (39*38). Since you can't have alignment-breaking combos like Barbarian Paladins the real number is a bit lower, but that's still an awful lot of combinations. With triple-class characters, that estimate is over 50,000 (39*38*37). That variety still ignores the difference between building 18/2 or 2/18, 12/6/2, 10/10, 9/6/5. Or how far you take each PRE, racial options, epic levels...

If you want to avoid the 100 most popular "cookie cutter" builds, there's still about 49,900 options to look into! Players may keep discovering new and interesting combinations for a long time to come.

Obviously this isn't everything that matters, and we're still wrestling with issues arising from possible "class trees", more than three trees, enhancements existing in multiple trees (stacking and not), various interesting ideas for race trees and racial PREs, etc. We're not settled yet, and continue reading what you have to say. And reading, and reading, and reading! It's pretty clear that there isn't 100% agreement how enhancements should work, and that many players have strong feelings on enhancements.

You are basing your permutations on the assumption that all of these combos are equally viable. This isn't true now as there are basically about 20 viable multiclass splits to go along with 20-26 pure class builds. Please note, this doesn't include "End Game Builds" that require a Who's Who of DDO Gear as that gear is unaccessible to 80% of your playerbase.

1. There are very few options for Sorc/Wiz outside of the 18 Wiz/2 Rogue build.
2. There are very few options for deep multiclassing in general that don't have a 12 Fighter or 6/12 Barbarian or 6 ranger split.
3. The only reason that 18/2 and 19/1 splits are even remotely viable today is because of weaknesses in several capstones. 18 Fighter vs 20 Fighter? What can you gain that will make up for +10% dps?
4. The one class that is heavily multiclassed now is Bard. Now why would that be? No Tier 3 PrEs and they gain pretty much nothing from level 15 on. As such, it is often more profitable to multiclass than stay pure.

TLDR:

If the PrEs are as imbalanced as they are now, you are not going to end up with 52k permutations, you'll end up with the 50 we have now.

[jkm]

Its not going to happen. I am putting my faith in the devs that they mean it when they say there will be more choices. Looking at the mockup, the potential seems obvious for more options, not less. I see more good reasons for multi-classing then I did before, not less.

I want you to think about the options that we currently have for Elf Enhancements and then look at that tree again. Elf enhancements come in 2 distinct flavors -> Caster and Melee.

Now this is cool if you are planning on taking Arcane Archer. However, what if you want to take the racial rapier damage bonus? Are you really going to lock up 1 of your 3 trees for 2 points of damage? What about as a wizard for the spell pen? It isn't going to be worth it since you'll be getting bonuses to a PrE you aren't going to use.

Now think about humans getting every single PrE. Now think about how that tree is ALWAYS going to be used because you can always benefit ANY character by your choices. Melee? Sure, I pick racial Kensai or Racial Tempest for My 4 Tiers of Healing Amp and 5 tiers of Human Versatility.

Its going to limit choices because in almost every instance because Human/half elf are going to be the best choice.

[Riggs]

I think I agree with Riggs right now.

I would truly like more builds to be viable. I like coming up with fun alternative options. I'm NOT a fan of Pure Classing overall as it just feels boring to me. So please keep that in mind when determining Enhancements and the power of them throughout the levels and tiers.

Aesop

I am a big fan of versatilty, why I always take a wiz over a sorc, like the options of pnp rogues, and and have lots of multiclasses.

I am not against pure classes - TSR, and then WotC are who made pure classes so boring in the first place. If Turbine had not added capstones, then there would be absolutely zero reason to ever pure class a melee for the vast majority of classes.

I remember looking at the game Icewind Dale years back, and reading some builds and walkthroughs after getting bored of it pretty quick. That game seemingly had a stacking problem as well - as there was an 'últimate ac, ultimate dps, ultimate tank' etc - mostly because of stacking gear - but anyway - the ultimate fighter was not a pure fighter - it was a 4 ftr/26 cleric (game went to level 30 or so), because after weapon specialization, there was zero value of a pure fighter vs 26 cleric levels, that with divine power and favor - was a better melee than a fighter AND had all the spells. As much as I like mixing things up, it would be boring to play a game where half the classes have no value after certain arbirtrary peaks. Every class should get better at whatever it does beyond the mere +1 to hit and 10 hp.

DDO has tried to make pure classing more viable, and that is all good - as long as multiclasses are not actively losing options - which the proposed info points to - and what a couple rabid posters seem dead set on making sure multiclasses get gimped in the new system.

Pathfinder found a way to give pure classes good bonuses every 2 levels, not super overpowered bonuses, but there was value and reason to staying pure - including much better capstones than we have now for the most part.

But you dont lose options when multiclassing, and DDO seems to be trying to stamp out any value of doing anything other than staying pure.

The stats needed, the dc thresholds needed, the capstones for some, the need to specialize more and more...I mean the thought of all the stacking of a pure class getting 3 types of same stat bonuses, 3 types of stacking toughness, three types of stacking damage bonuses are mind-bogglingly unbalancing - and a bunch of people seem to either not see it at all, or see it, and are trying very hard to argue for it because inside they are giggling in anticipation of all the new powers they will get - and completely oblivious to what damage that is going to do to the game - but are too busy arguing against multiclasses to see it.

The basic math still eludes the same few people that keep posting.

A 12/6/2 split now gets 100% of whatever enhancements they qualify for by level now. Under the new system, where every class is split into 3 - a 12/6/2 split will get only 33% of what they qualify for by level.

There is no math system I know of where losing access to 2/3 of what you have today is not a big nurf.

As long as any and all tiers no matter the class or level do NOT stack, then whether you are a pure double tier 3 build, or a mutt 12/6/2 build, you get more or less equal benefits from your 80 AP, and whether you multiclass or stay pure, you will theoretically get useful bonuses and not be jammed into a cookie cutter.

But if everything stacks as stated, and the three tree debacle stays in place as described - the new benchmarks for stats, dcs, hp, etc - are going to very heavily favor pure classes tripple dipping into their lines, and any and all new monsters are goingto be tuned to that new power level, and everyone else not meeting those benchmarks are going to really suffer endgame.

That would be extremely boring.

[orakio]

Riggs, you are still looking at the new system through the eyes of what we currently have and without anything more than very vague information about the new system. Nobody that is reasonable believes that a multiclass should be worse than a pure class, but a multiclass characters isn't entitled to be by far the better choice either. A 3 tree system probably gives a relative advantage to pures, and an unlimited system probably gives a distinct advantage to multiclasses, who plain and simple have more options. You don't have 33% of the options you have now because all of the options are changing, for everyone. You have a bunch of new options, most of the old ones and different structure on the system. We still don't know what the level limitations are within the trees. We know that there is one but it isn't informative enough to say that enhancements are definitely as level restricted as they currently are.

What we do know is that nobody will ever be able to select even 50% of the enhancements available to them anymore, that is because even pures will have 4(maybe 5 after that last mockup they had shown with a full 41 point boost racial tree) tree choices and EVERY tree has 41+ ap worth of enhancements. If everyone gets 80 AP and even pures, with their limited options, has access to 164+ AP worth of enhancements nobody is going to have it all. That 33% number you are throwing about is just trying to skew the argument in your favor, but it is a number that is practically pulled out of nowhere. If every enhancement for one of your class splits in the current system is in 1 tree do you lose anything in the new system? NO.

What people are arguing against is people crying wolf without knowing if the wolf is there yet. Sure there could be a wolf, in this case new enhancements possibly being detrimental to multi's, but dev's already pointed out that they want to keep multi's viable and want to INCREASE options. It is probably premature to claim something is unfair. This new system should have so many more options for character decisions that it is ridiculous. If done right it should help promote players wanting to be both pure or multi and make you feel like you aren't as limited as everyone is so worried about. It comes down to execution and details, we can argue about hypothetical situations all day long and everyone can make an argument saying one side is right or wrong but the reality is that they are all guesses without the information to support those guesses.

[Seikojin]

I approve of this new enhancement setup. It definitely will make building characters a lot easier.

[Seikojin]

Yessir, it does. This system is limited to heroic levels.

Hmm. 4th ed conversion 60% complete. :)

[Aashrym]

Eladrin disagrees with your assertion that enhancements within a class which appear in multiple trees would be less likely to stack.

4 or 5 trees with the same stacking enhancements would be more, even if all 3 trees in a class had them. I'm pretty sure Eladrin understands 4 enhancements of +1 CHA is more than 3 enhancements of +1 CHA. Although add the same enhancement to multiple class trees removes the need players are asking for having more class trees because of lost access to enhancements while adding it to multiple class trees without the 3 tree limit would exacerbate stacking issues. If 4 classes had 2 trees each with +1 CHA that's +8 CHA, not +2 from the one class.

You are making several assumptions here based on far less information than the assumptions made by people advocating against limitations to the number and depth of trees. They are:
1) Low-tier enhancements are intrinsically less powerful and less desirable than higher tier enhancements (They could just as easily be more general compared to the higher tier enhancements being more specific to the intended function of that tree, in order to allow pure class characters more access to class enhancements outside of their chose PrE, while still being class-level gated to prevent splashes from gaining the ability to take full ranks in low-tier enhancements)

I believe it's a safer assumption that an enhancement with higher requirements to access in the first place would normally be a stronger enhancement than the ones with lower requirements. I'm actually assuming it would be at least equal, however, instead of stronger. I do not believe it is a safe assumption that an enhancement with a lower requirement would provide more benefit than an enhancement with a higher requirement.

2) (related to 1)The 5 points spent in a tree to unlock the second tier of the tree have no value other than unlocking the higher tier and granting rank 0.5 of that tree's PrE. (Of course, we can't definitively answer this without knowing what enhancements are in each tier. However, if as has been stated by the Devs, they intent to reduce the number of junk enhancements, this will not be the case.... unless the do it by combining +1 listen, +1 swim, +1 repair, and +1 heal into a single enhancement called "Jack of All Worthless Trades" and make it the only tier one enhancement in every tree.)

Again, my assumption is the higher requirement enhancements would be at least equal to the lower requirement enhancements as opposed to assuming the lower requirement enhancements would provide more advantage.

3) Taking a racial PrE will be the only optimal choice for every multiclass build. (To me, this is a strong argument against whatever it is you envision the new system to be, as it basically says "all X-type builds will be Y race, all W-type builds will be Z race, only exceptions being pure classes." If you view that as desirable, then we have a basic disagreement about the direction the game should be taking that is irreconcilable. If not, please explain why you don't think this is the likely result, or how you think the system could be fixed to avoid it)

I sure hope not. I would hate to think we opened up 150 arcane archer builds with very little difference between them. That's why I would rather have race PrE trees that are not just class trees swapped in and with a lot of variety of enhancements within each tree. I would like to point out that a person should be able to, on the new system, skip the racial PrE and take the race tree up over 41 points and still make use of the additional classes trees effectively. If you think there will be a limited number of top builds or recommended builds that happens now. I don't think that's avoidable on any system.

The option for full vertical advancement on 1-2 (race and race PrE) trees, and some X-amount less on class trees is not equivalent to the option for full vertical advancement on 5 trees (race, racial PrE, 3 class trees). Even though in either case, only one full option can be exercised, the existence of options is a benefit itself. Furthermore, the change from multi-class to pure-class as offering more options would be a radical shift in game balance, as well as being counter-intuitive (for those who are enamored of simplicity).

No one has the option for full vertical advancement on all trees. Advancing 1 fully autmatically precludes advancing all the others automatically. A person cannot spend 41+ points in 2 trees let alone more. It's looks possible to develop 2 heavily but not fully. Saying a pure class can is false. It is impossible to accomplish taking top tier enhancements in all trees let alone develop them.

You misunderstand, Overbalance (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/overbalance) Transitive verb, first sense. Ill try again. You have said (http://forums.ddo.com/reputation.php?p=4268882), that the ability of a multi-class character to advance fully in the racial or racial PrE tree outweighs the loss of options caused by denying access to 2/3rd of the characters class-level earned trees at any given time.

I do not recall saying outweighs at all. If you find a quote of me saying it I'll clarify what I meant. I don't actually see a loss of options, tbh, I see a loss of specific options. I'll repeat something I want you to try to dispute if you like: 1/3 of over 3 times as many options is more than 3/3 of less than 1/3 of the options. More total enhancements in each tree is more choices than a person would be giving up. What we need is to see how many options are actually available in each tree (looks like a lot) for a more accurate comparison of number of choices.

Ignoring completely for a moment the intrinsic benefits of taking those two wizard levels. If a human can unlock a wizard tree to capstone as a racial PrE, they will still have to spend whatever points are required to unlock the PrE from the race tree, reducing the number of points available for actual enhancements. We can assume they will replace the equivalent wizard PrE tree with the racial PrE in this case, unless of course the enhancements stack between the two. They will have sacrificed n AP and 2 wizard levels for 2 monk levels. If n does not balance the gains and losses, then you have a problem. If it does, then you don't, and you have just traded some focus for some versatility, which is exactly what multi-classing has traditionally been about.

You have high reflex, evasion, feats, and unlocked class skills. I could take that multiclass and completely ignore the monk enhancements and still make it effective. Either with the trees available or swapping in a race tree. That is true with a lot of splashes.

The loss of diversity, on the other hand, would be crippling. If the situation becomes as you have portrayed it, all (viable) characters would fall into a narrow band of complementary race/class, or human.

The problem with this is we don't have an accurate comparison to measure any loss of diversity. Being able to select from trees is diversity in itself and there could be more diverse choices within each tree than we have now because if choices are what you consider an effective build more choices than we have can easily be within those trees.

If the implementation is what you have predicted, I would agree with this point. But then humans would just become under-powered gimps, compared to all other races, as long as were are still assuming that you are correct about the primacy of racial PrE synergies.

That depend on what is in the race tree as well. 41+ points of race enhancements is potentially a lot to build around. My concern is handing out too many racial PrE's.

Special mention here, because the typo amuses me: A 12/8/6 with a Tier III PrE or capstone would absolutely be overpowered... because it would be a level 26 character. But it would still have fewer options than a 12/8/6 character in the current system, because it would still be locked out of 2/3rds of the available enhancements it should be able to choose from based on class level.

D'oh on the typo. But that is still not true on the number of choice.

Rogues have about 18ish enhancements to build on now with individual enhancements that can be expensive to build on with the prereq's (10 AP to hit a 4th tier in a chain, for example). The trees in the mockup show 16 and 17 and we have been told we can select several of the trees multiple times. This is obviously the case or it would not be possible to get 41+ AP in a tree. Rogue enhancements currently tier up with 57 choices no including the capstones or PrE's. These 57 choices are stackings of existing enhancements for tiered costs. We've been told the cost progression will be more like the 1 AP per tier we see with sorc/wiz damage enhancements. Taking 1 rogue tree with almost as many enhancements as the entire class currently has and providing 4 tiers of an enhancement at 4 AP instead of 10 AP frees up 6 AP.

The ability to select 3 trees is versatility over pure classing still. Given 4 total trees with over 41 AP each gives us a place to spend the points and if a person was to compare 8 tier IV abilities that way 48 AP just became available to spend on more enhancements, picking up 12 more enhancements for that same 4 AP investment in each.

You might have a limitation on the number of trees but compared to the existing system you end up with more choices within those trees and the ability to actually purchase more enhancements.

Unlike pure class characters, multiclass characters don't have access to the 4 (Race and 3 PrEs) full trees. Their level split already reduces them to, at best a full racial tree, full racial PrE, and 2 partial trees depending on the level split from which to select their enhancements, and they still only get the same 80 AP with which to purchase them as anyone else.

Nope, multiclass have access to the most suitable of 39 trees while pure classes have a choice of 3, both have the option of a race unlock. 39 is a much bigger selection than 3. The number of AP to spend limits the pure class from investing in all the trees just as effectively as class limits do on a multiclass.

That is still more enhancements than they could possibly buy with 80AP, but it is also fewer choices than pure-class characters have for spending those same 80AP.

It's sure looks like more choices to me. Pick the race, trees, and level splits to access the enhancements that suit the multiclass over getting stuck with 3 trees to choose enhancements from plus a possible race unlock. Like I said earlier, you have more total choices even restricting the trees and you can choose more enhancement than currently and develop them because of the changes. You would end up with more choices and more enhancements looking at the changes.

By the way, a Dwarf character can spent 78 enhancement points on racial enhancements (without Feat pre-reqs!) without ever putting a point into a single class feature under the current system. Are you sure the racial trees will provide more enhancements than that? Have you seen many Dwarf characters in the current game, pure or multi-classed, who don't manage to free up enough AP to take at least one class PrE? So can a Warforged. A halfling could spend 100, if they had it. Elves can only manage 58, because the Aerenal and Valenar lines lock each other out.

Yes because the change is looking at removing tier costs on developing those enhancements. A dwarf only has about 15 enhancements now and taking away 1/2/3/4 per tier spending on a 1/1/1/1 opens up a lot on enhancements. Spending 50 on 5 enhancements up to the 4th level (not specific to dwarves) would give back 30 AP to spend elsewhere. That means being able to take more enhancements within the existing trees and the total number of enhancements on a character appears to exceed what we can do now.

So I think we can reasonably say that just because the options exist, doesn't mean they're desirable on all characters, which you have half acknowledged. Until you turn around and state that because these options exist, other options aren't necessary or desirable, and the existence of these options justifies artificially limiting other options.

It's easy to say that not all options suit all builds. I fully acknowledge that. I see the potential for a lot more total options within those trees for a net gain.

Short version: cheaper enhancement development and more total enhancements per character (as opposed to expensive addition tree tier unlocks) can easily offset the loss of options for class enhancements. Some builds would still be affected but new builds would emerge and the game would go on. I'm also half asleep, so you might need to warn me if I have more typos. :D

[Aashrym]

I was under the impression(from forum reading) that a big part of that was the lawsuit with Atari. That they've recently started getting back into the swing of things. As it is now, though, they're showing that they're already motivated to get back to PREs, this change or not.


But, since this isn't going to change anything, I'll give my two thumbs up for trying to work in a general class enhancements tree/line/whatever that all branches of that class can utilize for generic good stats. (like damage, ability points, etc)

That lawsuit was over a while ago. The OP stated the change made it easier. :)

[Failedlegend]

Ya, but I dont believe those mechanics are set in stone either until they flesh out the enhancements/prestiges/capstones/tree access rules.

I don't believe any of the mechanics (beyond the fact that i will be a tree system) are locked in either which is why I continue to give my feedback as this devs requested/offered in stead of "Trusting the Devs to do it right" or however you said it.

Honestly if your feedback is it's perfect and ALL suggestions to the contrary is being pessimistic despite the fact that they are currently discussing said ummm..."pessimism" as proven by Vargo's post I don't see why you bother participating in the thread since it's you know a FEEDBACK thread.

Sidenote: Although we know little about Epic levels Eladrin has mentioned that their a different system which I'm hoping means you can't have things like a 20fighter/5Rogue (or w/e)...instead it would be 20Fighter/5EpicFighter or 12F/6M/2R/3EpicFighter/2EpicMonk so the multiclass would still only have Lvl 12 fighter and Lvl6 Monk abilities but he'd have access to whatever the Epic levels bring.

Also it would probably make sense if you could only take Epic levels in whatever Class(es) you have. IOW a Wizard12/Cleric8 can only take Epic Levels in Wizard and/or Cleric...just makes sense. Anyways that's enough derailing for today.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

Honestly if your feedback is it's perfect and ALL suggestions to the contrary is being pessimistic despite the fact that they are currently discussing said ummm..."pessimism" as proven by Vargo's post I don't see why you bother participating in the thread since it's you know a FEEDBACK thread.

Nowhere have I said it is perfect. Its far to early for anyone to label it that. The fact of the matter is we have done all we can with the data we have. Ive given my feedback earlier in this thread, and again after each dev post. There's nothing else to add until the next dev post, unless I see a comment I really do or dont like.

I am participating because I have a stake in this change, and just because I feel pretty good about this UI now doesn't mean I will tomorrow. This is BIG STUFF in DDO terms, and you know it.

We are just debating likely/not likely/hopeful, good and bad outcomes at this point, from our points of view... When the devs release more, we'll all be on it like a hot date. :D

PS: Oh Epic levels is a whole other animal. That can change all our opinions in a jiffy. We'll see how it all pans out.

[Zadaine]

I only read a few dev posts and saw the mock up but where is everyone getting that they were getting rid of a lot of enhancements/making enhancement picking much more linear? All I thought was that they were going to toss out some weak enhancements almost no one used and change the UI to show upgrade paths far more efficiently then the current system.

I'm sorry if I missed where this was all was said by a dev.

[bigolbear]

nice to see this mamoth thread is still rolling.

In the ominous words of my father "IVE BEEN THINKING"

Ive been thinking and Ive spotted a massive flaw in the design. A huge massive gigantic flaw, that up to press has not been considered.

With prestige abilities being granted as bonus unlocks, it will no longer be viable to include negatives along with positives for being in a prestige.

For example: lets look at sorcerer.
in the past one of the most popular specs for sorc was fire/cold. This was due to varying imunities and the fact that most enemies were imune to one but not to both - also 'delivery method' cone/ball etc. Although savants now exist and going fire/cold prevents access to either fire savant or ice savant, it does not prevent a sorc going 'air savant + fire and cold, or simply ignoring savants entirely.

With the new tree system, there is a risk that, depending on how it is designed it may no longer be possible to make an old fashioned fire/cold sorc. If for example so many points in the fire tree unlocked fire savant.. and thus crippled your cold casting.

The only resaonable thing to do here is to have a selectable option within the tree that mirrors some part of the savant lines - giving both a positive and a negative. Leaving the tree 'bonus' features purely as positive, or to do away with the negative aspect all together.

Ive always felt that prestiges, should give something up for that extra level of specialisation, you got that right with savant - it was a choice. Id like to see those choices remain, even if it is part of the tree, trather than as the bonus for points spent.

Im honestly not sure how this should be handled, but it is a concern to me.

[waterboytkd]

Now this is cool if you are planning on taking Arcane Archer. However, what if you want to take the racial rapier damage bonus? Are you really going to lock up 1 of your 3 trees for 2 points of damage? What about as a wizard for the spell pen? It isn't going to be worth it since you'll be getting bonuses to a PrE you aren't going to use.

Maybe I missed a crucial post in this discussion, but by this it seems you are suggesting that the racial tree (not the racial PrE tree, like Halfling Assassin) takes one of your 3 trees. I believe, based on dev comments and the mockup, that you get 3 class trees and a racial tree, for 4 trees total, and that the racial tree (not the racial PrE tree) does not grant PrE bonuses (which was gotten from dev comments, not the mockup, as the mockup would suggest otherwise).



nice to see this mamoth thread is still rolling.

In the ominous words of my father "IVE BEEN THINKING"

Ive been thinking and Ive spotted a massive flaw in the design. A huge massive gigantic flaw, that up to press has not been considered.

With prestige abilities being granted as bonus unlocks, it will no longer be viable to include negatives along with positives for being in a prestige.

For example: lets look at sorcerer.
in the past one of the most popular specs for sorc was fire/cold. This was due to varying imunities and the fact that most enemies were imune to one but not to both - also 'delivery method' cone/ball etc. Although savants now exist and going fire/cold prevents access to either fire savant or ice savant, it does not prevent a sorc going 'air savant + fire and cold, or simply ignoring savants entirely.

With the new tree system, there is a risk that, depending on how it is designed it may no longer be possible to make an old fashioned fire/cold sorc. If for example so many points in the fire tree unlocked fire savant.. and thus crippled your cold casting.

The only resaonable thing to do here is to have a selectable option within the tree that mirrors some part of the savant lines - giving both a positive and a negative. Leaving the tree 'bonus' features purely as positive, or to do away with the negative aspect all together.

Ive always felt that prestiges, should give something up for that extra level of specialisation, you got that right with savant - it was a choice. Id like to see those choices remain, even if it is part of the tree, trather than as the bonus for points spent.

Im honestly not sure how this should be handled, but it is a concern to me.

Actually, I disagree here. I don't feel you should suffer negatives for a PrE. The problem with negatives are that they are terrible balancing features. If you give something a lot of power, but then try and balance it with a negative, a couple things could happen:

1)You overcompensate. Improved Fortification for wf is a perfect example. It's benefit is great, but it's drawback is so bad that the feat is completely worthless on 99.9999999999999% of all builds.

2)You're too lenient. I'm having trouble coming up with a good example at the moment, but this is where the drawback is just not enough, and the benefit is too great, that not taking the thing is crazy. Usually, this is pretty rare as too light a drawback is often easy to spot.

3)You hit it just right. This is actually a myth. No one (in their right mind) will spend resources to acquire something that is bad for them. The only way people take a thing with a drawback is if #2 is true, or:

4)The drawback can be worked around. This is the most common occurrence for something good with a drawback that people actually use. Savant is a perfect example. The drawback is you take a big hit to casting certain kinds of spells. The workaround: you just don't waste spell slots on those spells. Granted, in this case, the workaround is the desired end (one assumes) in that it gets Savants of a certain flavor to completely reject the opposing flavor. Another example is both warforged and pale masters and their aversion to normal healing. For PMs, the devs gave them a workaround (negative energy spells so they can heal themselves), because without that, no one would play PMs, no matter how good they are.

For warforged's healing penalty, we have two workarounds: play an arcane (the most common workaround), and get a ton of healing amp gear. Obviously, the first is restricted to class choice, but consider the second. Any warforged melee worth partying with has healing amp gear. Typically, a lot of it, or at least enough to get their healing back to full. Only noobs and newbs think they don't need a bunch of healing amp on a wf melee. So, in this case, any player in the know works to overcome the drawback. No one actually operates with this drawback in full effect.

Quick Recap: players don't operate under drawbacks. If the benefit of something with a drawback is good enough, players will only take it if the drawback is too meek, or it can be worked around. Sometimes, the workaround is a desired end, but in the end, no one spends resources on something that actually hurts their characters.

[azrael4h]

Maybe I missed a crucial post in this discussion, but by this it seems you are suggesting that the racial tree (not the racial PrE tree, like Halfling Assassin) takes one of your 3 trees. I believe, based on dev comments and the mockup, that you get 3 class trees and a racial tree, for 4 trees total, and that the racial tree (not the racial PrE tree) does not grant PrE bonuses (which was gotten from dev comments, not the mockup, as the mockup would suggest otherwise).



I believe it was stated that the racial PrE tree takes the place of one of your class PrE trees. You can only have 3 PrE trees active at one time. I think the generic Racial enhancements, however, are in a different tree. But it is very confusing (I made this post initially because I misread what you said, actually).

The issue some of us have and are being ignored by the devs about is the fact that enhancements which are currently available to the base class are going to be shoved into PrEs; restricting the actual ability to both Multiclass and be effective, and take a racial PrE on a pure class and be effective.

Let's take Sorcerer:

Eladrin stated that class enhancements will go "where they fit best". In the case of the Savants, that means each Savant will get the entire damage/crit lines for their respective elemental type. It also means you can only have three of those damage types; if you want repair line, gotta give up one of Fire, Cold, Electric, or Acid. Forget Acolyte of Skin or whatever it's called; no one will take it because they'll lose a damage line. I personally run Air with Fire/Cold secondary right now.

In the case of the common Bard Multi-classes, a Bard wants to take Song magic for healing (Virt?), Wand and Scroll Mastery (Spell Singer), extend song (Virt?), attack and damage song enhancements (WC), in addition to their PrE. They will lose, compared to the current system, all second and third class enhancements entirely, just to cover their core Bard abilities, and cannot take any Racial PrE because the basic class abilities have been hacked up and forced into PrEs instead of class.

However, it's irrelevant to argue now, as the devs are just ignoring it; this is a sham to give players a false sense of being listened to. They have proven time and again that they do not care about player concerns, and ignore even the blood-letting of players that has been happening steadily since as far back as U5 and their ill-received and ill-designed TWF nerfs.

[waterboytkd]

The more I think about racial PrE trees, the more a couple things start to bother me.

First, some of their choices for racial PrE trees. Stalwart Defender for dwarves is obviously a good choice, and it even works to some degree with warforged. But tempest for drow? Granted, in Eberron lore, drow are more inclined to survivalist professions like ranger than in other settings, but the undisputed masters of dual scimitars in Eberron are the Valenar elves. Thus, giving the PrE tree that is going to have scimitar specialization stuff to drow seems like slapping Keith Baker in the face with a blow-up Drizzt adult toy.

Second, though the existing class PrE trees can work, and are less work for the devs, ultimately, it feels bland. I mean, there already exist in D&D all kinds of unique PrCs for races, and those could be used. This has two major benefits in my mind: it gives more detail and flavor to the races, and it gets rid of awkward stacking issues around a race being in its racial PrE tree's class (like dwarf fighter, or halfling rogue).

Though it would take more work from the devs, I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to see the original concept for racial trees instituted:

Dwarf: Dwaven Defender. This would be something that would increase durability and tanking ability, but do so in a way completely unique from (or at least easily stacks with) Stalwart Defender and Defender of Siberys. This way, a dwarven fighter or dwarven paladin would get MORE from being a dwarf then just getting some racial enhancements that team up nicely with one of his class PrEs. Also, this could be a way to get around dwarven PMs from having insane hp totals.

Warforged: Warforged Juggernaut. This would have to be a significant break from the PnP version (as that version has some very bad abilities tied to it). This PrE should probably embrace two kinds of boosts: boosts to melees to give them an inexorable feel (maybe knockdown effects, stun effects, or DoT-style dps increases), and boosts to defense to give an indestructible feel (something like boosts to DR/Adamantine, Damage Resistance, or Healing AND Repair Amplification; probably emphasis on healing amp, despite that being a massive break from the PnP flavor of the PrC). I would like to see this more than just a way for wf sorcs to be more invincible, and really, I'd like to see this really open up warforged characters to the tanking role. As is, a warforged tank, even with a lot of healing amp, is a bit suboptimal to a fleshy. That healing penalty, especially when you sit around 1k hp, is pretty brutal.

Elf: Arcane Archer (because it already exists) AND Revenant Blade. First, I'm unsure whether you could have one ore two racial PrE trees. I don't see why you couldn't have both (no worse than taking two trees from multiclassing, right?). Basically, like I said above, it irks me that they want to give drow scimitar specialization in a campaign setting where the undisputed masters of scimitars or Valenar elves. I mean, elves get racial boosts to scimitars. Drow don't. Maybe this is just a sore point because of the upcoming jaunt to FR. But, either way, I'd like to see Revenant Blade added, though it would have to be toned down a bit. Getting str and a half and double power attack on both hands while TWF would be a bit much...Still, a PrE tree that gave elves some great dps boosting enhancements for TWF in general and them some other dps boosting options for scimitars and falchions specifically would be cool (the idea is that if you went TWF and Scimitars, you would gain a lot of bonuses, but would also spend A LOT of AP.

Drow: Scorpion Wraith. This was the originally announced PrE for drow, and I think it should stay. The flavor of the Scorp Wraith is pretty cool, and would really help flesh out Eberron drow as something separate from Lolth drow, which seems more important than ever, now. Basically, Scorpion Wraith was a ranger PrC that got rogue-ish abilities and ways to really utilize their spell-like abilities better. In DDO terms, it would be a dps-focused PrE that would work best with TWF (probably via Sneak Attack dice), and could also add some survivability via spell-like abilities or special strikes. Things thematically correct for Scorp Wraith would be strikes that blind enemies, or AoE effects that blind enemies, ways to turn invisible/add concealment as damage mitigation, ways to reduce threat as a dps-boosting mechanic, and/or ways to augment stealth. This could play very nicely with a number of other builds (including Tempest, so those Drizzt clones still get a great PrE tree, if they want, but to be a Drizzt clone, they're probably going to have to go ranger), especially any that want to be stealthy (like Assassin or Deepwood Sniper).

Halfling: Talenta Scout. Basically, this would be a ranger-esque PrE (dps-focused, with strong subthemes of stealth and survivability) that could be focused on pets instead of a fighting style. One of the coolest thing about Halflings from Eberron is that they are dinosaur tamers on their home, the Talenta Plains. How awesome would it be to have a Velicoraptor or Deinonychus as an animal companion to maul on enemies? Now, halflings tended to ride the dinosaurs, but I'm not sure about mounts, so animal companions could suffice. Artificers gave us pets, and Druids will give us pets (and hopefully rangers will get pets retroactively), so Halflings could easily give us pets. The only question to be asked is: what do you do if you have multiple classes/racial PrEs giving you a pet? Can you only have one pet at a time? But do enhancements that beef one pet beef all pets?

Half-Orc: Jorgun'Taal Marcher. This would be a bit of a break from typical Half-Orc enhancements: rather than just being MOAR DPS! it would add a large measure of survivability to Horcs. In the Shadow Marches, where Half-Orcs are most prevalent, they are called Jorgun'Taal, or "child of two bloods" and are exalted for being the best of both races and a bridge that proves that humans and orcs can be a single people. So, my idea for this PrE would be something that draws a bit from Human racial stuff and adds survivability: healing amp boosts, maybe a flexible stat boost, access to more toughnesses. I'm not exactly sure, but I thought it would be nice for Horc to get something that doesn't make them so one-dimensional (and if you want to be one-dimensional, go Horc barb and take FB and Ravager! :P)

Half-Elf: Arcane Archer (because it already exists) AND Dilly-based PrE. So, the idea for a Dilly-based PrE would be you could take one of the three class trees tied to your Dilly as your racial PrE tree. For example, if you had the Fighter Dilly, you could get Kensai, Purple Dragon Knight, or Stalward Defender as one of your racial PrE trees. Like elf, would it matter if you could get AA and one other tree? This would have the advantage that it could turn otherwise very off-putting dillies into something better. Like ranger dilly. It sucks. But if you could get Tempest by taking it, might be worth it now.

The other option, what the devs have mentioned, is that, instead of a PrE based on your Dilly, you could get access to the human racial PrE tree, which is a selection of one tree from a list based on your class makeup. That could work as well. Though it wouldn't be tied to helf racial mechanics directly, it certainly would lend itself to the idea that helves are the masters of multiclassing (you could be a pure Monk with cleric dilly and pick up your choice of (just making this list up): kensai, thief-acrobat, tempest, or defender of siberys.

Human: One from a list, based on classes. As mentioned in Half-Elf, this would be a selection of one existing class PrE from a list based on your class makeup. The list would select thematically correct PrE trees from classes other than the ones you have. For example, if you have monk, you might get a list of kensai (from fighter), thief-acrobat (from rogue), tempest (from ranger), and defender of siberys (from paladin). If you have fighter as a class, you might get a list of ravager (from barbarian), assassin (from rogue), defender of siberys (from paladin), or tempest (from ranger). If you were an artificer, you might get Deepwood Sniper (from ranger; if it's designed not to force you to use bows, but is useful with both bows and x-bows), Mechanic (from rogue), Archmage (from wizard), and Angel of Vengeance (from favored soul). If you were a 12/8 monk/fighter, your list would combine the two lists, excluding any that are from one of your classes, so it would be thief-acrobat, assassin, tempest, defender of siberys, or ravager.

Granted, the human and helf "other class trees" isn't original race trees, what do you do for a race that has little unique identity?

Also, in time, dragonmark PrE trees could be introduced and act like racial trees. Tharask Wayfinder, Orien Swiftblade, Jorasco Jadehand, Deneith Sentinel, etc.

But really, I'd like to see the races given a more fleshed-out, personalized racial PrE tree to give the races a more unique feel, to avoid any weird "why build a dwarven fighter SD?" snafus, and to provide each race with a PrE that could work well with more classes.

[waterboytkd]

However, it's irrelevant to argue now, as the devs are just ignoring it; this is a sham to give players a false sense of being listened to. They have proven time and again that they do not care about player concerns, and ignore even the blood-letting of players that has been happening steadily since as far back as U5 and their ill-received and ill-designed TWF nerfs.

I would not say you're being ignored by the devs. I just received a PM from MadFloyd today in response to a PM I sent him regarding this thread, and it very much suggests otherwise. I would the say the lack of meaningful dev comments in this thread over the last week has more to do with they would only be coming to us with the same info they have already, that they haven't hammered out anything new for us to tear into yet.

As for your Sorc example, Eladrin or MadFloyd (can't remember which atm) did say that the caster trees are giving them their most lively discussions. They get our concerns over multiclassing getting screwed, and the possible problems with a 3 tree limit, and I would guess the reason they haven't given us more to talk about recently is that they're trying to tackle some of those issues first, to see if we can get behind their solutions/systems.

As for being effective even if you have to swap out a class tree (like a wizard swapping out a tree for a racial PrE tree), that all depends on the enhancements in the trees (how many new enhancements are made and shoved into trees, how existing enhancements are split between trees). In my personal opinion, I think this would be more problematic for spellcasters than for melees, even deep multi melees. Of course, that also depends on how they restrict tree tiers and enhancement tiers.

[Failedlegend]

The more I think about racial PrE trees, the more a couple things start to bother me.

First, some of their choices for racial PrE trees. Stalwart Defender for dwarves is obviously a good choice, and it even works to some degree with warforged. But tempest for drow? Granted, in Eberron lore, drow are more inclined to survivalist professions like ranger than in other settings, but the undisputed masters of dual scimitars in Eberron are the Valenar elves. Thus, giving the PrE tree that is going to have scimitar specialization stuff to drow seems like slapping Keith Baker in the face with a blow-up Drizzt adult toy.

Agreed...we already got enough dwitz, drzits and dwyzats when drow was first released...now your just encouraging it. Besides the fact that Drow should never have been made a Player race.

Actually I vote that when players enter forgotten realms the first thing they should see is Drizzt standing on a pile of dead drow....beside a pile of horrible mispelled Dwizzits....despite the fact it laughs in the face of his character (The whole vowing to never kill another Drow).

I also seem to recall a guild called House Do'Urden...I don't think he'll like you very much :P



Second, though the existing class PrE trees can work, and are less work for the devs, ultimately, it feels bland. I mean, there already exist in D&D all kinds of unique PrCs for races, and those could be used. This has two major benefits in my mind: it gives more detail and flavor to the races, and it gets rid of awkward stacking issues around a race being in its racial PrE tree's class (like dwarf fighter, or halfling rogue).


Again...agreed but I do have some comments on your choices (Comments in orange)



Though it would take more work from the devs, I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to see the original concept for racial trees instituted:

Dwarf: Dwarven Defender. Honestly no contest here dwarfs are 3 things to me drunkards, S&B Priests and they can take a giants club to the face without even noticing

Warforged: Warforged Juggernaut. This would have to be a significant break from the PnP version (as that version has some very bad abilities tied to it). I think they should also try to fit in Reforged...give players the choice of embracing or shedding their construct nature


Elf: Arcane Archer (because it already exists) AND Revenant Blade. Despite being a Elven PrE revenant blade IMO doesn't really fit elves...I've always viewed them more as a race that mixs magic & might IMO a Gish PrE like Eldritch Knight would fit better...mind you E-Knight would be better as a Multi-Class PrE but thats not actually in the game so we can't use that...unless they implement it which would be AWESOME


Drow: Scorpion Wraith. I won't comment since I'll never play a Drow so I shouldn't have any say in their development

Halfling: Talenta Scout. Dino Rider/Buddy works for me

Half-Orc: Jorgun'Taal Marcher. ANYTHING to make H-orcs more well rounded...would be interesting to make a Occult Slayer/Marcher...I might actually make a Barbarian

Half-Elf: Arcane Archer (because it already exists) AND Dilly-based PrE. No argument here...following using the dilly just feels right and honestly thats what DnD is all about.

Human: Any I'm very much against this first off it would make H-Elves Racial less unique, second humans DO have racial PrEs like Adroit Explorer (Has alot of utility powers when translated to DDO would probably clear cooldowns, refill clickies stuff like that) & Steelsky Liberator (Specializes in killing larger enemies especially dragons)

Also, in time, dragonmark PrE trees could be introduced and act like racial trees. Tharask Wayfinder, Orien Swiftblade, Jorasco Jadehand, Deneith Sentinel, etc. Eladrin said these are likely being implemented as part of the racial tree (as opposed to an actual PrE) and only requiring 1 feat instead of 3


Oh and here since some people OBVIOUSLY missed the important part of Vargo's post I quoted it


The exact number of trees remains under discussion and isn't set yet. Obviously this isn't everything that matters, and we're still wrestling with issues arising from possible "class trees", more than three trees, enhancements existing in multiple trees (stacking and not), various interesting ideas for race trees and racial PREs, etc. We're not settled yet, and continue reading what you have to say. And reading, and reading, and reading! It's pretty clear that there isn't 100% agreement how enhancements should work, and that many players have strong feelings on enhancements.

[jkm]

I would not say you're being ignored by the devs. I just received a PM from MadFloyd today in response to a PM I sent him regarding this thread, and it very much suggests otherwise. I would the say the lack of meaningful dev comments in this thread over the last week has more to do with they would only be coming to us with the same info they have already, that they haven't hammered out anything new for us to tear into yet.

As for your Sorc example, Eladrin or MadFloyd (can't remember which atm) did say that the caster trees are giving them their most lively discussions. They get our concerns over multiclassing getting screwed, and the possible problems with a 3 tree limit, and I would guess the reason they haven't given us more to talk about recently is that they're trying to tackle some of those issues first, to see if we can get behind their solutions/systems.

As for being effective even if you have to swap out a class tree (like a wizard swapping out a tree for a racial PrE tree), that all depends on the enhancements in the trees (how many new enhancements are made and shoved into trees, how existing enhancements are split between trees). In my personal opinion, I think this would be more problematic for spellcasters than for melees, even deep multi melees. Of course, that also depends on how they restrict tree tiers and enhancement tiers.

The problem with the 3 trees is that it seriously cuts down on permutations. This is because current high value enhancements may or may not carry a tree to be a priority. This is further complicated by the fact that the racial PrEs are the same as the Class PrEs.

For example, Rogue.

1. Is it going to be worth it to make a halfling rogue anymore? Your racial tree is most likely not going to stack with the class tree which means that you are limited to the class trees.

2. Can any other race overcome the Human/Half-elf variety of racial PrE? Seriously an H/HE Rogue can have a racial Tempest or Kensai or whatever other crazy high powered PrE? Tempest in particular has a ton of synergy with rogues (since offhand has full sneak attack damage) so that particular variant adds in drow.

Finally, remember that builds are centered around PrEs. This is why the more high powered PrEs almost always dominate class splits. What this new system is doing is adding thousands of viable permutations for multi-class human and half elf while simultaneously yanking every other race down to a comparitively miniscule set.

[SisAmethyst]

We do have some thoughts on why this is not where DDO would be headed even if we do go with a three tree limit, but the exact number of trees remains under discussion and isn't set yet.

hehe, I heard some people TR over a long weekend, so I wouldn't count on that ;)


Obviously this isn't everything that matters, and we're still wrestling with issues arising from possible "class trees", more than three trees, enhancements existing in multiple trees (stacking and not), various interesting ideas for race trees and racial PREs, etc. We're not settled yet, and continue reading what you have to say. And reading, and reading, and reading! It's pretty clear that there isn't 100% agreement how enhancements should work, and that many players have strong feelings on enhancements.

I wonder how good it would be to have the tree a bit dynamic. For example if I have choosen a light monk the dark side elemenst could be completly removed from the tree to avoid further confusion. So in other words collapse trees or rebranch them on the fly depending on the selections the player has made at a certain point of time.

E.g. before you have decided you can see the PrE I, II and III icon and mouse over it and compare it to the other PrE available at that time, but as soon as you have choosen the PrE I of this class the othe 2 will fall out of the tree as they are not needed anymore. Its like someone had cut of those branches at that time.

That would maybe include to then suddenly plug in branches that are based on this PrE for detailed options. However I am uncertain how good it would be to not have them visible in the first place as some of those specials maybe would be the reason I choose that PrE in the first place. However maybe those plug in branches can hoover in when I mose over the PrE before I selected them.

Thus I have only one tree that I see but that is dynamic in a way how it grows, so no need to split them up in three different panes as different panes would make it harder to show dependencies and links between them.


While trees are easy to understand, but maybe it is time to actually go beyond what is normal and be creative without such limitations?

... so a little bit like what Missing Minds already said ...

[SisAmethyst]

If enhancements are getting reviewed and many enhancements boost skills, and more importantly many skills boosted are useless enhancements, a review of skills could have a huge impact on making sure there are no useless enhancements or ... a future Bastion of the Outlands equivalent for Druids :O (also please fix/delete that line for Barbs)

So maybe some skills could use their own thread (or worst case scenario this one) to be reviewed for example:

Swim
Heal
Repair
Listen
... The speed of searching (considering door detection is a clickie away, which is enough for non rogues/arties

I agree that certain skills and their enhancements should be lookd into while doing this. For example have heal/repair affect the amount of HP you get from concop items or even heal spells/scrolls/wands... that it more or less count towards your healing amp.

Or have concentration skill as well decrease the chance of getting interruption when using levers etc. in combat, as of now you usually only pick those skills in the Enhancements because your PrE need them for unlocking.



DOMAINS!!!
Am I right people, or am I right??

Domains would rock, and would spur people to roll clerics. Would be great timing, considering current changes in mind.

I'll up you one and suggest boosting up dragonmarks again. Dragonmarks are unique to Eberron, and should be incredibly powerful. It would offer even more options than what is being proposed this summer. With all the crawling we are going to be doing in the Forgotten Realms, Dragonmarks would allow us to stand out in the Forgotten Realms, and allow us to represent some of the uniqueness of Eberron. I can see it being worked into the storyline.

I indeed second that Domains would be a great addition alongside the dragonmarks. Not only for Clerics but as well for FvS and Paladins!

[Scraap]

On drow racial: You're going to create a caster race at some point, might as well prototype it with early revisions to get the kinks out, and traditionally they've got spell-like abilities. That would tend to point at present to slas and archmage, at least looking at the current PRE lineup.

[kingfisher]

but the exact number of trees remains under discussion and isn't set yet.

sure hope so



Obviously this isn't everything that matters, and we're still wrestling with issues arising from possible "class trees", more than three trees, enhancements existing in multiple trees (stacking and not),

like what?
how would having class trees with general enh in them be a problem?
what issues would arise with a character having addtional trees for additional classes?
you already deal with stacking in the game today. and if its a new system i really dont understand the problem, just make them not stack. i dont understand the logic of hurting a big chunk of the player base to avoid an issue that you already have a fix for.

[Failedlegend]

FvS and Paladins should get domains too

Why?

[kingfisher]

Its not going to happen. I am putting my faith in the devs that they mean it when they say there will be more choices. Looking at the mockup, the potential seems obvious for more options, not less. I see more good reasons for multi-classing then I did before, not less..

this is not what you said in the beginning of this thread. you were pretty clear that you believed multi's needed a nerf and that this was a good way to do that and boost pures up to their 'rightful place'.



in fact my first druid is set to multi-class, based on the mockup and dev explanations, I see in this thread alone.

oh so your gonna make a drow tempest druid monk like everyone else?

[waterboytkd]

Again...agreed but I do have some comments on your choices (Comments in orange)

Sadly, I can't (or don't know how to) quote stuff inside of my old quotes. :P

But human stuff: Yeah, you know, as much as I felt like Adroit Explorer was really bland, that could work, especially if it was tied into human versatility, or just offered more utility.

I totally get the resistance to a really flexible racial PrE tree for humans and even helves (as in beyond trees based off Dilly). It would make human a very powerful choice for a lot of builds, and I could even see it leading to non-humans largely turning into flavor choices for melee builds.

So yeah, I definitely can get behind something actually unique to humans for a racial PrE tree.

[Failedlegend]

Sadly, I can't (or don't know how to) quote stuff inside of my old quotes. :P

But human stuff: Yeah, you know, as much as I felt like Adroit Explorer was really bland, that could work, especially if it was tied into human versatility, or just offered more utility.

I totally get the resistance to a really flexible racial PrE tree for humans and even helves (as in beyond trees based off Dilly). It would make human a very powerful choice for a lot of builds, and I could even see it leading to non-humans largely turning into flavor choices for melee builds.

So yeah, I definitely can get behind something actually unique to humans for a racial PrE tree.

Honestly I would much prefer Steelsky Liberator...I'm just going off PrEs I ACTUALLY remember and that's not much I'm sure someone knows better ones

[waterboytkd]

like what?
how would having class trees with general enh in them be a problem?

It dilutes the available enhancements for PrE trees. If you need 41 AP to get capstone, the presence of a general tree could lead to a situation where you must take all the enhancements in your PrE tree to get it, and that's certainly no customization in build.


what issues would arise with a character having addtional trees for additional classes?

Stacking, which you bring up.


you already deal with stacking in the game today. and if its a new system i really dont understand the problem, just make them not stack. i dont understand the logic of hurting a big chunk of the player base to avoid an issue that you already have a fix for.

I think part of it is that this system is trying to be newbie friendly, and our current stacking rules are at best not intuitive. Why would enhancements from race stack with a class, but a class wouldn't stack with a different class? It's stuff like that that serves as roadblocks to new players, and I can see the value in getting rid of them.

As for hurting a large chunk of players, that's only true if multiclassing gets wrecked by this (and the devs stated mission statement is sort of the opposite of that), or if one considers having to change their existing build getting hurt. If it's the latter, everyone is getting hurt, because everyone's build is going to change under the new system.

There are ways they could have a 3 tree limit, allow for unrestricted stacking between trees, and still keep muticlassing both viable and strong...at least, I think so. I'd like to see a proposed system by the devs for us to tear into and try and break/ruin.

[Aashrym]

The problem with the 3 trees is that it seriously cuts down on permutations. This is because current high value enhancements may or may not carry a tree to be a priority. This is further complicated by the fact that the racial PrEs are the same as the Class PrEs.

For example, Rogue.

1. Is it going to be worth it to make a halfling rogue anymore? Your racial tree is most likely not going to stack with the class tree which means that you are limited to the class trees.

2. Can any other race overcome the Human/Half-elf variety of racial PrE? Seriously an H/HE Rogue can have a racial Tempest or Kensai or whatever other crazy high powered PrE? Tempest in particular has a ton of synergy with rogues (since offhand has full sneak attack damage) so that particular variant adds in drow.

Finally, remember that builds are centered around PrEs. This is why the more high powered PrEs almost always dominate class splits. What this new system is doing is adding thousands of viable permutations for multi-class human and half elf while simultaneously yanking every other race down to a comparitively miniscule set.

1. Yes, it would be worthwhile to make a halfling rogue. This is because rogues get class abilities like sneak attack and evasion and the PrE does not. It also allows for taking enhancements from the other 2 PrE trees if pure or selected on a multi. It also allow for multiclassing a halfling with rogue and 1 or 2 other classes for additional benefits and choices while still being able to invest heavily all the way up the class tree. Something like ranger 12 rogue 6 fighter 2 with tempest II, mechanic I, assassin III should be workable that way.

2. There is not a lot of race variety yet. We're not sure what would come. Giving helfs and humans too many racial PrE unlock choices could be very bad.

Done well each tree will have significant value relative to the next leading to a lot more variety in builds than we see today. There really are not a lot of variations on end game builds currently. Done poorly and we'll still see a dominant number of very similar builds (no different than now) but we'll have completed PrE's to show for it.

I still like the idea of multiclass PrE unlocks based on classes taken as incentive to multiclass. I think that was a heck of an idea and would hope it can and will be added.

3 tree does not actually cut down on variety, it enforces variety. Permutations can include redundancies anyway, combinations is what we need to look at. For example, there are 32736 permutations selecting 3 trees from 33 choices of trees but after redundancies (caused by taking the same combination in a different order) are removed there are 5456 combinations of 3 trees on triple classes.

C (33,3) = 33!/(30!*3!) = 5456

I limited the choice of trees to include removing access to 6 based on alignment from 39. Lawful removing bard and barbarian trees and non-lawful removing paladin and monk trees; the permutations include the order taken and is not reflective of the actual number of combinations we end up with. 13 classes with all enhancements per class removing 2 based on alignment gives us:

C (11,3) = 11!/(8!*3!) = 165

The reason I say the 3 tree limit reinforces variety is because players are looking for specific enhancements to coincide to their build concept. If they have access to all of the possibly enhancements per class simultaneously those builder will tend to gravitate to the PrE and enhancements that best suit the design and given full access that means the same classes, races, enhancements, and pre's like we have now. We do not have a large variety of competitive builds now because of that. A tree limit forces more choices on which enhancements are PrE's will be included in the build.

I believe we would have much larger chance at a wider variety of successful builds running off of 3 tree over opening up all enhancements for all classes based on the combinations we end up with. That should be moving us to a lot more variety of effective builds unless Turbine borks something and creates some clearly overpowered / underpowered trees.

[Scraap]

I still like the idea of multiclass PrE unlocks based on classes taken as incentive to multiclass. I think that was a heck of an idea and would hope it can and will be added.


Suppose I could see, say a synergy tree that's unlocked by 2 otherwise conflicting class trees taken to the 20-25 points spent mark.

Example would be something like a Practiced Spellcaster+gish replication:

requires
-pure arcane casting class min level 9, 20 APs spent in a tree
-martial, specialist, or divine min level 9, 20 aps spent in a tree

-grants the following lines:
-- + 1-5 DC
-- + 1-5 SR
-- + 1-5 damage dice
-- + 1-5 attack bonus
total: 20 AP

[Aashrym]

Suppose I could see, say a synergy tree that's unlocked by 2 otherwise conflicting class trees taken to the 20-25 points spent mark.

Example would be something like a Practiced Spellcaster+gish replication:

requires
-pure arcane casting class min level 9, 20 APs spent in a tree
-martial, specialist, or divine min level 9, 20 aps spent in a tree

-grants the following lines:
-- + 1-5 DC
-- + 1-5 SR
-- + 1-5 damage dice
-- + 1-5 attack bonus
total: 20 AP

It was Failedlegend's suggestion and list earlier. I could see something like that opening up an Eldritch Knight tree, for example, and using the combined class levels of the unlocking classes for effective level in the PrE tree.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

snip

Yep, there will be many ways to build an effective druid. This is gonna be crazy fun and I cant wait to see some real math so I can start rollin'!

And yes I agree there are many pitfalls in D&D and DDO to avoid. You always need to look at the entire picture, understand the game mechanics, and know why you are taking everything. It's my favorite part of DDO in fact. So I'm really hoping Turbine gets this proposal right.

[dkyle]

1. Yes, it would be worthwhile to make a halfling rogue. This is because rogues get class abilities like sneak attack and evasion and the PrE does not. It also allows for taking enhancements from the other 2 PrE trees if pure or selected on a multi. It also allow for multiclassing a halfling with rogue and 1 or 2 other classes for additional benefits and choices while still being able to invest heavily all the way up the class tree. Something like ranger 12 rogue 6 fighter 2 with tempest II, mechanic I, assassin III should be workable that way.

But the problem is that if you want to make an Assasin, being a Halfling is likely to get you very little compared to Half-orc Ravager (assuming it is what it sounds like) or Drow Tempest. Seriously... unless Mechanic gets a huge buff for DPS, Mechanic vs. Tempest sounds like a no-brainer for an Assassin build.

Trading out your class's worst tree, for one of your choice, will be a very powerful option in many cases. I expect far more powerful than deep multiclassing to gain access to trees.


2. There is not a lot of race variety yet.

Sure there is. Most builds can work with most races. There are some popular choices, but most races have something to offer to most builds.

[jkm]

1. Yes, it would be worthwhile to make a halfling rogue. This is because rogues get class abilities like sneak attack and evasion and the PrE does not.

This has no bearing at all on anything. Every single race gets these if they take a level of rogue. My point was that halflings, who have favored class rogues, are going to end up with a bunch of redundant racial enhancements unless they allow them to stack (which given how many Assassin items are abilities they would be redundant anyway).


It also allows for taking enhancements from the other 2 PrE trees if pure or selected on a multi. It also allow for multiclassing a halfling with rogue and 1 or 2 other classes for additional benefits and choices while still being able to invest heavily all the way up the class tree. Something like ranger 12 rogue 6 fighter 2 with tempest II, mechanic I, assassin III should be workable that way.

Once again here, you are talking about a class that is as rogueish as they come having to take lesser enhancements from within the same PrE whereas Human/Helf/Drow can take a racial PrE that has much more synergy with rogue than halflings.

[Failedlegend]

Suppose I could see, say a synergy tree that's unlocked by 2 otherwise conflicting class trees taken to the 20-25 points spent mark.

Example would be something like a Practiced Spellcaster+gish replication:

requires
-pure arcane casting class min level 9, 20 APs spent in a tree
-martial, specialist, or divine min level 9, 20 aps spent in a tree

-grants the following lines:
-- + 1-5 DC
-- + 1-5 SR
-- + 1-5 damage dice
-- + 1-5 attack bonus
total: 20 AP

I think Min Lvl 9 in each and 20 APs spent in each is overkill

For one that only gives you 2 levels of leeway making the only possibilities 10/10 10/9/1 and 9/9/2

Second it would be IMPOSSIBLE to get the capstone in the Multiclass PrE (You would only have 40 points lefts after unlocking...capstone is 41)

Third you wouldn't be able to spend a SINGLE point in your Multiclass PrE until Lvl 18 at the EARLIEST. I know some of you can do that in a weekend...but most of us can't

I'd say 10 pts in each Pre-Requisite PrE & Minimum CHARACTER Lvl 7 (than it follows the standard level gating 9/12/15/18/20 except character level like Racial PrEs)...I know that by itself doesn't sound like much but you've spent 20 Pts just to open this PrE your probably gonna want to take the capstone so add 41 pts to that and you only have 19 left for your Race and other PrE Trees. Which is enough to get another Tree to Tier II or just a few Tier IIs whatever suits you. Thats how I envision the new tree system working multiclass PrE or not.

We've got a possibility of increasing the amount of varied builds we've got simply by adding more useful cutoff points...adding arbitrary limitations will inhibit that and frankly make this change a waste of time


It was Failedlegend's suggestion and list earlier. I could see something like that opening up an Eldritch Knight tree, for example, and using the combined class levels of the unlocking classes for effective level in the PrE tree.

Here's the post Aash is referring too (I cut it down a bit)


If I take some enhancements in Warpriest & Henshin Mystic or Warchanter & Purple Dragon Knight I can unlock Sacred Fist or Dread Pirate in another Pane.

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 (This just needs to happen..maybe Gadgeteer or something...sorry my Prestige name recollection is failing me)

Corrupt Avenger: Acolyte of the Skin + Divine Avenger




Also here's a quick mock-up of the Swiftblade PrE I made using the tempest example



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


The tree itself should have a bunch of bonuses themed around speed and movement (ones not reliant on haste) such as Run Speed Bonuses, Freedom of Movement, Balance, Jump, Tumble,etc.


Note: Only Highest effect applies IOW at Tier 3 you would have +4 AC not +7

[UniqueToo]

For the issues players have with a 3 tree limit, how about if taking a capstone in any tree lets you take an extra tree?

Just an idea.. no idea if it would work or not based on the information we have... No idea if it would be better/worse then multi's getting another tree per class or not.

I tend to think the real issue in all of this is - how many of these trees will have useless enhancmements we have to waste AP on just for prereqs? This is the real issue with any enforced tree system.

We just don't have any real information which somewhat makes this whole forum topic pointless. It would be nice if the devs posted their current thoughts/concerns on things (or an example tree) so we can at least give feedback on those. There's a whole community of experienced players here to help them if they do.

[Aashrym]

But the problem is that if you want to make an Assasin, being a Halfling is likely to get you very little compared to Half-orc Ravager (assuming it is what it sounds like) or Drow Tempest. Seriously... unless Mechanic gets a huge buff for DPS, Mechanic vs. Tempest sounds like a no-brainer for an Assassin build.

Trading out your class's worst tree, for one of your choice, will be a very powerful option in many cases. I expect far more powerful than deep multiclassing to gain access to trees.

---

Sure there is. Most builds can work with most races. There are some popular choices, but most races have something to offer to most builds.

Being a halfling who wants to multiclass his rogue could be gaining a lot with Assassin. Making that horc ravager assassin and a multiclass rogue could be giving up a lot in the Assassin tree.

With what we are seeing now we don't know that we would be able to trade the worst tree for the best tree from a race unlock, but that would by why I would have concerns. Too many race unlock choice could throw a lot out of whack. Of course having the additional tree still wouldn't let me take advantage of the higher tiers of enhancements anyway because of AP costs. Trading one tree out still only lets me develop 2 trees very far up. Swapping out a class tree for a more favorable class tree while keeping my 2 best class trees pretty much means I would only be taking a few lower tier enhancments at best due to AP per tree costs again.

Most builds working with most races now. What I meant was there is not a lot of information on what all of the race PrE unlocks will be because human and helf sound like they will have multiple choices.

[Aashrym]

This has no bearing at all on anything. Every single race gets these if they take a level of rogue. My point was that halflings, who have favored class rogues, are going to end up with a bunch of redundant racial enhancements unless they allow them to stack (which given how many Assassin items are abilities they would be redundant anyway).

Once again here, you are talking about a class that is as rogueish as they come having to take lesser enhancements from within the same PrE whereas Human/Helf/Drow can take a racial PrE that has much more synergy with rogue than halflings.

A horc, dwarf, drow, WF cannot take tier III assassin on a multiclassed rogue when a halfling can. That would be a worthwhile reason to do it if a person wants to make a multiclassed rogue with higher assassin tree available.

If the halfling wants to get halfling race enhancements and rogue enhancements from all 3 trees he can do that just fine and save some AP on the race unlock.

You have no information available on what the new enhancements will be to make the assertion that halfling race enhancements would not work with the rogue class and taking another race for a different race PrE unlock that race would be spending AP on the unlock and give up a tree still. Based on the information available I see no reason not to make a halfling rogue just because the PrE unlock is assassin. It just looks like an option for halflings who are not rogues or halflings who multiclass thier rogues.

[kingfisher]

It dilutes the available enhancements for PrE trees. If you need 41 AP to get capstone, the presence of a general tree could lead to a situation where you must take all the enhancements in your PrE tree to get it, and that's certainly no customization in build..

so you limit custimization in order to prevent limiting customization?


Stacking, which you bring up...

and for which they already have a fix



I think part of it is that this system is trying to be newbie friendly, and our current stacking rules are at best not intuitive. Why would enhancements from race stack with a class, but a class wouldn't stack with a different class? It's stuff like that that serves as roadblocks to new players, and I can see the value in getting rid of them.

As for hurting a large chunk of players, that's only true if multiclassing gets wrecked by this (and the devs stated mission statement is sort of the opposite of that), or if one considers having to change their existing build getting hurt. If it's the latter, everyone is getting hurt, because everyone's build is going to change under the new system.

There are ways they could have a 3 tree limit, allow for unrestricted stacking between trees, and still keep muticlassing both viable and strong...at least, I think so. I'd like to see a proposed system by the devs for us to tear into and try and break/ruin.

what they want and attempt to do and how it translates into the game are 2 different things. which is why we are having this discussion. just saying that the devs dont want to hurt mulitclassing does not mean they wont.

if there are ways, lets see them. and before its in the game if possible. until then, i dont see how it can nort hurt multiclassing unless they put the same lower tier enhancements in every class pre tree.

[dkyle]

Being a halfling who wants to multiclass his rogue could be gaining a lot with Assassin.

Except that I don't think multiclass Rogues will make much sense, period. Both because Assassins are already poor candidates for multiclassing (thanks to the Rogue class itself, not the PrE), and I see very little reason why multiclassing would make any more sense in the new system.

But yes, in theory, a multiclassed Halfling Assassin could make sense, if multiclassing makes sense at all.


With what we are seeing now we don't know that we would be able to trade the worst tree for the best tree from a race unlock, but that would by why I would have concerns.

We've already been told Tempest and Assassin will be options. Those are pretty darn good already, and it seems obvious that each class will have at least one tree that is ill-suited for a given build goal, in most cases.

[Aashrym]

Except that I don't think multiclass Rogues will make much sense, period. Both because Assassins are already poor candidates for multiclassing (thanks to the Rogue class itself, not the PrE), and I see very little reason why multiclassing would make any more sense in the new system.

But yes, in theory, a multiclassed Halfling Assassin could make sense, if multiclassing makes sense at all.



We've already been told Tempest and Assassin will be options. Those are pretty darn good already, and it seems obvious that each class will have at least one tree that is ill-suited for a given build goal, in most cases.

Hence my drow tempest druid monk but we'll see. Could be decent, might be other options I prefer.

I used to take rogue on a lot of my multi classes for the SA damage, but helf rogue dillie has actually cut that back quite a bit as a cheap source of SA without needing rogue levels. Rogue still makes sense on several splashes looking for evasion, trapskills, higher UMD, and a bit of SA but pretty much a small splash.

If I can make an halfling ranger or bard with vorpal and assassinate that sounds rather intriguing. Fascinate assassinate assassinate assassinate. :D

What we need is actual enhancement information to get beyond the in theory part.

[jkm]

A horc, dwarf, drow, WF cannot take tier III assassin on a multiclassed rogue when a halfling can. That would be a worthwhile reason to do it if a person wants to make a multiclassed rogue with higher assassin tree available.

If the halfling wants to get halfling race enhancements and rogue enhancements from all 3 trees he can do that just fine and save some AP on the race unlock.

You have no information available on what the new enhancements will be to make the assertion that halfling race enhancements would not work with the rogue class and taking another race for a different race PrE unlock that race would be spending AP on the unlock and give up a tree still. Based on the information available I see no reason not to make a halfling rogue just because the PrE unlock is assassin. It just looks like an option for halflings who are not rogues or halflings who multiclass thier rogues.

Heh, so basically what you are saying is that there is no reason for a pure halfling rogue because every other race is going to be better. BTW, this same argument could be made about a drow tempest ranger.

[Scraap]

I think Min Lvl 9 in each and 20 APs spent in each is overkill

For one that only gives you 2 levels of leeway making the only possibilities 10/10 10/9/1 and 9/9/2

Second it would be IMPOSSIBLE to get the capstone in the Multiclass PrE (You would only have 40 points lefts after unlocking...capstone is 41)

Third you wouldn't be able to spend a SINGLE point in your Multiclass PrE until Lvl 18 at the EARLIEST. I know some of you can do that in a weekend...but most of us can't

I'd say 10 pts in each Pre-Requisite PrE & Minimum CHARACTER Lvl 7 (than it follows the standard level gating 9/12/15/18/20 except character level like Racial PrEs)...I know that by itself doesn't sound like much but you've spent 20 Pts just to open this PrE your probably gonna want to take the capstone so add 41 pts to that and you only have 19 left for your Race and other PrE Trees. Which is enough to get another Tree to Tier II or just a few Tier IIs whatever suits you. Thats how I envision the new tree system working multiclass PrE or not.

We've got a possibility of increasing the amount of varied builds we've got simply by adding more useful cutoff points...adding arbitrary limitations will inhibit that and frankly make this change a waste of time


Well, lets refine the numbers a bit in terms of general implementation then.

Using the 5 point schema listed so far:

5 per gets you access to the first tier of each (level 3),
10 in one the second (level 4),
10 in two for the third (level 5),
15 in one the fourth (level 7),
15 in two the fifth(level 8).

That'd put folks at 30 spent, with 50 to play with.
With 15 already allocated towards a cap to one of the classes, you could take 26 more in one line to get a capstone (though why the insistence on getting that if the intent for those is to balance hybrids and pures is beyond me), leaving 24 points to play with elsewhere, be it fleshing out more of one of the core pres, availing yourself of an aspect of a hybrid tree, or spending 20 of that on a tier 2 equivalent from race or classes.

Sound like a simple enough approach when it comes to the math behind it?

[Aashrym]

Heh, so basically what you are saying is that there is no reason for a pure halfling rogue because every other race is going to be better. BTW, this same argument could be made about a drow tempest ranger.

I didn't say that at all. A pure halfling doesn't pay for assassin PrE unlocks and might want to make a thief-acrobat instead of assassin.

[Xufang]

I really don't understand the fuss about certain builds no longer being available.

Surely you make builds with what tools you have to hand, and since the enhancements are getting remade, as well as adding the tree system, surely people will be redesigning their builds anyway?

And even more to the point, surely new builds are a good thing? You really want to run around using the same builds til you get bored of DDO? Personally I see new as good, not bad. Keeps the game fresh.

[Failedlegend]

If I can make an halfling ranger or bard with vorpal and assassinate that sounds rather intriguing. Fascinate assassinate assassinate assassinate. :D


Halfling Assassin Wizard - This one would give you something to do when your out of mana...probably take Precise Shot to make shooting easier (Dex16/Con14/Int18) maybe even Wiz18/Arty2 for free repeater usage, UMD & trapskills & of course rune arm use if only for the extra bonuses on the rune arm itself. Definately not something super optimized but IF assassinate (I'm asking) works with ranged it could give you a powerful tool

Halfling Assassin Ranged Arty - This one is awesome...again IF assassinate,etc. works with ranged weapons....does it?


Halfling Assassin Bard - I've always liked the repeater bard build and this would give it a little more ummph although less than its Int Based Wizard & Arty brethern

:D

Although I do love these possibilities I do still think that having racial PrEs just be copies of class PrEs is A) Boring and kind of a downer and B) Has quite a high chance of creating some serious unbalances as well as make race choice more important


Well, lets refine the numbers a bit in terms of general implementation then.

Using the 5 point schema listed so far:

5 per gets you access to the first tier of each (level 3),
10 in one the second (level 4),
10 in two for the third (level 5),
15 in one the fourth (level 7),
15 in two the fifth(level 8).


OK I think I'm misreading this but lets use a Cleric/Monk Warpriest/Shintao = Sacred Fist for example

Spending 5 points in both WP & S allows me to spend points in tier one of SF (10)

Spending 5 Points in either WP or S and 10 Points in the other is tier 2 of SF (15)

Spending 10 Points in both WP and S is tier 3 of SF (20)

Spending 10 Points in either WP or S and 15 Points in the other is tier 4 of SF (25)

Spending 15 Points in both WP and S is tier 5 of SF (30)

First in the mockup there's actually 7 Tiers...actually 7 seems like the magic number with this system....7 Tiers,7 Bonuses (5/10/15/20/25/30/41), 7 Level Gates (3/6/9/12/15/18/20) maybe we should have 7 Trees (+1 Racial) :P

1234
5678

Makes a nice rectangle :D

Second I want this to be as free as possible so I was treating it similar to race unlocks 10 points in each seems fair any more than that and it becomes really restrictive especially for casters remember even with a multiclass PrE you can only multi-class them some much before it becomes pointless. I know we don't currently know WHAT the level gates for each tier is but we do know a Lvl 2 splash will NOT have access to tier 3 enhancements so we know there IS level gating.

Again it's possible I misread what you said.


I really don't understand the fuss about certain builds no longer being available.

Surely you make builds with what tools you have to hand, and since the enhancements are getting remade, as well as adding the tree system, surely people will be redesigning their builds anyway?

And even more to the point, surely new builds are a good thing? You really want to run around using the same builds til you get bored of DDO? Personally I see new as good, not bad. Keeps the game fresh.

It's NOT about having to CHANGE builds MOST of us expect and accept that it's that mutilclassing with be severely handicapped by this change. Honestly that not opinion it's fact...simple math really.

Right Now

Cleric 20 = 100% Enhancement Access

Wizard18/Rogue2 =90% Access + 10% Access = 100% Access

Wizard12/Fighter6/Rogue2 = 60% Access + 30% Access + 10% Access = 100% Acess

right now enhancement wise its balanced...in the new system

Cleric 20 has access to all three Trees = 100% Access

Wizard18/Rogue2 Has access to 3/6 Trees = 50% Access

Wizard12/Fighter6/Rogue2 has access to 3/9 Trees = Approx. 33% Access


Now its time to look at the actual builds.

Wizard18/Rogue2...lets assume he has rogue for only UMD, Evasion & Trapskills to keep things simple and he's Human so Palemaster

So now you assume he's 90% wizard he'll just take the 3 Wizard Trees BUT no currently most Wiz/Rogs use Rogue Skill Boost & Trap skill increases to help offset the lack of rogue levels assuming thats all in mechanic he HAS to choose to drop Wild Mage, Palemaster or Archmage and lets for arguments sake that represents Metamagic reducers, Palemaster and Spell Pen. So PM is a must being thats your PrE...than Spell Pen & Metamagic reducers are pretty core to you main focus so there's really NO room for rogue abilities

Verdict: AT MOST 90% Access (3 wiz trees)...if you decide you'd rather the rogue abilities (which Eladrin said 2 splashes would have access to second tier) than we have approx 63% Access (2 wiz trees = 60% + 1 rogue trees = Approx 3%)


So the 2 splash isn't TOO bad...let's go with the Dwarven Wiz12/Fighter6/2Rogue (this is my actual build) he's an Evasion tank build with High AC, Low end of High HP, High Miss Chance (Wraith+Blur) and highly effective self-healing (Wraith + Death Aura & Harm Scrolls) that uses his combined abilities to hold aggro (DoTs,AoEs,Shield Boosted Intimidate, D-Axe)

Lets see youy have 9 Trees to choose from Palemaster, Wild Mage, Archmage, Stalwart, Kensai, Purple Dragon Knight, Mechanic, Assassin, Acrobat...now I need at least Palemaster and Stalwart thats two down. What to drop...lets see what these PrEs COULD have

AM & WM: Somewhere in here could be stuff like SP increases,Improved Metamagics, Wand/Scroll Mastery (ie. Harm Scrolls) which would be crucial to an Arcane Tank since his SP Pool is limited but well used...also considering my guy currently uses Acid (Melf's,BDB & Burning Blood), Cold(Ice Storm, Niac's Biting), Fire (Firewall, Burning Blood) & Lightning Spells (Eladar's Surge) I'm sure one or two of those elements will show up here.

Kensai: Well I definitely want this one too...currently I use these abilities to offset my lack of BAB and lower Str score than a Barb or Fighter Tank

Mechanic: Without these skill boosts I may as well drop my trapskills...also I'm sure I would be able to get at least +1 Int out of this

Assassin: Not really all that useful when I'm tanking but when I'm not the SA really helps for quick trash cleanup...I'd probably drop this one

PDK: No idea about this one since we don't currently have it but from my understanding it would buff yourself and others around you...in todays system I'd probably use some of these enhancements to offset my lacking attack bonus...as well as a few aura boosters for flavour...in the current system i could roll with enahncements from both...but in the new one i would have to choose...not sure which would be better but if the choice was down to those two I'd likely go with PDK just for flavour reasons

Acrobat: Probably not much here really...easy drop

So that means for my third and final slot I'd Most likely go with Archmage, Wildmage, Kensai or Purple Dragon Knight...dropping ANY of these would cause my ability to hold aggro and/or actually deal a useful amount of damage. Also because the need for spell or attack power necessitates the dropping of mechanic I can pretty much kiss my trapskills goodbye

Yeah forget the percentage if the devs decide to stick to 3 Trees (which is currently undecided) this build (my favorite character) would not be CHANGED (which i would be fine with) but utterly destroyed...and the same goes for pretty much any deep multiclass



So to sum up a light spalsh build will survive but take a hit to overall effectiveness (which very much lessens the value of multiclassing which makes pure that much more inviting) and any deep multiclassing are outright destroyed.



Note: Unrelated to above stuff but one thing I can't wait for is accidentally turning someone into a barrel instead of giving them a Hyper extended twice as powerful Buff as a Wild Mage

[Carpone]

Paladin boost enhancements are underdeveloped and out of place:

Paladin saves boost -- For a class that already has the best saves in the game, boosting saves even further has severe diminishing returns. Even if you temporarily boosted saves by a percentage, it would still provide little value with current game content.

Paladin attack boost -- If a full BAB class needs an attack bonus, it's because they are tanking and can't take advantage of Sneak Attack Bonus. If a paladin is tanking and is lacking attack, then they need a permanent solution not a temporary fix. Would it be so out of line to have a static attack value increase?

Paladin armor class boost -- While it can be useful for AC builds on elite and easier content, AC is absolutely worthless on epic content. Unless you make this a prerequisite for a prestige, very few people will take it.

Paladin action boost -- With limited boosts availability, and the niche usefulness of those boosts, this is really a wasted enhancement line especially with the 2/4 cost. Really, the only time this is desired is if you splash fighter or rogue for Haste Boost, or you're a Human or Half-Elf for Versatility: Damage Boost. Might as well lump the Epic Adheren't Pendant into this as well, which has Lesser Action Boost Enhancement. Nice mechanic, but there's little to take advantage of.

[Scraap]

OK I think I'm misreading this but lets use a Cleric/Monk Warpriest/Shintao = Sacred Fist for example

Spending 5 points in both WP & S allows me to spend points in tier one of SF (10)

Spending 5 Points in either WP or S and 10 Points in the other is tier 2 of SF (15)

Spending 10 Points in both WP and S is tier 3 of SF (20)

Spending 10 Points in either WP or S and 15 Points in the other is tier 4 of SF (25)

Spending 15 Points in both WP and S is tier 5 of SF (30)

First In the mockup there's actually 7 Tiers (Not that it actually means anything being an example)

Second I want this to be as free as possible so I was treating it similar to race unlocks 10 points in each seems fair any more than that and it becomes really restrictive especially for casters remember even with a multiclass PrE you can only multi-class them some much before it becomes pointless. I know we don't currently know WHAT the level gates for each tier is but we do know a Lvl 2 splash will NOT have access to tier 3 enhancements so we know there IS level gating.

Again it's possible I misread what you said.


Quite likely, seems I ran past a few steps clarification wise. So. Lets see how she looks when I'm a bit more awake:

Things we know:

1) They've a preference for freely granting abilities for every 5 points spent in a PRE tree as demonstrated in the mockups.
2) They've a preference that all non-race aps will be spent in a tree.
3) They've a preference for a maximum of 5 points per leaf as stated a few times throughout the thread. Some less, but the most that's been mentioned to date ancedotally has been 5.
4) They've a preference not to deal with headaches involved in sorting out what does and doesn't stack, so would prefer to keep it simple and make everything stack. Mentioned a few times

Things we highly suspect:
5) They'll still keep level gates
6) The standard gates they're thinking of are at 3/6/9/12/15/18/20 (That'd be 6 unlock points counting the capstone, 5 without.)

Conclusions:
Between 1 and 2, that would mean any multiclass spending points in a tree will be granted extra abilities by the nature of the system, just as a pure would, though that won't really close any gaps, since the pures get them as well.

Between 2 and 4, that tells us we've got 5 points to blow on leaves (should have said that instead of tiers, my apologies, and perhaps that was the biggest source of confusion) to lower a gap between a mutt and a pure for any given performance evaluation aspect.

Between 5 and 6 was where I drew that initial 9 levels bit for a full unlock of a multiclass pre.

So that'd end up being:



Spending 5 points in both WP & S allows me to spend points in tier one of SF (10)

10 points, 3/3/+x split, level 6 minimum, 1 point spendable in each leaf for another unlock in addition to the 2 granted pre abilities from the core (total = 3)



Spending 5 Points in either WP or S and 10 Points in the other is tier 2 of SF (15)

15 points, 3/6/+x split, level 9 minimum, 2 points in each leaf, for a second unlock in addition to the 3 granted by classes (total = 5)



Spending 10 Points in both WP and S is tier 3 of SF (20)

20 points, 6/6/+x split, level 12 minimum, 4 points in each leaf, for a third unlock in addition to the 4 granted by classes (total = 7)



Spending 10 Points in either WP or S and 15 Points in the other is tier 4 of SF (25)

25 points, 6/9/+x split, level 15 minimum, 5 points in each leaf, for a fourth unlock in addition to the 5 granted by classes (total = 9)

and ends up at that 18 with a 9/9/+x for 30 points, for a total benefit of:
6 class abilities + 5 hybrid specific abilities + enough to pick up another T3 (15 pointer, level 9 required) in one of the classes = 14

contrasted with a pure with a cap, we'd be looking at:
7 class abilities + 6 other potential ones+9 points = 13 or 14 if 5 of that 9 is spent unlocking yet another tree (or they could forgo the capstone, and go 30/30/20, for a total of 16 abilities.)

Note: Part of the reason for suggesting spent points in root classes for unlocking levels in multiclass leaves is to ensure that the deeper the dip, the bigger the stacking benefit, so that the more you loose the more you gain compensation wise, and hopefully hit a sliding scale for tradeoffs.

That make sense? I suspect I'm getting a bit close to wall of text territory.

[Razcar]

Halfling Assassin Ranged Arty - This one is awesome...again IF assassinate,etc. works with ranged weapons....does it?
It doesn't. And Assassinate DC is based on Rogue level (at the moment). Fortitude save DC 10 + Rogue Level + Int Modifier (additional +2 from Epic Midnight Greetings possible).

[Failedlegend]

It doesn't. And Assassinate DC is based on Rogue level (at the moment). Fortitude save DC 10 + Rogue Level + Int Modifier (additional +2 from Epic Midnight Greetings possible).

Well I'm assuming as a racial PrE it would be 10 + Halfling Level + Int Mod....otherwise it would be completely pointless.

So ummm...why CAN'T I assassinate from ranged...I can do it in any other game including PnP and even in real life...so whats DDOs problem...hey dev any chance your looking in to stuff like this as well?

Regardless I still think Racial PrEs (other than Half-Elf who would be limited by Dilly) just being copies of Class PrEs is dangerous balance wise and boring lore wise. It's bad for both the power gamer & the roleplayer.


Mathy Stuff

Sorry I had to snip yeah to save space. A couple commecnt

The way you have it is WAY to complicated let's simplify:

First to unlock the multiclass PrE you must spend 10 points in each Pre-Req PrE (You have 20 Points as of Lvl 5) than to unlock tier 1 you must have 1 Lvl in each class, tier needs 2 lvls in each class....all the way up to tier 7 (the capstone) requiring 7 lvls in each class. To me it seems the new system is going to be built around the rule of 7 might as well follow it. Also note that Multiclass PrEs should follow the 3/6/9/12/15/18/20 system for the "Free Bonuses" as well but that's based of character Level like racial PrEs.

For example a Lvl 12Wizard/7Rogue/1X could take either Swiftblade (Assassin) or Arcane Trickster (Mechanic) all the way to the capstone (41 AP)...a Wizard PrE to Tier 2 (20 AP) and a Rogue PrE to Tier 1 (10AP) and have 9 AP left over...to either spend in one of your 4 trees (Racial + Wizard + Assassin/Mech + Swiftblade/Trickster) or put a few points into other trees if that option is approved by the devs. Otherwise if you made a Lvl7Wizard/Lvl7Rogue you would have 6 Lvls to play with after that...that keeps it in check while allowing for many unique variations on a Swiftblade or Trickster Build even when using the same two classes.

Another example is a Wizard18/Rogue2 now Eladrin has already said that a 2 splash WILL have access to the first 2 tiers of the trees so even a splash should be able dabble in the multiclass PrE even if he only gets access to tier 2 of that Tree he could make his Haste spell a little nicer especially if he worked in some Str for some stabbity stab of his own but due to the 3/6/9/12/15/18/20 rule he wouldn't have access to any of the "Free Bonuses".

Always remember the more options there are the more variety in builds we'll see but regardless there's never more than 80AP available and as you pointed out sure someone could build a Tier 3/Tier3/Tier2 (note: you CANNOT do this with a racial PrE as it requires EXACTLY 80 AP and racial PrEs require points to be spent in the racial tree to unlock so ONLY a build with 18 lvls in one class can do this) build but it wouldn't get any racial APs and it also wouldn't get a single capstone...so I see no reason to arbitrarily limit it with stuff like ridiculous level requirements or by locking it into 3 trees.

I'd love someone to actually give a REAL reason as to why not...like an actual reason...we don't know enough, it would hurt pures, have faith in the devs, etc. are not reasons their a statement of your stance. If you give me a reason that makes sense I'll agree...otherwise I see no opposition.

[Razcar]

So ummm...why CAN'T I assassinate from ranged...I can do it in any other game including PnP and even in real life...so whats DDOs problem...hey dev any chance your looking in to stuff like this as well?I'm guessing, but I think that since you can range attack from a very long distance, they don't want us to just go into stealth and kill off a mob every 15 seconds. (Not that that isn't something casters can do all blue bar long, and quite much faster, but the devs want melee characters to be much weaker than casters for some confused reason.)

[Failedlegend]

I'm guessing, but I think that since you can range attack from a very long distance, they don't want us to just go into stealth and kill off a mob every 15 seconds. (Not that that isn't something casters can do all blue bar long, and quite much faster, but the devs want melee characters to be much weaker than casters for some confused reason.)

Simple fix...Assassinate must be in Sneak Attack (AKA PBS) range and of course other rules such as being in stealth apply.

[Norean]

Ok, after reading recent posts I believe I've seen people doing maths regarding the allotment of action points in the new tree. I've seen some people calculating under the premise that there will only be 80 action points to spend at max level. From what I understand this will not be the case. 80 points was for when the max level was 20. This summer the max level will be increased to 25. It would seem to me that there will be 100 action points to spend. That is assuming the current rate of action point acquisition remains constant. Perhaps I've missed some information and it still will be 80.

[Scraap]

snip

Mind pointing the 2-splash getting 10 pointers bit out? Got buried.

As for complexity... yeah. Side effect of contorting it around the proposed 3 tree limit alongside building the notion as a tree it's self, which logically to be balanced, would need to contain options for stacking benefits from both classes to bring them near-par, while ensuring a deep splash benefits more than a 2-3 since it gives up more.

Otherwise we might very well end up running into an 18/2 scenario where you take 1 full damage enhancement line, and another full damage dice line from the multiclass tree, while only loosing 2 SR and gaining evasion, (or worse, an SR line and loosing nothing. in fact, ending up with more than a pure) for instance. Contrast that with a deeper splash, and things get ugly quick.

[Failedlegend]

80 points was for when the max level was 20. This summer the max level will be increased to 25. It would seem to me that there will be 100 action points to spend. That is assuming the current rate of action point acquisition remains constant. Perhaps I've missed some information and it still will be 80.

It's already been said that the Epic levels are a completely separate system. I can find the dev post if you'd like.


Mind pointing the 2-splash getting 10 pointers bit out? Got buried.

As for complexity... yeah. Side effect of contorting it around the proposed 3 tree limit alongside building the notion as a tree it's self, which logically to be balanced, would need to contain options for stacking benefits from both classes to bring them near-par, while ensuring a deep splash benefits more than a 2-3 since it gives up more.

Speaking strictly about enhancements it's already been controlled by a few things (some are my suggestions)

1) The 3/6/9/12/15/18/20 rule...the most common light splashes are 1 or 2 so these splashes would only be able to get the tier 1 "Free Bonus" in a multiclass tree regardless of how many points they spent.

2) As a Lvl 18Wizard/2rogue you would only have access up to 2 of 7 in Arcane Trickster because you meet the 2Wiz/2Rog requirement (Tier 7 would require 5 more rogue levels)

3) The Limit of 80AP

So while the light splash could gain some bonuses from the multiclass PrE it would be paled in comparison to what a 12Wiz/7Rogue/1x would see from it (since it would have access to all tiers...and even the capstone IF it take Wiz13 or Rogue 8 instead of a third class)

IOW For the purposes of Swiftblade or Arcane Trickster you as a Wizard18/Rogue2 your actually only considered a Lvl 2 Wizard/Lvl2 Rogue (Tier 3 Requires Lvl 3 in Both Wiz & Rogue so despite have 18Wiz levels your disqualified for tier 3 because you only have 2 rogue levels) thus your Lvl 4..high enough for the first bonus but the second bonus requires Lvl 6 so even though you Lvl 18/2

So you would have access to tier 2 of the Swiftblade tree for having at least 2 Lvls in each Pre-Req Class and Tier 1 of the bonuses because your effective Swiftblade lvl is 4 (tier 1 requires lv 3)

Know what I mean?

Note: Sorry for my constant editing I'm not very good at getting my point across in terms people will actually understand the first time...I'm a little scatterbrained that way

[Scraap]

Ok, after reading recent posts I believe I've seen people doing maths regarding the allotment of action points in the new tree. I've seen some people calculating under the premise that there will only be 80 action points to spend at max level. From what I understand this will not be the case. 80 points was for when the max level was 20. This summer the max level will be increased to 25. It would seem to me that there will be 100 action points to spend. That is assuming the current rate of action point acquisition remains constant. Perhaps I've missed some information and it still will be 80.

quoth the raven:


Hmm, so no new AP when you hit level 21+ or just no new 'capstone' type things at the top end?


Different system kicks in at that point. Not trying to tease, I just can't divulge any info just yet, but rest assured I will when the time is right as I will want feedback before we get too far into it.

[Norean]

quoth the raven:

Ok, thank you i missed that.

[Scraap]

Know what I mean?

Not entirely sure we're not simply using two explanations for the same basic notion, though to clarify.

Roughly comes down to: lowest level of the pair determines height of the enhancement tree, minutiae to be determined in a cage match? Or no tree at all, and this'd be alternative enhancement abilities?

[Failedlegend]

Not entirely sure we're not simply using two explanations for the same basic notion.

Roughly comes down to: lowest level of the pair determines height of the enhancement tree, minutiae to be determined in a cage match? Or no tree at all, and this'd be alternative enhancement abilities?

Yeah pretty much..the only thing we really disagree on it how many levels should required and that's honestly up to the devs.(although my suggestion is the right one of course :P)


In other words....

Wiz1/Rog1 = Tier 1

Wiz2/Rog1 = Tier 1 + Access to the first tier of the "Free bonuses"

Wiz2/Rog2 = Tier 2 + Access to the first tier of the "Free bonuses"

and so on...adjust level requirements for balance...yes?

[Scraap]

yes?

no

kidding

[Failedlegend]

no

...kidding

I can't decided whther to smile or frown at that...so you get +0 :P

Anyways I'm good with that...but I honestly think the requirements should be minimal otherwise it may not be worth it

[Scraap]

I can't decided whther to smile or frown at that...so you get +0 :P

Eh, thread needed a joke by now. Even if it was a bad one.

[Failedlegend]

Eh, thread needed a joke by now. Even if it was a bad one.

I know I'm just teasing. I'm mostly just waiting on Dev posts now...I mostly want to know their opinions on our ideas like:

1) If they like the idea of actual Racial PrEs...would you like suggestions

2) Multiclass PrEs is it a possibilty and again would you like suggestions

3) The Favored PrE System...a dev mentioned a while back they chose the current proposed racial PrEs based on their favored class so someone suggested that instead of that if you were the correct race (ie. Dwarf for Stalwart) you would be considered X levels higher for the purposes of any level gating in that PrEs Tree. Also so single classes don't feel left out there would be a special enhancement thats requires you be Lvl 20 in that class and be the correct race...nothing too powerful but strong enough to matter

4) Limited Tree's...how many? (I'm glad Vargo mentioned this is in discussion)

5) Many more I can't think of right now

On the other hand I don't expect them to answer those questions right now because they did start this thread so far ahead of the release date their probably still locked in a room with pizza and mountain dew with a crappy white board and a large table covered in pens and paper..maybe even some dice and D&D books for inspiration. Keep at it guys werew all pulling for yeah.

[dkyle]

I really don't understand the fuss about certain builds no longer being available.

I'm concerned that the overall variety of competitive builds will be reduced, not just that some current builds might get killed. However, current builds present useful examples for demonstrating the effect we can expect the new rules to have.

I believe that the three tree limit greatly reduces the incentive for deep multiclassing, and that Racial PrEs will tend to make Race/Class combos obvious and inflexible. In most cases, actually actively discouraging the "favored classes" they're supposed to represent (Halfling Assassin Rogues, for example).

[Failedlegend]

I'm concerned that the overall variety of competitive builds will be reduced, not just that some current builds might get killed. However, current builds present useful examples for demonstrating the effect we can expect the new rules to have.

I believe that the three tree limit greatly reduces the incentive for deep multiclassing, and that Racial PrEs will tend to make Race/Class combos obvious and inflexible. In most cases, actually actively discouraging the "favored classes" they're supposed to represent (Halfling Assassin Rogues, for example).

As am I...I think adding Multi-Class PrEs, ACTUAL Racially based PrEs (except Half-Elf who can take Class PrEs based on Dilly...along with free access to AA), Implementing the "Favored PrE" system and removing or at least reducing the Tree Limit will solve that and Single Classes won't even notice (although they'll love the favored PrE system)

[Gulain]

It's NOT about having to CHANGE builds MOST of us expect and accept that it's that mutilclassing with be severely handicapped by this change. Honestly that not opinion it's fact...simple math really.

Right Now

Cleric 20 = 100% Enhancement Access

Wizard18/Rogue2 =90% Access + 10% Access = 100% Access

Wizard12/Fighter6/Rogue2 = 60% Access + 30% Access + 10% Access = 100% Acess

right now enhancement wise its balanced...in the new system

Cleric 20 has access to all three Trees = 100% Access

Wizard18/Rogue2 Has access to 3/6 Trees = 50% Access

Wizard12/Fighter6/Rogue2 has access to 3/9 Trees = Approx. 33% Access


I don't think that's exactly simple math or even precise math. I'm not sure where you get the 10% number for a 2 splash (unless you are talking 2 of 20 levels = 10%). Available enhancements are not spread out evenly across all levels for all classes so this number is purely made up and inaccurate.

Developer statements have hinted that at least as of the current iteration of this in Turbine's testing had 2 level splashes hitting first two rows of enhancements of no more than 6 rows. That would mean roughly 30% of the enhancements through a single tree being available (some more and some less) and possibly even MORE than 10% for just 1 of 3 trees (at least by your math).

The fact is that options will be more diverse and each investment potentially stronger than it currently is. In point of fact, when you state that each split has ACCESS to only a percentage that is incorrect. You have access to all trees for all selected classes initially. As it was first announced you would then focus in the trees that have you want (and have to make appropriate decisions on what you need).

Now I don't disagree that 3 trees could possibly feel restrictive if you are trying to spend points in everything under the sun for your split. But that's just ASSUMING you even NEED to at this point. There's nothing that says you won't be able to have everything you have now and more (just like there is no substantial proof that you WILL have access).

At this point the topic is pretty well worn out and the developers have acknowledged player concern for it and I'm sure are discussing it in depth among themselves. How about people start focusing on other concerns than this same old subject that is already found on 140 other pages of threads in this.

[boomer70]

Because there has been so much debate as to the various advantages and disadvantages of the dev’s proposed system I just wanted to throw out this alternative proposal so they don’t think that every thinks it is a great idea with just a few problems.

This is what I would like to see happen:
• Enhancements would be divided into tabs.
• Within the tabs enhancements could be displayed in any way that makes sense.
• There would be no magic unlocks that grant special abilities based on points spent.
• Enhancement abilities should stack unless otherwise stated. Stacking enhancements is probably a lot smaller issue (in terms of new player understanding) than stacking gear and spells for example. With the game as it stands non-stacking bonuses are very likely to be ignored because there are so many other ways to get those bonuses.
• There could be requirements based on total points spent on that tab.
• Most Enhancements would have a min level requirement. Depending on the tab this could be either class level or character level.
• Enhancements would be changed to scale (mostly) linearly to enable easier balancing.
• Enhancements could have tiers (e.g. Enhancement I – Enhancement V).
• Within a given enhancement line not all abilities would have to cost the same AP.
• Enhancements would be designed to provide increasing benefit at higher tiers (possibly with additional cost).
• There would be a Racial tab containing racial enhancements similar in nature to the racial enhancements we have currently.
• There would be a tab for each class the character currently has. There should be an in-game option to view all class tabs. These tabs would contain general enhancements related to the class’s function. Most of the enhancements we have currently would fall into this tab. There should be many more enhancements and mainly more higher tier enhancements here.
• There would be a prestige tab that displays all the prestige enhancements available in the game. Prestige enhancements would have an entry cost (some number of AP) which would open a new tab specific to the prestige selected. Prestige entry would be controlled by character features like BAB, sneak attack dice, skill ranks, etc. There would be no limit to the number of prestiges that could be selected except available AP.
• The specific prestige tabs would contain enhancements that modify and add prestige specific features. The initial unlock would grant minor versions of the prestige’s canonical abilities (defender stance etc). Enhancements would improve this. Would not be level gated but gated based on AP spent on tab and tiers similar to how Arcane Archer’s Conjure Arrows feature unlocks specific arrows.
• There would be a Feat tab for enhancements that modify/improve feats. This would include the Racial Toughness enhancements we have now (the tier 1 and 2). Some obvious examples of feats needing love (Power Critical – Deadly Critical ala Pathfinder, Combined skill feats like athletics – enhancements to grant base speed bonues for e.g.)

[Failedlegend]

Stuff


So basically it boils down to removing the "Free Bonuses" and turning them into enhancements in the actual tree than using a Tab system similar to the spell tabs which would include 3 Tabs per class and 1 for Racial stuff including the racial prestige class.

Personally I actually like the "Free Bonuses" bit so I don't really agree with that but I do think having the Tree's show up as a tab system with the option (for people with the screen size to do it) to see all the tabs (or see Tab 1, Tab 4 and Tab 7)

[dkyle]

Now I don't disagree that 3 trees could possibly feel restrictive if you are trying to spend points in everything under the sun for your split. But that's just ASSUMING you even NEED to at this point. There's nothing that says you won't be able to have everything you have now and more (just like there is no substantial proof that you WILL have access).

But here's my problem with that:

Assuming that everything I could want for a deeply multiclassed character is contained in three trees, I'd still find that disappointing. I don't want the Devs to hand me everything I could ever want within their prescribed trees. I want to combine a bunch of things from a variety of sources, into a novel combinations that the Devs didn't even think of.

Even if we assume that multiclasses would be equally viable in both systems, I'd rather be choosing enhancements across 10 trees instead of 3.

[boomer70]

So basically it boils down to removing the "Free Bonuses" and turning them into enhancements in the actual tree than using a Tab system similar to the spell tabs which would include 3 Tabs per class and 1 for Racial stuff including the racial prestige class.

Personally I actually like the "Free Bonuses" bit so I don't really agree with that but I do think having the Tree's show up as a tab system with the option (for people with the screen size to do it) to see all the tabs (or see Tab 1, Tab 4 and Tab 7)

Sort of. In addition I want to remove the idea that prestige's are nothing more than the collection of general class enhancements you happen to take. That in addition to the free stuff has the serious potential (IMNSHO) to be a real flava killer. You wouldn't have to commit to being a tempest or defender and would be able to "accidentally" become one just because the enhancements you wanted for your build happen to fall into those trees.

I don't want to see a "racial prestige" as a separate concept. I have no problem with a prestige having a requirement to be a specific race if they want to add them but they should operate just like any other prestige.

What i would like to see in regard to race is a sort of racial substitution levels concept. Basically add enhancements that modify class features of specific classes to more closely match the theme of the races. This would let an elven paladin be a very different beast than a dwarven paladin (if they wanted to be).

[Aashrym]

It doesn't. And Assassinate DC is based on Rogue level (at the moment). Fortitude save DC 10 + Rogue Level + Int Modifier (additional +2 from Epic Midnight Greetings possible).

I would expect assassinate to be based on character level with the halfling unlock because we've been told character level on those PrE trees already.

On a side note, though, deepwood sniper would be where the ranged assassination ability comes in, if anywhere. :)

[Aashrym]

It's NOT about having to CHANGE builds MOST of us expect and accept that it's that mutilclassing with be severely handicapped by this change. Honestly that not opinion it's fact...simple math really.

Right Now

Cleric 20 = 100% Enhancement Access

Wizard18/Rogue2 =90% Access + 10% Access = 100% Access

Wizard12/Fighter6/Rogue2 = 60% Access + 30% Access + 10% Access = 100% Acess

right now enhancement wise its balanced...in the new system

Cleric 20 has access to all three Trees = 100% Access

Wizard18/Rogue2 Has access to 3/6 Trees = 50% Access

Wizard12/Fighter6/Rogue2 has access to 3/9 Trees = Approx. 33% Access

This is the part I disagree with for 2 reasons.

1) It disregards the option of replacing a useful enhancement no longer available with a useful enhancement that is or becomes available.

2) Pure classes do not have 100% access to their trees. There are enough points available to develop 2 of them so that would automatically create a default position of needing to select 2 or less trees for the top enhancements in that tree. We are already looking at a position where we have 4 trees and 2 of them will be the trees we select, or 1 and take more lower level enhancements, or skip all the uppers tiers for nothing but lower enhancements.

[Aashrym]

I'm concerned that the overall variety of competitive builds will be reduced, not just that some current builds might get killed. However, current builds present useful examples for demonstrating the effect we can expect the new rules to have.

I believe that the three tree limit greatly reduces the incentive for deep multiclassing, and that Racial PrEs will tend to make Race/Class combos obvious and inflexible. In most cases, actually actively discouraging the "favored classes" they're supposed to represent (Halfling Assassin Rogues, for example).

In case you missed it. :D


3 tree does not actually cut down on variety, it enforces variety. Permutations can include redundancies anyway, combinations is what we need to look at. For example, there are 32736 permutations selecting 3 trees from 33 choices of trees but after redundancies (caused by taking the same combination in a different order) are removed there are 5456 combinations of 3 trees on triple classes.

C (33,3) = 33!/(30!*3!) = 5456

I limited the choice of trees to include removing access to 6 based on alignment from 39. Lawful removing bard and barbarian trees and non-lawful removing paladin and monk trees; the permutations include the order taken and is not reflective of the actual number of combinations we end up with. 13 classes with all enhancements per class removing 2 based on alignment gives us:

C (11,3) = 11!/(8!*3!) = 165

The reason I say the 3 tree limit reinforces variety is because players are looking for specific enhancements to coincide to their build concept. If they have access to all of the possibly enhancements per class simultaneously those builder will tend to gravitate to the PrE and enhancements that best suit the design and given full access that means the same classes, races, enhancements, and pre's like we have now. We do not have a large variety of competitive builds now because of that. A tree limit forces more choices on which enhancements are PrE's will be included in the build.

I believe we would have much larger chance at a wider variety of successful builds running off of 3 tree over opening up all enhancements for all classes based on the combinations we end up with. That should be moving us to a lot more variety of effective builds unless Turbine borks something and creates some clearly overpowered / underpowered trees.

3 trees forces more builds and creates more options for variety. There is a better chance at more variety in competitive builds using 5456 combinations than 165 combinations. The math is correct. ;)

[Aashrym]

But here's my problem with that:

Assuming that everything I could want for a deeply multiclassed character is contained in three trees, I'd still find that disappointing. I don't want the Devs to hand me everything I could ever want within their prescribed trees. I want to combine a bunch of things from a variety of sources, into a novel combinations that the Devs didn't even think of.

Even if we assume that multiclasses would be equally viable in both systems, I'd rather be choosing enhancements across 10 trees instead of 3.

Watch Turbine mess everyone up and add 6 PrE trees per class and make everyone choose 3 of them. :D

[Aelonwy]

On a small sidestep from the ongoing debate would it be possible while we are looking at enahncements and their requirements including those for PrEs, could we please have Past Life Arcane Prodigy be an alternate choice wherever Menatl Toughness may be required. That is, it is already an alternate option for AA but for some reason not an option for Archmage. Thank you.

[Riggs]

In case you missed it. :D



3 trees forces more builds and creates more options for variety. There is a better chance at more competitive builds using 5456 combinations than 165 combinations. The math is correct. ;)

Your definition for 'forcing more variety' seems to imply that people will be FORCED to NOT take good enhancements from certain trees, and then that somehow makes the game better by forcing multiclass characters to only be able to access a limited number of enhancements, and thereby forcing people to build using a more restrictive set of enhancements.

Math can be made to baffle as well as clarify, and the bias of the above quote seems pretty clear.

"I am assuming there will be some enhancements better than others, and only pure classes will get access to these (stacking) enhancements - while multiclass characters will be forced to be 'competitive' and 'try out different combinations' - rather than be able to cherry pick the best enhancements like a pure class will be able to".

The goal is to have all enhancements give relative equal value for equal points...and anyone with a lick of sense already knows that goal is nearly impossible - and some lines will be better than others - period.

Add in stacking class lines - and it is quite simply a recipe for significant overpowering in some areas - while at the same time severely limiting the ability of multiclass characters to take more than 33%, or 50%, of whatever a class offers while a pure class not only gets 100%, but also gets to stack same type bonuses up to three times (four if racial has a same type bonus).

Limiting trees is arbitrary (as long as there is at least some kind of level limit for class enhancements), and stacking is very, very bad. Big shiny numbers might get a lot of people jumping up and down in anticipation - but it is going to break the game - or at least big parts of it. Posting over and over and over and over and over again trying to defend that position doesnt change the fact of the damage it is going to cause.

[boomer70]

On a small sidestep from the ongoing debate would it be possible while we are looking at enahncements and their requirements including those for PrEs, could we please have Past Life Arcane Prodigy be an alternate choice wherever Menatl Toughness may be required. That is, it is already an alternate option for AA but for some reason not an option for Archmage. Thank you.

This is probably a good idea assuming requirements are similar to what they are now.

It also reminds me that I forgot 2 tabs in my previous proposal.
* Past Life tab - Would have enhancements that modify the past life feats (both granted and selected feats). Maybe grant extra AP (only usable on this tab?) for each TR? Not sure if we need more incentive/benefit for TRs.
* Dragonmark Tab - Contains enhancements that modify dragonmarks. Modeled on the dragonmark heir prestige class perhaps. Ideally combined with lowering the number of feats required for dragonmarks or allowing trading AP for feats for feat starved classes.

[boomer70]

snip

Limiting trees is arbitrary (as long as there is at least some kind of level limit for class enhancements), and stacking is very, very bad. Big shiny numbers might get a lot of people jumping up and down in anticipation - but it is going to break the game - or at least big parts of it. Posting over and over and over and over and over again trying to defend that position doesnt change the fact of the damage it is going to cause.

While I agree with most of what you have posted I disagree that stacking is by its very nature bad. I think that stacking can actually be a good thing. It can be less confusing if everything stacks. It can also provide useful variety by having multiple ways of getting the same end result. Where stacking would be bad for the game would be if they had multiple copies of the same enhancements spread of multiple trees to avoid the 3 tree limit and then allow them to stack to give a numerical result much bigger than is possible currently.

As an example, I wouldn't have a problem if a class gave a Con bonus and a race gave a Con bonus if those bonuses stacked. I also wouldn't think it would be unbalanced if 2 classes gave a Con bonus that stacked provided that the relative overall character cost of obtaining the 2 bonuses equaled the cost of gaining a single bonus twice.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

Limiting trees is arbitrary (as long as there is at least some kind of level limit for class enhancements), and stacking is very, very bad. Big shiny numbers might get a lot of people jumping up and down in anticipation - but it is going to break the game - or at least big parts of it. Posting over and over and over and over and over again trying to defend that position doesnt change the fact of the damage it is going to cause.

Why use prases like "the damage it is going to cause." and "it is going to break the game - or at least big parts of it."

Exactly how does this break the game? The D&D/DDO mechanics for the most part will still be the same. The combat system will be the same. Everyone will be bound by the same rules. I envision the potential for better game balance, not a broken game.

As for some posters posting more then once (over and over and over as you say) why call out only Aash? How about folks on your side of this debate that have been posting over and over. That's ok, right?

I think both sides have made pretty good arguments. Im hoping your fears are unfounded, but who knows?

[Failedlegend]

* Dragonmark Tab - Contains enhancements that modify dragonmarks. Modeled on the dragonmark heir prestige class perhaps. Ideally combined with lowering the number of feats required for dragonmarks or allowing trading AP for feats for feat starved classes.


I've already answered this multiple times..Eladrin has said that dragonmarks are likely to be part of the racial tree (which makes sense) and reduced to one feat requirement with the rest of the line as well as what was planned for the "Heirs" in there as well


Why use prases like "the damage it is going to cause." and "it is going to break the game - or at least big parts of it."

Exactly how does this break the game? The D&D/DDO mechanics for the most part will still be the same. The combat system will be the same. Everyone will be bound by the same rules. I envision the potential for better game balance, not a broken game.

As for some posters posting more then once (over and over and over as you say) why call out only Aash? How about folks on your side of this debate that have been posting over and over. That's ok, right?

I think both sides have made pretty good arguments. Im hoping your fears are unfounded, but who knows?

While Riggs may have a flair for the dramatic he's right and we've proved it multiple times and honestly "Your Side" hasn't actually said much beyond Your wrong and lets wait and see. The only hypothesis I can come up with why you don't understand is you rarely play multiclass characters yet see them as some god-like power that needs to be leashed.

[dkyle]

3 trees forces more builds and creates more options for variety. There is a better chance at more variety in competitive builds using 5456 combinations than 165 combinations. The math is correct. ;)

Your math makes poor assumptions, and calculates something I don't really care about.

First, you assume that deep multiclassing remains viable, and actually more common than pures, which I do not believe is justified given what we know of the system. You also assume that triple classed builds would not only be common, actually consider taking a tertiary class's tree as one of their three, which is, frankly, ridiculous.

Second, you are talking about possible combinations of trees, when I really care about possible combinations of enhancements. The three tree limit clearly eliminates sets of enhancements that would be possible that would be possible without it.

Now, limits do breed creativity, of course, so it's possible for a more limiting design to produce a greater variety of builds. But I don't see that likely with a system that is inherently biased against a huge group of builds.

[boomer70]

I've already answered this multiple times..Eladrin has said that dragonmarks are likely to be part of the racial tree (which makes sense) and reduced to one feat requirement with the rest of the line as well as what was planned for the "Heirs" in there as well

Well excuse me but I didn't ask for you to answer it. My proposal specifically had absolutely nothing to do with anything Eladrin or any other dev have said. It was a proposal put out there as an alternative to what they have proposed simply to avoid giving the impression that since so much debate has focused on their proposal (as opposed to the initial feedback request) that everyone is on board and it only needs some tweaks.

I am most definitely not on board with their proposal. I dislike it enormously.

I threw out my ideas to show that their proposal is not the only system that could work and to add some "noise" to the discussion against implementing their proposal with or without any tree limits.

[Chai]

The three tree limit clearly eliminates sets of enhancements that would be possible that would be possible without it.



This is all that really needs to be understood about those arguing that the three tree limitation limits multiclass viability. Without the limit of 3 trees, players would be able to build things they cannot build with the limitation in place.

There are already limitations in place with only being able to spend X points, as well as level based limitations. Further restriction is not necessary.

[kingfisher]

3 trees forces more builds and creates more options for variety.

how does limiting each character to 3 trees create more options for variety than the same system that has no 3 tree limit?

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

The only hypothesis I can come up with why you don't understand is you rarely play multiclass characters yet see them as some god-like power that needs to be leashed.

Nope. I build and play them extensively. I could never tell you how many pure and multi-class builds I've built for folks over the years. I do not favor one over the other. Thats one of the main reasons why Im so interested in this thread, not only in Turbine's proposal, but in peoples opinions.

I can tell you if this does limit multis I will be very upset. I do not want multis to have less good choices, but more good choices. I see us having just that.

We are all "assuming" at this point. When more info comes out, and we can tear into build creation, then and only then will it begin to make sense to most people. I am expecting us to draw new opinions once we do get to that point... at this point we are far apart on how we envision this stystem, maybe not so much in a few months.

[SisAmethyst]

Not only for Clerics but as well for FvS and Paladins!
Why?

You are right, the sentence in this form is missleading and wrong. I probaly shouldn't write forum post while sleepwalking ;)

What I mean is that Domains are usually bound to certain Deities. Adding Domains to the game would also have an impact on Deities and everything related to it. So my point isn't to give Paladins and FvS as well domain spells like Clerics. However we miss for example the Church of 'The Path of Light, 'Path of Inspiration' or 'Keepers of the Past' and their respective Domains. Also as Paladin or FvS you can or have to choose a Faith (Deitie) and therefore affected by this.

Additionnaly if you look for example already that Dol Dorn has the Domains Chaos, Good, Strength, War, Competition and Liberation, while The Undying Court include Deathless, Fate, Good, Protection and Planning, and is therefore quite different. A paladin of one church or the other should be different in more then his favourite weapon. Right now the Deitie selection in the enhancements is nothing more then a clicky for a heavy AP investment or a prereq for the Tier III PrE, while with the introduction of Domains and everything related to this it could add much more to it.

[Gulain]

This is all that really needs to be understood by those arguing that the three tree limitation limits multiclass viability. Without the limit of 3 trees, players would be able to build things they cannot build with the limitation in place.

There are already limitations in place with only being able to spend X points, as well as level based limitations. Fuerther restriction is not necessary.

Perhaps the problem also stems from having Racial PREs available in the first place. Ultimately in multi-classing you are supposed to be giving up level cap benefits as the cost for having a greater variety of options to chose from. With Racial PREs deep multis will still have access to a fully tiered PRE which kind of negates that benefit. No matter how you look at it each situation is not favorable to the other in the pure vs deep-multi debate.

Now... I'm not advocating leaving racial PREs out because a) there is already 1 in the game and b) because it opens up so many options for builds (and flavor) that didn't exist previously. At the same time I don't know that 3 trees is necessarily a successful method when dealing with diversity through multiclassing.

One solution would be to find a compromise in the middle and say instead of unlimited trees you get 3 + 1 per additional class up to a maximum of 5 class trees and then 1 from racial. This leaves 6 tree choices that even deep multiclasses will typically be able to take everything from. While this is still an "arbitrary limit" as many people have pointed out it still increases total number of options as won't bloat a enhancement panel in the way that up to 10 trees will. It will also still require players to place thought and care when selecting a multiclass combination and not just spitting up a build into a UI without any care.

Another option, as outlined previously, is to keep general enhancements for classes seperate from PRE enhancements (or to exist in all trees and be mutually exclusive). They can be used for class defining enhancements that all players would want regardless of build. This would mean that even with deep multiclass you can pick a class tree for each of your classes and grab the general enhancements + specific PRE that you want from that class and fill out your character more.

Either way I think at this point the developers need to sit down and determine a new proposal idea to send out there so we can identify what they are thinking and help determine how to make that better as well.

[slimkj]

I really don't understand the fuss about certain builds no longer being available.

Surely you make builds with what tools you have to hand, and since the enhancements are getting remade, as well as adding the tree system, surely people will be redesigning their builds anyway?
If you've sunk a million or so XP into getting some class levels for a multiclass build in the latter part of the road to 20, and those levels later lose a majority of their benefit (which you would lose if your AP were spread across two main class trees and one racial tree and couldn't then invest in that class tree, for example), you are faced with spending on Hearts or TRing and investing several million more XP to regain similar benefits. Those levels might now be far less useful than they were.

I'm confident the designers can work out ways round this and avoid buggering up some people's time investment, but at the moment a three tree limit looks like it may limit viability of existing multiclass builds and therefore devalue people's time investment. Which provokes strong feelings.

So yes, while I agree that new is fun, more is also fun and people are advocating for improving the overall system whilst not reducing existing benefits. I can understand that.

[Aashrym]

Your definition for 'forcing more variety' seems to imply that people will be FORCED to NOT take good enhancements from certain trees, and then that somehow makes the game better by forcing multiclass characters to only be able to access a limited number of enhancements, and thereby forcing people to build using a more restrictive set of enhancements.

Math can be made to baffle as well as clarify, and the bias of the above quote seems pretty clear.

"I am assuming there will be some enhancements better than others, and only pure classes will get access to these (stacking) enhancements - while multiclass characters will be forced to be 'competitive' and 'try out different combinations' - rather than be able to cherry pick the best enhancements like a pure class will be able to".

The goal is to have all enhancements give relative equal value for equal points...and anyone with a lick of sense already knows that goal is nearly impossible - and some lines will be better than others - period.

Add in stacking class lines - and it is quite simply a recipe for significant overpowering in some areas - while at the same time severely limiting the ability of multiclass characters to take more than 33%, or 50%, of whatever a class offers while a pure class not only gets 100%, but also gets to stack same type bonuses up to three times (four if racial has a same type bonus).

Limiting trees is arbitrary (as long as there is at least some kind of level limit for class enhancements), and stacking is very, very bad. Big shiny numbers might get a lot of people jumping up and down in anticipation - but it is going to break the game - or at least big parts of it. Posting over and over and over and over and over again trying to defend that position doesnt change the fact of the damage it is going to cause.

There is no bias or assumption in the calculation I provided. That is how many combinations of 3 trees available among 13 classes when we remove the alignment restrictions and select 3. That part is a fact.

The only assumption going on is your assumption that you will have better choices with more access to lower level enhancements because you are assuming you can make a better combination of effects out of having more access to lower level enhancement instead of a combination of effects introduced in the new system.

If we want to hit a stated goal of more variety we need to force choices that lead to variety. If we want to avoid cookie cutters as much we need to avoid homogenizing the class choices. What the tree system does is create one addition sets of choices to categorize and isolate some of the existing choices available. The would create variety. That might not allow for the choices you want in your specific build (which is not what those numbers dispute) but it does create more variety among builds.

And a pure class clearly does not get 100%. A pure class chooses which trees he will develop because he cannot develop them all and lacks the multitude of options available to multiclasses to swap out for a better set of choices, which, using your logic, limits him. A lot. If a choice of 30+ trees is not enough to help out your character how does a choice of only 3 trees make that pure class better? It's not vertical limitations, we've already covered that. It's not horizontal limitations, those are equal. It's not number options, multiclassing clearly has far more. It's not AP, everyone has the same. Everything you offer as an argument is easily disputable and very clearly based on assumption over the value of each enhancement without knowing he value of each of those enhancements, and even that doesn't make sense because it would be more logical to assume the higher tiers of enhancements you would have access to would be better than the lower tier enhancement you were giving up due to prereq costs.

At least I can see losing out on specific deeper splash builds, but what you state to refute a basic standard calculation cannot refute that the 3 tree limitation does lead to greater variety among builds for the simple fact every can no longer take all the same enhancements.

Those calculations do not mean the new builds will be better than the existing builds now. Those calculations demonstrate there will be more variety among existing builds with such a change. And as for viability those new builds are not comparing viability with what we have now, they are comparing viability with each other, splashed builds, and pure builds in the new system where all of those will be seeing changes relative to now.

[Aashrym]

While Riggs may have a flair for the dramatic he's right and we've proved it multiple times and honestly "Your Side" hasn't actually said much beyond Your wrong and lets wait and see. The only hypothesis I can come up with why you don't understand is you rarely play multiclass characters yet see them as some god-like power that needs to be leashed.

I'm telling you, my math is good and demonstrates versatility. ;) Percentages are misleading because they don't have an accurate baseline as to what they are percentages of and percentages of 2 different thing are irrelevant.

I will agree that more variety does not equal better builds than we currently have if that is what you are looking for. That is a possibility but not a fact. It just equals more variety among what we end up with.

[boomer70]

I'm telling you, my math is good and demonstrates versatility. ;) Percentages are misleading because they don't have an accurate baseline as to what they are percentages of and percentages of 2 different thing are irrelevant.

I will agree that more variety does not equal better builds than we currently have if that is what you are looking for. That is a possibility but not a fact. It just equals more variety among what we end up with.

I am totally confused here. More is a comparative word. In order to have meaning it has to context more than what?

If you are trying to argue that under the new system multiclass builds will have more variety than they do currently you could well be right but that argument is missing the point that most are making. It depends on what is actually in the new system but if they provide more useful enhancements than are currently available it will be true.

If you are trying to argue that under the new system (with a three tree limit) multiclass builds will have more variety than under the new system WITHOUT a three tree limit (all other things being equal) I fail to see how this could remotely be true. If all other variables are held constant then anything could build with a three tree limit you could also build without the limit. The reverse is not the case. There will be builds you could build without the limit that you can not build with the limit.

[dkyle]

There is no bias or assumption in the calculation I provided. That is how many combinations of 3 trees available among 13 classes when we remove the alignment restrictions and select 3. That part is a fact.

The assumptions come in when you suggest that these "facts" have any real bearing on the discussion.

The issue is the variety of viable builds, not the number of possible builds, or the number of possible combinations of trees. Your assumption that all possible combos will be equally viable is completely and obviously absurd.

In your calculation of number of possible combinations, the vast majority of combinations are splits with one PrE from three different classes. Which is only possible with deep multiclassing. Essentially, you are arguing that our concerns about deep multiclassing losing viability are not justified, because the system allows for a lot of build variety, but only if we assume that deep multiclassing is viable. Circular reasoning.


The only assumption going on is your assumption that you will have better choices with more access to lower level enhancements because you are assuming you can make a better combination of effects out of having more access to lower level enhancement instead of a combination of effects introduced in the new system.

Build 1 has access to 1 tree of full 20 range, and two trees of level 12 range. Build 2 has access to 1 tree of full 20 range, 3 trees of level 12 range, 3 trees of level 6 range, 3 trees of level 2 range. The game rules are otherwise the same for each.

Are you seriously suggesting that build 2 having better choices than build 1 is impossible? The only assumption required is that in the new system, there is likely to be at least one case where greater access to lower level enhancements would benefit a build.


If we want to hit a stated goal of more variety we need to force choices that lead to variety. If we want to avoid cookie cutters as much we need to avoid homogenizing the class choices. What the tree system does is create one addition sets of choices to categorize and isolate some of the existing choices available. The would create variety. That might not allow for the choices you want in your specific build (which is not what those numbers dispute) but it does create more variety among builds.

But it does so in a way that severely disadvantages deep multiclasses, thus encourage pure and splash builds.


If a choice of 30+ trees is not enough to help out your character how does a choice of only 3 trees make that pure class better?

A multiclass build can choose only among 10 trees, at most. You are comparing all possible tree choices among all possible multiclass splits, to the PrE choices for a single pure class build. An absurd comparison.


It's not vertical limitations, we've already covered that.

Of course it's vertical limitations. Both pure and multis are limited by AP per tree. The exact same prereqs apply to both. Only multis are limited by class level. Ergo, more limits on multis.


It's not horizontal limitations, those are equal.

Which is exactly the problem. Multis get more vertical limitations, but the same horizontal limitations.


It's not number options, multiclassing clearly has far more.

Multis get more choices of trees, but any trees from a splash are clearly very poor choices. And choose a secondary class's trees means even harsher vertical limitations than sticking to the primary class's trees.

And again, you are focusing on choice of trees, when the salient comparison is choice of enhancements. The number of possible sets of enhancements a pure can take is clearly greater than for the multi, because the combinations possible of having 3 level 20 trees dwarfs the combinations possible of choosing 3 among 10 smaller trees, then choosing combinations of enhancements among those.

[Aashrym]

Your math makes poor assumptions, and calculates something I don't really care about.

First, you assume that deep multiclassing remains viable, and actually more common than pures, which I do not believe is justified given what we know of the system. You also assume that triple classed builds would not only be common, actually consider taking a tertiary class's tree as one of their three, which is, frankly, ridiculous.

Second, you are talking about possible combinations of trees, when I really care about possible combinations of enhancements. The three tree limit clearly eliminates sets of enhancements that would be possible that would be possible without it.

Now, limits do breed creativity, of course, so it's possible for a more limiting design to produce a greater variety of builds. But I don't see that likely with a system that is inherently biased against a huge group of builds.

My math made no assumptions. That's a standard formula to calculate combinations instead of permutations because the various permutations are irrelevent. It doesn't matter if a person takes a kensei assassin ravager or a ravager kensei assassin. Those are 2 different permutations but the same combination.

What I was responding to was your concern about the number of builds and tree limits do create variety. Realistically, how many of those 165 class combinations we have (it would be less without druid) lead to feasible DIFFERENT end game builds when every class has every enhancement? I'm not saying it would make the characters any better or worse than we have now with the calculation, just that we should expect to see more variety in the builds.

[Aashrym]

how does limiting each character to 3 trees create more options for variety than the same system that has no 3 tree limit?

The variety comes from the additional choice of tree before enhancements are even capable of being selected because including choices like that increase the number combinations exponentially. An individual character had different options, will lose access to options, but still has other options and the one additional factor in there does create an increase in the final number of choices.

That still won't help you have access to all the enhancement lists you want but moving those back in does remove a differentiating choice and we end up with less combinations available. The trees force a lot of different choices for each character because they restrict access to sets of enhancements, so really we could end up with a pile junk or a pile of gold not knowing all of the enhancements but there will be more distinct builds within either the piles of junk or the piles of gold.

The only think the number of combinations can really demonstrate is variety and potential. The potential may or may not be realized but the variety would be there.

[boomer70]

The variety comes from the additional choice of tree before enhancements are even capable of being selected because including choices like that increase the number combinations exponentially. An individual character had different options, will lose access to options, but still has other options and the one additional factor in there does create an increase in the final number of choices.

That still won't help you have access to all the enhancement lists you want but moving those back in does remove a differentiating choice and we end up with less combinations available. The trees force a lot of different choices for each character because they restrict access to sets of enhancements, so really we could end up with a pile junk or a pile of gold not knowing all of the enhancements but there will be more distinct builds within either the piles of junk or the piles of gold.

The only think the number of combinations can really demonstrate is variety and potential. The potential may or may not be realized but the variety would be there.

I think I finally see what you are trying to argue. You are trying to say that by having to choose between available trees you are adding to the number of combinations of trees. i.e. if you have 4 trees and have to choose three there will be 4 choices of which 3 trees your build will access as opposed to only 1 choice (all the trees) if there is no limit.

That is all well and good but it has no baring on the actual number of builds being possible. Since builds are not made simply by selecting the tree but rather by making selections from those trees.

Regardless of what those trees contain there will always be some number of builds that are not possible at all under a three tree limit that would be possible without the limit. The reverse is not true. Without the limit I could build anything that could be built with the limit (simply by ignoring the tree that was locked out). Therefore there will always be fewer build options with a limit than without a limit.

[dkyle]

My math made no assumptions. That's a standard formula to calculate combinations instead of permutations because the various permutations are irrelevent. It doesn't matter if a person takes a kensei assassin ravager or a ravager kensei assassin. Those are 2 different permutations but the same combination.

Fine, the math itself makes no assumptions. But the math answers an irrelevant question. I don't really care how many possible combinations of trees there are. I care how many viable combinations of race, class-splits, and sets of enhancements there are.


What I was responding to was your concern about the number of builds and tree limits do create variety. Realistically, how many of those 165 class combinations we have (it would be less without druid) lead to feasible DIFFERENT end game builds when every class has every enhancement? I'm not saying it would make the characters any better or worse than we have now with the calculation, just that we should expect to see more variety in the builds.

Every class doesn't have every enhancement, three tree limit or not. And different builds, with different goals, would want a different set of enhancements, even with unlimited trees. The AP spent in tree already presents a major incentive to restrict ourselves to as few trees as possible.

And as I said, if your goal is to prove that the three tree limit is likely to produce more varied viable characters, and won't kill deep multis, then your math alone is insufficient. In order to apply your math to that question, you must assume that some subset of those possible combinations are viable. And if you assume that deep multis will be viable (which comprise the majority of your combinations), then you are assuming the thing you are trying to prove. Circular reasoning.

[Aashrym]

I am totally confused here. More is a comparative word. In order to have meaning it has to context more than what?

If you are trying to argue that under the new system multiclass builds will have more variety than they do currently you could well be right but that argument is missing the point that most are making. It depends on what is actually in the new system but if they provide more useful enhancements than are currently available it will be true.

If you are trying to argue that under the new system (with a three tree limit) multiclass builds will have more variety than under the new system WITHOUT a three tree limit (all other things being equal) I fail to see how this could remotely be true. If all other variables are held constant then anything could build with a three tree limit you could also build without the limit. The reverse is not the case. There will be builds you could build without the limit that you can not build with the limit.

The 3 tree limit imposes an additional choice and moves enhancements into more distinct grouping. Splitting those enhancements into more groups forces more choices because each tree will have what would be considered the best choices per tree instead of per class. There are obviously more trees than classes and the tree system separates each tree into it's own type of that class. It's a forced variety compared to the trend of builders tending to gravitate towards the same enhancements per class given that opportunity and demonstrated in the current system.

I'll can calculate the actual difference of total choices available to include number of enhancements to get a better idea of the pure number of choices available when I get a bit more time.

[Chai]

The 3 tree limit imposes an additional choice and moves enhancements into more distinct grouping. Splitting those enhancements into more groups forces more choices because each tree will have what would be considered the best choices per tree instead of per class. There are obviously more trees than classes and the tree system separates each tree into it's own type of that class. It's a forced variety compared to the trend of builders tending to gravitate towards the same enhancements per class given that opportunity and demonstrated in the current system.

I'll can calculate the actual difference of total choices available to include number of enhancements to get a better idea of the pure number of choices available when I get a bit more time.

How many choices are available to the following.

1. Pure character with access to 3/4 trees.

2. 12-6-2 character, already restricted by 12 level max in 3 trees, 6 level max in 3 trees, 2 level max in 3 trees, and can go all the way up in one tree.

1. Can go up all the way in 3 of the 4 potentially.
2. Best option. Can go all the way to 12 in 2 trees and can go all the way up the racial.

Its pretty easy to see how there are fewer options for a multi in a 3 tree max system. The entire reason to have a split is to sacrifice options vertically to gain options laterally. Nothing is gained laterally for this vertical sacrifice here however, so its a net loss to the multi class. If they already put points in multiple trees that have a 2 level max in them its even possible to create a situation where they CANNOT spend all their points.

[kingfisher]

how does limiting each character to 3 trees create more options for variety than the same system that has no 3 tree limit?


The variety comes from the additional choice of tree before enhancements are even capable of being selected because including choices like that increase the number combinations exponentially. An individual character had different options, will lose access to options, but still has other options and the one additional factor in there does create an increase in the final number of choices.

That still won't help you have access to all the enhancement lists you want but moving those back in does remove a differentiating choice and we end up with less combinations available. The trees force a lot of different choices for each character because they restrict access to sets of enhancements, so really we could end up with a pile junk or a pile of gold not knowing all of the enhancements but there will be more distinct builds within either the piles of junk or the piles of gold.

The only think the number of combinations can really demonstrate is variety and potential. The potential may or may not be realized but the variety would be there.

so you want to limit the options to force choice and to breed further variety? thats what your saying right? seems like a roundabout way to get to a goal, and it still does not provide a way that limiting a character to 3 trees provides more options than the same system would provide with no 3 tree limit. your talking about simple variety, not effectiveness or viability, and this new system with no 3 tree limit would allow for many more options than with the 3 tree limit. with or without the limit many of the options will suck. people have shown ways that a character will be more viable without the 3 tree limit already so with the limit there will be less viable options than without. so why have it at all?

[Aashrym]

A multiclass build can choose only among 10 trees, at most. You are comparing all possible tree choices among all possible multiclass splits, to the PrE choices for a single pure class build. An absurd comparison.

...

Of course it's vertical limitations. Both pure and multis are limited by AP per tree. The exact same prereqs apply to both. Only multis are limited by class level. Ergo, more limits on multis.

Shortened a bit because I don't have the time for a full response so I'll hit these 2 and discuss more in a bit.

1) Multiclassing has a choice of 13 classes to start with and each of those has a choice of 3 trees. We were talking about mulitclassing in general, not character who has already limited his choices by having already selected those 3 classes. A fighter ranger monk has 10 trees. Multiclass options include which 3 classes to take before which trees and that puts the overall choice and 33 trees by choosing the 3 classes that provide those trees.

2) The vertical limitions for class do not truly exist unless the builder intentially make the build to include that restriction by intentionally selecting the trees with the limits. Simply by choosing trees with higher limits and focusing the AP in the trees with the highest limits removes that restriction. Intentionally adding a tree with a 2 level limit by the builder for 1 or 2 enhancements is a choice by the player and not a restriction on the system. Even then you would run out of AP before you could fill in what you have even with those self imposed limits.

The 2 things that keep coming up are that pure classes have full access to all there trees and that obviously isn't true and that multiclasses have a big impact from class level and that obviously isn't true either unless the player makes it become true.

What I quoted before was a response that there were concerns that we would have a lot of cookie cutter builds. The response I gave demonstrated we would be moving away from as many cookie cutter builds as we have now and could be looking at without that restriction.

[Aashrym]

How many choices are available to the following.

1. Pure character with access to 3/4 trees.

2. 12-6-2 character, already restricted by 12 level max in 3 trees, 6 level max in 3 trees, 2 level max in 3 trees, and can go all the way up in one tree.

1. Can go up all the way in 3 of the 4 potentially.
2. Best option. Can go all the way to 12 in 2 trees and can go all the way up the racial.

Its pretty easy to see how there are fewer options for a multi in a 3 tree max system. The entire reason to have a split is to sacrifice options vertically to gain options laterally. Nothing is gained laterally for this vertical sacrifice here however, so its a net loss to the multi class. If they already put points in multiple trees that have a 2 level max in them its even possible to create a situation where they CANNOT spend all their points.

It takes a minimum of 123 AP to hit 75% of 4 trees when all of them have a minimum of 41 AP that can be spent in them. A pure class is looking at developing 2 trees from an extremely limited selection of choices compared to multiclassing. Access to all the trees is a factoid.

[Chai]

It takes a minimum of 123 AP to hit 75% of 4 trees when all of them have a minimum of 41 AP that can be spent in them. A pure class is looking at developing 2 trees from an extremely limited selection of choices compared to multiclassing. Access to all the trees is a factoid.

You dont have access to all trees. You have access to 3.

No matter how you choose to slice it, in my example I provided, once three trees are chosen the multiclass has fewer options than the pure. While you say that developing two full trees on the pure would be from extremely limited choices, understand that the point made here is that multiclass cant even go up two full trees, all because of the arbitrary 3 tree limitation. Its even possible for them to due to selecting options in multiple trees with a 2 level limit to have a situation where they have more points than options available.


The vertical limitions for class do not truly exist unless the builder intentially make the build to include that restriction by intentionally selecting the trees with the limits.

YES!!! and the entire reason to sacrifice vertical advancement is to gain lateral advancement, which CANNOT BE DONE in a 3 tree system. This discourages multi classing.

[gloopygloop]

It takes a minimum of 123 AP to hit 75% of 4 trees when all of them have a minimum of 41 AP that can be spent in them. A pure class is looking at developing 2 trees from an extremely limited selection of choices compared to multiclassing. Access to all the trees is a factoid.

I expect that most pure class players will spend 41 points in one class tree and maybe 15/15/9 or something like that in the other two class trees + racial tree.

No one is trying to claim that either single class or multiclass characters would FILL more than one tree. But there is a lot of appeal to the option that we currently have where we can throw 1 to 5 points into a splashed class's enhancements and get a nice twist on what the class levels alone can bring.

We're sacrificing some of our raw single-class power for some flavor or versatility by tossing a couple of AP into the splashed class. What significant problem is caused by allowing people to throw a couple of AP into their splashed class's enhancements while still using the rest of their AP in the main class?

Why are you so vehemently opposed to the idea of allowing more than 3 class trees?

[Aashrym]

so you want to limit the options to force choice and to breed further variety? thats what your saying right? seems like a roundabout way to get to a goal, and it still does not provide a way that limiting a character to 3 trees provides more options than the same system would provide with no 3 tree limit. your talking about simple variety, not effectiveness or viability, and this new system with no 3 tree limit would allow for many more options than with the 3 tree limit. with or without the limit many of the options will suck. people have shown ways that a character will be more viable without the 3 tree limit already so with the limit there will be less viable options than without. so why have it at all?

I'm saying that is one of products of the 3 tree limitation. I can understand why someone would be upset about spending months or years on a build and losing options on that build but the new system as is looks sufficient to me to have multiclass options that are viable.

[Aashrym]

You dont have access to all trees. You have access to 3.

No matter how you choose to slice it, in my example I provided, once three trees are chosen the multiclass has fewer options than the pure. While you say that developing two full trees on the pure would be from extremely limited choices, understand that the point made here is that multiclass cant even go up two full trees, all because of the arbitrary 3 tree limitation. Its even possible for them to due to selecting options in multiple trees with a 2 level limit to have a situation where they have more points than options available.



YES!!! and the entire reason to sacrifice vertical advancement is to gain lateral advancement, which CANNOT BE DONE in a 3 tree system. This discourages multi classing.

I disagree that discourages multiclassing in general. That discourages some builds.

Before those 3 trees are chosen the multiclasses have a lot more options than the pure classes. In either case they are still limit to or capable of developing 1 or 2 and not all 4 of them up.

[Chai]

I'm saying that is one of products of the 3 tree limitation. I can understand why someone would be upset about spending months or years on a build and losing options on that build but the new system as is looks sufficient to me to have multiclass options that are viable.

Most of the multiclass options that are viable will be overshadowed by pure class/race combos where the user can have 2 full PRE rather than 1 PRE and .7 PRE

Example?

Tempest assassin. Why make a 6 ranger 13 rogue 1 fighter like we used to see alot of ~2008 or so when you can just be a level 20 drow pure rogue with full tempest tree capability racially?

[Chai]

I disagree that discourages multiclassing in general. That discourages some builds.

Before those 3 trees are chosen the multiclasses have a lot more options than the pure classes. In either case they are still limit to or capable of developing 1 or 2 and not all 4 of them up.

That is incorrect. The multi does not have more options. The multi has the same number of options - the max number of AP. Once they put one point into each of 3 trees, the multi now has less options open to them. In some cases that can be fewer than the points they have to spend.

Most multiclassing will be discouraged. I think you will see splashes, but heavy multiclassing - the main thing that makes this MMO stand out from others - will be put off, because a 2 full PRE racial + class option will be better.

[Aashrym]

I expect that most pure class players will spend 41 points in one class tree and maybe 15/15/9 or something like that in the other two class trees + racial tree.

No one is trying to claim that either single class or multiclass characters would FILL more than one tree. But there is a lot of appeal to the option that we currently have where we can throw 1 to 5 points into a splashed class's enhancements and get a nice twist on what the class levels alone can bring.

We're sacrificing some of our raw single-class power for some flavor or versatility by tossing a couple of AP into the splashed class. What significant problem is caused by allowing people to throw a couple of AP into their splashed class's enhancements while still using the rest of their AP in the main class?

Why are you so vehemently opposed to the idea of allowing more than 3 class trees?

I expect that most multiclasses with develop heaving in 1 or 2 trees, maybe 41 in one and 15/15/9 in the rest. That's my point. They have that same option so it's not really a limitation.

I've said this several times now:

1) Stacking might be an issue.
2) Any additional general trees that might take away from my ability to focus where a player wants would be bad for those players. It might be an arbitrary decision but an arbitrary decision needed to be made in the process at some point as to the cutoff.
3) If it's difficult to have a variable number of windows I wouldn't want to see a lot of dev time spent on something that is not necessary in my opinion.

If stacking is not an issue, I don't become limited in my build options in other ways, and it doesn't take a lot of time to implement a variable number of trees then I am not specifically opposed to having more trees.

I dispute some of the necessity of the change. The extra windows, barring my other concerns, wouldn't bother me.

[Failedlegend]

Honestly Aash I believe you (and your supporters) either just too stubborn to read what others are saying (seriously go back read your replies alot don't even apply to what the person has said) or you've realized that its possible your wrong and your too prideful to admit it.

[kingfisher]

I'm saying that is one of products of the 3 tree limitation. I can understand why someone would be upset about spending months or years on a build and losing options on that build but the new system as is looks sufficient to me to have multiclass options that are viable.

ok if thats a byproduct of the ui/enh change and said byproduct is proven to hurt the parts of the game that some enjoy, why not change it now while you can? if removal of this byproduct does not hurt the rest of the game (after all the benefits of putting a few ap in class enh trees a multi has earned by taking that class are minimal, as per you), why allow it to persist?

and i understand that you believe the benefits and options in multiclassing will be viable after the change, but not everybody does. just saying that there are enough options for you is not a valid arguement why its better. as proposed, the change will clearly hurt multiclassing compared to where it is today. it does not matter if there will be good multiclassing options in the future, its still a nerf to a mulitclassers enh options from where it is today and to multiclassing in general compared to what it could be without the 3 tree limit.

so i ask you again, why have it at all?

[dkyle]

1) Multiclassing has a choice of 13 classes to start with and each of those has a choice of 3 trees. We were talking about mulitclassing in general, not character who has already limited his choices by having already selected those 3 classes. A fighter ranger monk has 10 trees. Multiclass options include which 3 classes to take before which trees and that puts the overall choice and 33 trees by choosing the 3 classes that provide those trees.

Talking about multiclassing overall like that is pointless and misleading. Build vs build is what's ultimately important. A deep multiclass build gets access to 3 out of 10 trees, potentially, although 9 of those trees will be less than level 20. A pure build gets access to 3 out of 4 trees, all level 20.


2) The vertical limitions for class do not truly exist unless the builder intentially make the build to include that restriction by intentionally selecting the trees with the limits. Simply by choosing trees with higher limits and focusing the AP in the trees with the highest limits removes that restriction. Intentionally adding a tree with a 2 level limit by the builder for 1 or 2 enhancements is a choice by the player and not a restriction on the system. Even then you would run out of AP before you could fill in what you have even with those self imposed limits.

A 19/1 that takes racial, and two class PrEs from the 19-level class is strictly more vertically restricted than a pure 20. Forcing players to work around that restriction doesn't make it stop being a restriction. Forcing builders to focus on the Racial PrE instead of the Class PrE still potentially eliminates builds that might work without a three tree limit.

The fundamental flaw in your logic is that you are asserting the following as a valid argument:

It is possible to build multiclasses that are restricted only by the same AP spent restrictions as pure builds, and not by class levels, therefore, class levels are not a restriction.

That is not a valid logic. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. The logically valid argument would be:

There is no multiclass build possible that is restricted by class levels, and would be improved without class level restrictions, therefore, class levels are not a restriction.

Now, is this likely to be a sound argument? I highly doubt it. The premise is patently absurd, and unsupported by anything we've seen. But that's what you'd need to prove in order to demonstrate that class levels are not a potential restriction.


The 2 things that keep coming up are that pure classes have full access to all there trees and that obviously isn't true and that multiclasses have a big impact from class level and that obviously isn't true either unless the player makes it become true.

Pure classes can choose among all possible sets of enhancements granted by their class levels, subject to their AP restrictions. This is absolutely true.

Multiclasses cannot choose among all possible sets of enhancements granted by their class levels, subject to their AP restrictions. This is absolutely true.

Your proviso of "unless the player makes it become true" is meaningless. If a player must avoid "making it become true", then they have been affected by a restriction.


What I quoted before was a response that there were concerns that we would have a lot of cookie cutter builds. The response I gave demonstrated we would be moving away from as many cookie cutter builds as we have now and could be looking at without that restriction.

Except that it did not do so, because it makes an argument only on how many combinations of trees are possible. Variety of viable builds does not logically follow from that argument. And if you believe it does, then you have yet to produce such an argument.

[Aashrym]

Most of the multiclass options that are viable will be overshadowed by pure class/race combos where the user can have 2 full PRE rather than 1 PRE and .7 PRE

Example?

Tempest assassin. Why make a 6 ranger 13 rogue 1 fighter like we used to see alot of ~2008 or so when you can just be a level 20 drow pure rogue with full tempest tree capability racially?

Number of feats and free martial weapon proficiency, possibly the some other ranger enhancements depending on what does become available such as what would be in deepwood sniper. A tempest PrE won't give those free ranger and fighter feats. A person might trade that one fighter level for something else.

If you think they were so popular in 2008 have you asked yourself why they are less popular now?

Even if that were to be a build is impacted and that is not the same as multiclassing in general and doesn't mean other multiclassed build will not be viable.

Even if we did not move to the 3 tree system, kept what we have in place now, and added drow tempest we would still see an impact to existing builds. A game can't evolve and expect to see all of the old builds remain because new things will replace them.

[Artos_Fabril]

I believe it's a safer assumption that an enhancement with higher requirements to access in the first place would normally be a stronger enhancement than the ones with lower requirements. I'm actually assuming it would be at least equal, however, instead of stronger. I do not believe it is a safe assumption that an enhancement with a lower requirement would provide more benefit than an enhancement with a higher requirement.I believe the most intelligent design decision would be to add a general tab for each class to hold the general class enhancements, but ignoring that option, placing the more general enhancements in the lower tiers, with the higher ranks gated off by level restrictions, makes more sense than only placing weak enhancements in low tiers and strong enhancements in high tiers. Pure or multi-class builds would gain greater access to core-feature enhancements (but pure classes can take them farther up), while more unique features of a PrE would only be accessible by investing in it.

I sure hope not. I would hate to think we opened up 150 arcane archer builds with very little difference between them. That's why I would rather have race PrE trees that are not just class trees swapped inUp to this point, I agree completely. (with the caveat that I still see no valid reason to limit the number of trees a character can take beyond the limits imposed automatically by the class system.

I would like to point out that a person should be able to, on the new system, skip the racial PrE and take the race tree up over 41 points and still make use of the additional classes trees effectively.You might, and if they drastically improve the racial enhancements, and give the race tree itself some sort of PrE like benefit (which might, possibly, be indicated by the newer mock-up MadFloyd posted) then someone, somewhere, might even want to.

If you think there will be a limited number of top builds or recommended builds that happens now. I don't think that's avoidable on any system.I think we're staring down the barrel of much tighter limits on the number of viable builds. If the racial PrEs are as important as you have repeatedly indicated they will be:
Tank: Dwarf, WF, (maybe Human, Helf)
Divine Caster: Human, HElf
Arcane Caster: Human, HElf, WF
TWF DPS: Drow, Halfling
THF DPS: HOrc
Arcane Archer: Elf, HElf
Anything else: Human, Helf

The only "benefit" I see if this comes to pass, is that it will look a lot more like a standard fantasy novel: Lots of humans, and a few members of other races for color.

No one has the option for full vertical advancement on all trees. Advancing 1 fully autmatically precludes advancing all the others automatically. A person cannot spend 41+ points in 2 trees let alone more. It's looks possible to develop 2 heavily but not fully. Saying a pure class can is false. It is impossible to accomplish taking top tier enhancements in all trees let alone develop them.You missed, or don't understand the importance, of this part of my statement:
Even though in either case, only one full option can be exercised, the existence of options is a benefit itself.Especially if they remove a lot of the feat requirements from PrEs. A Pure class would be able switch capstones anytime they weren't in a quest, compared to a multi-class character having to TR, do multiple LRs. It is beyond the realm of plausibility that there will not be major changes after the enhancement UI overhaul that again radically change the value of certain PrEs.


I do not recall saying outweighs at all. If you find a quote of me saying it I'll clarify what I meant. I don't actually see a loss of options, tbh, I see a loss of specific options. I'll repeat something I want you to try to dispute if you like: 1/3 of over 3 times as many options is more than 3/3 of less than 1/3 of the options. More total enhancements in each tree is more choices than a person would be giving up. What we need is to see how many options are actually available in each tree (looks like a lot) for a more accurate comparison of number of choices.I wouldn't expect you to see a loss of options, because you are willfully blind them. Pure classes gain more than multi-classes already in the new system, as they will be able to pick up multiple PrEs within their class.


You have high reflex, evasion, feats, and unlocked class skills. I could take that multiclass and completely ignore the monk enhancements and still make it effective. Either with the trees available or swapping in a race tree. That is true with a lot of splashes.But never as effective as a pure wizard, which is kind of the idea. And aside from a few niche builds, rogue a better splash for a wizard than monk anyway.


Rogues have about 18ish enhancements to build on now with individual enhancements that can be expensive to build on with the prereq's (10 AP to hit a 4th tier in a chain, for example). The trees in the mockup show 16 and 17 and we have been told we can select several of the trees multiple times. This is obviously the case or it would not be possible to get 41+ AP in a tree. Rogue enhancements currently tier up with 57 choices no including the capstones or PrE's. These 57 choices are stackings of existing enhancements for tiered costs. We've been told the cost progression will be more like the 1 AP per tier we see with sorc/wiz damage enhancements. Taking 1 rogue tree with almost as many enhancements as the entire class currently has and providing 4 tiers of an enhancement at 4 AP instead of 10 AP frees up 6 AP.That will be true, if all enhancements which are 1/2/3/4 become 1/1/1/1. That was the example Eladrin gave, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect that example to apply in all cases. Take the Spell damage enhancements: They went from being 1/2/3/4 giving 40% to two elements each, to 1/1/1/1/1/1/1 giving 55% to a single element. To get back up to the 40% in 2 elements that the original enhancement gave for 10AP, you would have to spend... drum-roll please
10AP!
Skill enhancements on the other hand, were reduced to 1/1/1/1... And for the most part are still considered too expensive (or plain worthless) to bother with, unless they're required for a PrE. So I don't think you can make any accurate predictions about how many AP are going to be freed up in the change. The only thing you can say with any degree of certainty is that there will be enough enhancements in each tree to spend at least 41 points.

The ability to select 3 trees is versatility over pure classing still. Given 4 total trees with over 41 AP each gives us a place to spend the points[...]A pure class still gets to pick 3 trees out of 4, and they can take any one of them up to 41+points, instead of only having 1 option.
[...]and if a person was to compare 8 tier IV abilities that way 48 AP just became available to spend on more enhancements, picking up 12 more enhancements for that same 4 AP investment in each.

You might have a limitation on the number of trees but compared to the existing system you end up with more choices within those trees and the ability to actually purchase more enhancements.See above. This is a largely baseless assumption. I'm sure we'll come back to it when we know more, one way or the other.

[color=gold]Nope, multiclass have access to the most suitable of 39 trees while pure classes have a choice of 3, both have the option of a race unlock. 39 is a much bigger selection than 3. The number of AP to spend limits the pure class from investing in all the trees just as effectively as class limits do on a multiclass.To say that a multi-classes have a choice of 39 trees is both inaccurate and disingenuous. It is just as relevant to say that a Pure class has the choice of any 3 of 39 trees. The difference is, the pure class player made that choice with the character, whereas the multiclass player is having the choice forced on them when (if) the system goes live with a three tree limit.

[Aashrym]

That is incorrect. The multi does not have more options. The multi has the same number of options - the max number of AP. Once they put one point into each of 3 trees, the multi now has less options open to them. In some cases that can be fewer than the points they have to spend.

Most multiclassing will be discouraged. I think you will see splashes, but heavy multiclassing - the main thing that makes this MMO stand out from others - will be put off, because a 2 full PRE racial + class option will be better.

Swapping out trees is more options.

A full PrE + full class option eliminates the race enhancements as an option. Do you really think those race enhancement will not have value in the builds?

Everyone is going to pick a tree and develop that tree. Everything else just becomes filler on that tree and will only be developed to limited levels. I would not assume that 1 full racial PrE + 1 class tree would be better because I have to assume there will be items in those other 2 trees that makes them worth having been created in first place.

[gloopygloop]

I expect that most multiclasses with develop heaving in 1 or 2 trees, maybe 41 in one and 15/15/9 in the rest. That's my point. They have that same option so it's not really a limitation.

I've said this several times now:

1) Stacking might be an issue.
2) Any additional general trees that might take away from my ability to focus where a player wants would be bad for those players. It might be an arbitrary decision but an arbitrary decision needed to be made in the process at some point as to the cutoff.
3) If it's difficult to have a variable number of windows I wouldn't want to see a lot of dev time spent on something that is not necessary in my opinion.

If stacking is not an issue, I don't become limited in my build options in other ways, and it doesn't take a lot of time to implement a variable number of trees then I am not specifically opposed to having more trees.

I dispute some of the necessity of the change. The extra windows, barring my other concerns, wouldn't bother me.

Since capstones are for pure class characters, multiclass folks won't be able to go 41/15/15/9. If they'll be stuck at 30-something for the biggest block of points, wouldn't it be nice if they could actually get a little extra diversity for the significant benefit that they're giving up? Multiclass characters don't have the same options as pure characters because pure characters have MORE options to go deep into a tree than a multiclass character has.

1) stacking isn't a problem now, so it's unlikely to be a problem with the new enhancement trees, especially since we will already have more restrictions in the trees than we have now just because of the per-tree point spending requirements.
2) an arbitrary decision had to be made, but an arbitrary decision of 4 or 5 class trees max per character would have been a much better arbitrary decision than 3 class trees max per character as far as I'm concerned.
3) I'd rather see this done right even if it does turn out to be a bit harder. multiple tabs of enhancements is probably going to be necessary even if we only have race + 3 class max for trees.

[Aashrym]

ok if thats a byproduct of the ui/enh change and said byproduct is proven to hurt the parts of the game that some enjoy, why not change it now while you can? if removal of this byproduct does not hurt the rest of the game (after all the benefits of putting a few ap in class enh trees a multi has earned by taking that class are minimal, as per you), why allow it to persist?

and i understand that you believe the benefits and options in multiclassing will be viable after the change, but not everybody does. just saying that there are enough options for you is not a valid arguement why its better. as proposed, the change will clearly hurt multiclassing compared to where it is today. it does not matter if there will be good multiclassing options in the future, its still a nerf to a mulitclassers enh options from where it is today and to multiclassing in general compared to what it could be without the 3 tree limit.

so i ask you again, why have it at all?

The changes without the limitation would still hurt parts of the game some enjoy making that a moot point. It's not like builds won't need to be re-evaluated with the addition of several new PrE's and tiers of PrE's and new enhancements and a new class.

Adding additional trees doesn't prevent that.

[gloopygloop]

The changes without the limitation would still hurt parts of the game some enjoy making that a moot point. It's not like builds won't need to be re-evaluated with the addition of several new PrE's and tiers of PrE's and new enhancements and a new class.

Adding additional trees doesn't prevent that.

Adding additional trees won't completely prevent re-evaluation, but it will mitigate some of the problems that will occur with many builds.

I'm completely fine with different builds being at the top of the heap compared to today. "Flavor of the month" dropping down to "completely reasonable" isn't a problem. What I don't want to see is a well thought out, well planned build changing from "completely reasonable" to "pile of garbage" because it loses too much of the synergy that the enhancements had previously provided.

[Artos_Fabril]

Number of feats and free martial weapon proficiency, possibly the some other ranger enhancements depending on what does become available such as what would be in deepwood sniper. A tempest PrE won't give those free ranger and fighter feats. A person might trade that one fighter level for something else.Or a full 20 ranger halfling assassin. Either way. Depending on whether you want more rogue enhancements, or more ranger enhancements


If you think they were so popular in 2008 have you asked yourself why they are less popular now?Nerf to TWF, Nerf to Tempest I. Now it's Tempest II for full offhand and tempest III only gives 5% doublestrike, instead of 10% alacrity with Tempest I.

Even if that were to be a build is impacted and that is not the same as multiclassing in general and doesn't mean other multiclassed build will not be viable.Can you come up with any multi-class build that wouldn't be similarly impacted by the proposed changes?

Even if we did not move to the 3 tree system, kept what we have in place now, and added drow tempest we would still see an impact to existing builds.No, we wouldn't see an impact on existing builds, we would see an impact on new builds, and some people would TR into Drow something-tempests, but no one would log in the day after the patch and find they had lost access to 30+% of their build.

[Ron]

So here is the mockup that was promised.

http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j377/MadFloyd/EnhancementMockup.jpg



Son of a *****!

[kingfisher]

The changes without the limitation would still hurt parts of the game some enjoy making that a moot point. It's not like builds won't need to be re-evaluated with the addition of several new PrE's and tiers of PrE's and new enhancements and a new class.

Adding additional trees doesn't prevent that.

no and i dont believe that this has been an issue with proposed change. some things will change for sure, it just doesnt need to be every multi out there. the issue is the extra limitation the 3 tree limit puts on mulits, and adding additional trees for multis can prevent that. and didnt you just say that the benefits are small enough they wont hurt the game or your ability to make viable pure class characters?


I
If stacking is not an issue, I don't become limited in my build options in other ways, and it doesn't take a lot of time to implement a variable number of trees then I am not specifically opposed to having more trees.

I dispute some of the necessity of the change. The extra windows, barring my other concerns, wouldn't bother me.

i dont think anybody against the limit wants to see stacking issues or further limitations on building options either. the dev time idc about; if they are going to do something do it right, dont cut corners and put out a broken product or gimp game options because its easier to go with just 3 trees. we are paying customers and they asked for feedback. glad you see it this way.

[licho]

Beware, im about to spoil all the fun:

I dont really care about about new UI of Enhancement, i get used to, its doable to manage own AP and it works. To sum up, its not broken, so why to fix. Nevertheless i dont mind changing it to more newb friendly form, it just dont affect me.

But.

And there is no words to stress it enought, i will be very disappointed, if all the changes of enchantments will end with new UI. Since for me its not important how shiny UI is but what the game rules are under it.

Which means im more looking forward to changes and agmentacions of current AP system.

The main problem i have with current Enhancment system:
1. There is no choice, for most classes its very easy to grab all the useful class/race enhancement. And also they gives the feeling that you dont pick anything special just strenghten class features. I wish the AP was more for customizion the toon, rather than just strenghten their perks. This results in lots of similar builds and AP setup.
Note: This is not true for all classes, for example monks have nice amount of custome AP.

2. Some classes misses captstoness or PrE essencial to game play. For example: ranged malee capstone, cleric offensive casting capstone and PrE.

3. This is general rule that enhancment are overpriced for what they does, especially if its chain of enhantment: memorable examples: caster SP increase 4AP for 30SP, or all skill boosters.

4. Some enhancement all totally useless, or are easy negated by other game aspect. So nobody takes them even if the idea is interesting: elven spell failure reduction, dwarven poison resistance, warforged dmg reduction.

5. The racial setup of enhancment is very poor, and generally do not give nothing special. For example even if your class has racial weapon u can just go with eSoS or Khopesh end generally end better with that choice.
Note: The exaption here is HE, which offers choice of options.

The things which i consider the 1st in need to do:

1. Simply speaking, increase the number of enhantments both in race and classes, and im speaking here of doubling the current state. The aim of this is to achieve situacion when you simply cant have all the cool stuff. Instead you have exluding choices. And all choices are great, worth running another toon or tr to try them out.

2. More racial specification. It will be great if the each race/class combo have something special to offer. Like for example for wizards different races can offer: the affinity of certain school, a bonus to certain element, easier way to multiclass with certain type...

3. A lot need to be done with balancing AP cost and utylity. This problem on its own deserves separate topic "Enhancement AP cost adjustment" so all silly examples will be catched.

All mentioned points are hell of work, but im sure that for many players they are important, and we will have more fun playing game if this aspects will be improved.

And this is what i wish to be done with enhancement.
The UI changes can be only icining on the cake, not the main "great change".

[voxson5]

tl:dr

.. not yet anyway, but i did see something about the racial pre's i think...

mmm dwarven stalwart 3 palemaster 3 :D thats a whooole lota hp!

[Failedlegend]

tl:dr

.. not yet anyway, but i did see something about the racial pre's i think...

mmm dwarven stalwart 3 palemaster 3 :D thats a whooole lota hp!

You have just demonstrated one of the reasons Racials shouldn't be direct copies of class PrEs (as much as much Dwarven 12/6/2 Arcane Tank would love it)

[voxson5]

just thought of another: wf pally + juggernart

Can we assume jugger is fb for this scenario?

max out exhalted smite... lets rage, frenzy, death frenzy, go bladesworn (hey wiz, you got my back right?)

mmm such big crit (19-20) numbers...

[jadenkorr]

I would like to point out that paladin enhancements are a rather large problem, not sure if anyone else has, not going to read 100+ pages worth of thread.

1) AP Costs - Paladin AP costs are too high. For example, to get the full line of both exalted smite and extra smite, You need to spend 20 AP (1/4 of total AP), for what is a core feature of the class. This cost is so high that many paladins outright skip Exalted Smite IV and/or Exalted/Extra Smite III, depending on what they are trying to do with their build. For something that is definitive of the paladin class, this is rather sad to see. Also, other melee dps classes get more out of this 20 AP than the paladin. I would even go so far as to say that, combining these two enhancements, would not be particularly out of line (based on current AP costs with 1,2,3,4 progression) imho.

2) Divine Might - Divine Might IV gives me a headache every time I see it. The stat requirement for this is too restrictive. For a class that has M.A.D, even more so if we go TWF (which is also generally considered the better option due to how paladin damage bonuses work), 20 charisma is almost never done. The only reliable way to do it is praying for a +4 tome using Drow. I do not know if it is the intention of the dev team to make this so hard to reach, but to have this enhancement exist, that is for all practical purposes, incredibly hard to reach, and gives so little, that no one bothers about it, is very bad design, no offense.

3) Prestige Enhancements - Paladin PrEs are outdated, no question about it. The range of creatures that they apply to are too narrow. Previously, when a large portion of the endgame consisted of devils and such, this was okay, but since the introduction of new packs, KotC has become increasingly irrelevant. The term 'dps paladin' has become somewhat of an oxymoron nowadays. Also, HotD is useful when levelling, but is even less relevant than KotC at high levels of the game.

4) Holy Avenger - Perhaps the iconic Holy Avenger might help the situation, if it was adapted into a line of enhancements. For example, one easier to implement solution would be to simply offer an enhancement line called "Blessed Weaponry" or something along those lines, that gives damage/attack bonuses against evil creatures (in a way that does not invalidate the capstone), without needing to spend excessive amounts of AP on it. An extension of the idea would be to totally revamp a paladin PrE, call it "Holy Avenger", make it THE DPS PrE for paladins, and associate all the damage/attack bonuses with it.

TL DR - Paladin enhancements AP costs are too high, Divine Might IV is impractical, dps prestige enhancements are outdated. Possible solution is to adapt Holy Avenger into PrE and/or enhancement line.

[Aashrym]

Talking about multiclassing overall like that is pointless and misleading. Build vs build is what's ultimately important. A deep multiclass build gets access to 3 out of 10 trees, potentially, although 9 of those trees will be less than level 20. A pure build gets access to 3 out of 4 trees, all level 20.

I absolutely agree that individual builds can be impacted. I expect new multiclass builds to become available, however. I would rather compare builds for impact but since we cannot see what a specific build gains or loses that becomes rather difficult. We just know they lose something with no real idea on the gains yet for the most part.

A 19/1 that takes racial, and two class PrEs from the 19-level class is strictly more vertically restricted than a pure 20. Forcing players to work around that restriction doesn't make it stop being a restriction. Forcing builders to focus on the Racial PrE instead of the Class PrE still potentially eliminates builds that might work without a three tree limit.

The only thing the 20 would have over the 19/1 is the ability to take a capstone outside of race restrictions. I do not see a whole lot of 19/1's but using rogue 19 fighter 1 (for martial weapons and a feat) That rogue could simply keep all 3 rogue trees for pretty much the same effect as not keeping them. He is not forced into a fighter tree at all. If the 3 class PrE's are good enough to make that pure class more desirable than the option of swapping out a tree then you would be in the same boat. Either that or there is value in swapping out that tree unavailable to the pure class.

On top of that, just make him a halfling and he could have the assassin capstone to go with that free martial weapon proficiency and feat.

I think 18/2 splashes would be more common but they don't demonstrate a lack of vertical advancement either.

If we accept that the 3 trees for pure classes are more than adequate to fill that need for those pure classes then we would also have to accept those same trees would be more than adequate to fill the needs of the splashed classes. If we accept that there would be value in swapping out one of those trees for that vertical limitation we would would have to accept that means there is value in swapping out the trees and therefore potential value in multiclassing. If we accept the fact that there are 80 AP to spend and did choose to swap in a tree (because it has value demonstrated by the desire to swap it in in the first place over the tree without the class limit)then we could have a class level limit on that one tree but we would still have the other trees so in the event we do have AP left over after spending it in that swapped in class tree we would continue to spend the left over AP in the other trees and never really hit a level limit on the build because if there was a higher level enhancement we really wanted we would have a higher level on that splashed class instead of the level split we chose in the planning process.

That is not a very restricting restriction. It demonstrates that going pure has little advantage over splashing because all pure does is possibly offer different capstone choices but loses out on whatever reason the character was splashed for in the first place. I don't see a whole lot of reason not to splash a character with fighter, rogue, monk, or possibly pally or ranger, maybe even wizard if I can get a good capstone.

Splashing pretty much offers the best of everything at little cost for most classes and a reasonable assortment of capstones available while splashing doesn't change that.

The fundamental flaw in your logic is that you are asserting the following as a valid argument:

It is possible to build multiclasses that are restricted only by the same AP spent restrictions as pure builds, and not by class levels, therefore, class levels are not a restriction.

That is not a valid logic. The conclusion does not follow from the premise. The logically valid argument would be:

There is no multiclass build possible that is restricted by class levels, and would be improved without class level restrictions, therefore, class levels are not a restriction.

Now, is this likely to be a sound argument? I highly doubt it. The premise is patently absurd, and unsupported by anything we've seen. But that's what you'd need to prove in order to demonstrate that class levels are not a potential restriction.

The premise that a builder would select class levels that restrict him in the planning process instead of planning what enhancements he can get from what levels and building around what he can do would be the part that would be absurd.

It is not logical to say there is no incentive to multiclass because some builds could be impacted by class levels because the reality is players will just make different builds that do work.

Pure classes can choose among all possible sets of enhancements granted by their class levels, subject to their AP restrictions. This is absolutely true.

How does he unlock the top tiers in all of them and still have points to spend in them? A pure class has to select which trees to develop and which to not develop just as a multiclass would have to do. That is forced on any player who makes a pure class the second he or she decides to go pure, before even selecting the race, or class. Developing one locks out another with no option to swap in one of several other class trees that might have something to offer.

Multiclasses cannot choose among all possible sets of enhancements granted by their class levels, subject to their AP restrictions. This is absolutely true.

It is but at least they can make choices on level splits, PrE's and swapping in something else. Pure classes are very much more limited in their choices.

Your proviso of "unless the player makes it become true" is meaningless. If a player must avoid "making it become true", then they have been affected by a restriction.

Perhaps but that gets back to a player will build around what he can do, not what he can't do. So if you find something cannot be done it does not mean all is going to be less of an option. It means that particular build won't work. For multiclassing to not be an option then the alternative (pure classes) would need to look like a much stronger alternative and at this time that is not necessarily the case.

Except that it did not do so, because it makes an argument only on how many combinations of trees are possible. Variety of viable builds does not logically follow from that argument. And if you believe it does, then you have yet to produce such an argument 5000+combinations of distinct enhancement sets is more variety than 165 combinations of distinct enhancement sets. More viable builds certainly does not flow from having a smaller number of distinct builds..

I agree discussing builds works. Pick one commonly used now with the class splits and enhancements and I'll discuss that too. Because it's deep splashing that is a concern pick one that is a deep splash. :)

[Aashrym]

Since capstones are for pure class characters, multiclass folks won't be able to go 41/15/15/9. If they'll be stuck at 30-something for the biggest block of points, wouldn't it be nice if they could actually get a little extra diversity for the significant benefit that they're giving up? Multiclass characters don't have the same options as pure characters because pure characters have MORE options to go deep into a tree than a multiclass character has.

1) stacking isn't a problem now, so it's unlikely to be a problem with the new enhancement trees, especially since we will already have more restrictions in the trees than we have now just because of the per-tree point spending requirements.
2) an arbitrary decision had to be made, but an arbitrary decision of 4 or 5 class trees max per character would have been a much better arbitrary decision than 3 class trees max per character as far as I'm concerned.
3) I'd rather see this done right even if it does turn out to be a bit harder. multiple tabs of enhancements is probably going to be necessary even if we only have race + 3 class max for trees.

Didn't you get the memo? Multiclasses can access capstones under the proposed system. Even if they were not able to that wouldn't stop someone from spending 41 points in the tree. ;)

It takes 20 AP to unlock the top tiers of the rows. Wouldn't be realistic if the enhancements that had higher prereq's were more effective than the enhancements with the lower prereq's like level 1 and 0 AP spend or level 2 and 5 AP spend? What I think is questionable is how much diversity is actually being given up. Looking at the builds posted most of them spend a lot of AP on higher tiers of the same enhancement, not more total enhancements. With just the changes to the AP cost 1/1/1/1 that provides a lot more enhancements to take for more versatility than we have now.

1) Stacking isn't an issue now because there are less enhancements, they are more expensive, and PrE's are not free.

2) You are entitled to your opinion. That doesn't mean there were not discussions and options weighed before that arbitrary decision was made. I would be interested in why it was 3 trees in the first place. The bright side of that is they are obviously noticing the feedback in this thread. ;)

3) That is because you want more trees. What's done right can be rather subjective.

[Failedlegend]

I agree discussing builds works. Pick commonly used builds and I'll discuss that too. Because it's deep splashing that is a concern pick one that is a deep splash. :)

Ok here's a few

Bard16/2Fighter/Barb2 "BardBarian Warchanter"

Wizard12/Fighter6/Rogue2 (PM2/SD1) "Arcane Knight"

Sorc16/Paladin2/Rogue2 "Tukaw"

Rogue13/Favored Soul6/Monk1 (Acro2/AoV1) "Favoured Pole"

Monk12/Wiz7/Fighter1 (NS2/PM1) "The Mind Filleter"

Monk12/Fighter6/Paladin2 (NS2/SD1) "The Emerald"

Rogue13/Monk6/Fighter1 (Acro2/NS1) "Ugly Stick"

Monk12/Fighter6/Rogue2 (NS2/Kensai1) "Monkcher"

Arty8/Rogue6/Ranger6 (BE1/Mech1/DWS1) "Long-shot"

[Aashrym]

Adding additional trees won't completely prevent re-evaluation, but it will mitigate some of the problems that will occur with many builds.

I'm completely fine with different builds being at the top of the heap compared to today. "Flavor of the month" dropping down to "completely reasonable" isn't a problem. What I don't want to see is a well thought out, well planned build changing from "completely reasonable" to "pile of garbage" because it loses too much of the synergy that the enhancements had previously provided.

That's that part I don't see happening just because there is change or just because it's 3 class trees limited. I see that happening if they mess up the trees.

[MeliCat]

I disagree that discourages multiclassing in general. That discourages some builds.

Before those 3 trees are chosen the multiclasses have a lot more options than the pure classes. In either case they are still limit to or capable of developing 1 or 2 and not all 4 of them up.

? But you maybe happy to only develop only 1 or 2 of them and only ever want to take a single smudge off 1 of them. *even more so* now they are talking front loading the trees.

A 3 class tree limit will cut down on build choices.

Front loading looks like has the potential to lock in and lock out build choices to potentially dumb down the build flexibility we have had in the past. Although it's kind of useless to speculate until we know more.

[Aashrym]

Or a full 20 ranger halfling assassin. Either way. Depending on whether you want more rogue enhancements, or more ranger enhancements

Nerf to TWF, Nerf to Tempest I. Now it's Tempest II for full offhand and tempest III only gives 5% doublestrike, instead of 10% alacrity with Tempest I.
Can you come up with any multi-class build that wouldn't be similarly impacted by the proposed changes?
No, we wouldn't see an impact on existing builds, we would see an impact on new builds, and some people would TR into Drow something-tempests, but no one would log in the day after the patch and find they had lost access to 30+% of their build.

The full 20 ranger halfling assassin gives up improved evasion for just evasion, all the fighter bonus feats, all the sneak attack damage, the trap skills. He'd still be better off not going pure.

The changes to tempest I changed a lot of builds. Changing the game will continue to do that.

Without knowing what is in each tree it would be very difficult to determine what will be impacted. It is not difficult to determine that there will be alternative choices to what is lost.

I would not be surprised to see a lot characters making PrE unlocked builds but I would be surprised if there were a lot of pure builds in there because once 2 trees are developed over 30 AP each they tend to not have a lot left over for other things. I could be wrong on that but I expect that since it is difficult to develop 2 trees with points for the other 2 trees there isn't much reason not to multiclass and just develop the 1 tree to capstone leaving a variety of options for the other 3 trees.

[Aashrym]

no and i dont believe that this has been an issue with proposed change. some things will change for sure, it just doesnt need to be every multi out there. the issue is the extra limitation the 3 tree limit puts on mulits, and adding additional trees for multis can prevent that. and didnt you just say that the benefits are small enough they wont hurt the game or your ability to make viable pure class characters?

I don't think the extra trees will have much impact barring some unforeseen weird synergy outside of a whole bunch of low level stacking effects.

I don't want a general tree taking away from my ability to invest in other trees.

I don't want a lot of time invested in something I consider minor. I don't see this as a huge issue at all.

If I end up being forced to make a multiclass to have a competitive character I will be po'ed, however, and I can see allowing for too many trees and too many PrE unlocks leading to that scenario. I do multiclass but most of my characters are pure classes. That would just change one group of angry customers into another group of angry customers. ;)

[Aashrym]

You have just demonstrated one of the reasons Racials shouldn't be direct copies of class PrEs (as much as much Dwarven 12/6/2 Arcane Tank would love it)

He'd have hardly any AP for his other tree or for race enhancements. I can't see players giving up the other 2 trees almost complete for something like that.

If they could give up their other trees that easily I doubt we would have this many posts. ;)

[Aashrym]

just thought of another: wf pally + juggernart

Can we assume jugger is fb for this scenario?

max out exhalted smite... lets rage, frenzy, death frenzy, go bladesworn (hey wiz, you got my back right?)

mmm such big crit (19-20) numbers...

Throwing all your AP into 2 trees looks like a trap to me. I'd hold off to see what the enhancements actually are before getting too carried away on that. ;)

[Failedlegend]

I don't think the extra trees will have much impact barring some unforeseen weird synergy outside of a whole bunch of low level stacking effects.

IOW there's no reason NOT to do it...so we're agreed



I don't want a general tree taking away from my ability to invest in other trees.


Hey I agree with you again..your getting good at this



I don't want a lot of time invested in something I consider minor. I don't see this as a huge issue at all.

Sigh...I had such hopes. Honestly I don't care that YOU don't like multiclasses alot of people do and honestly "Putting any Dev time into insuring Multi-classes isn't made irrelevant is a waste" REALLY...REALLY!!!!

Why are we listening to you again?


Oh and you ignored my response to this


I agree discussing builds works. Pick commonly used builds and I'll discuss that too. Because it's deep splashing that is a concern pick one that is a deep splash. :)



Ok here's a few

Bard16/2Fighter/Barb2 "BardBarian Warchanter"

Wizard12/Fighter6/Rogue2 (PM2/SD1) "Arcane Knight"

Sorc16/Paladin2/Rogue2 "Tukaw"

Rogue13/Favored Soul6/Monk1 (Acro2/AoV1) "Favoured Pole"

Monk12/Wiz7/Fighter1 (NS2/PM1) "The Mind Filleter"

Monk12/Fighter6/Paladin2 (NS2/SD1) "The Emerald"

Rogue13/Monk6/Fighter1 (Acro2/NS1) "Ugly Stick"

Monk12/Fighter6/Rogue2 (NS2/Kensai1) "Monkcher"

Arty8/Rogue6/Ranger6 (BE1/Mech1/DWS1) "Long-shot"

[Artos_Fabril]

The premise that a builder would select class levels that restrict him in the planning process instead of planning what enhancements he can get from what levels and building around what he can do would be the part that would be absurd.

It is not logical to say there is no incentive to multiclass because some builds could be impacted by class levels because the reality is players will just make different builds that do work.This is a valid argument if, and only if every current character is given a +20 LR token. If that is not what happens, you need to look at current characters, and not just characters made from scratch after the change. Even so, you will have major unnecessary impact, solely because builds are limited to 3 trees.

There is just no valid argument for limiting multi-class builds beyond the inherent limitations of the multi-class split. If stacking is a problem, several methods of dealing with stacking issues have been proposed. If pure vs. multi balance is a problem (and I contend that is would not be, were multi-class builds not limited to 3 trees), balance the classes, or balance the PrEs. (maybe make the top tier enhancements in the racial PrE double the cost of the same enhancements in the class PrE, unless the character has at least 6 (or whatever) levels of the class.

How does he unlock the top tiers in all of them and still have points to spend in them? A pure class has to select which trees to develop and which to not develop just as a multiclass would have to do. That is forced on any player who makes a pure class the second he or she decides to go pure, before even selecting the race, or class. Developing one locks out another with no option to swap in one of several other class trees that might have something to offer.There are two fundamental misunderstandings here (one of them may be mine, since your wording is vague):
1) Unlocking the PrE tiers costs AP, before any AP can be spent -- the first sentence in this quote seems to claim that this is the case. In the new system, as described, you would still get the benefits of all AP spent in the tree, and additionally unlock higher-tier enhancements and PrE benefits in the process. There is no "Unlocking cost" for anything outside of the racial PrE, there are only points-spent and class-level requirements.
2) A pure class has to select which trees to develop or not, but it can select any one of 4 (or 5, counting race) to take up to the capstone, and it can do so any time it's not in a quest. A multiclass is already locked out of all but one capstone (2, if race trees get capstones), and is severely limited in its viable choices for PrEs. The vast majority of deep multi-classes are designed around gaining a tier 1 PrE from the split, often because the Tier 3 of the main class isn't available.

I expect there will be a significant drop in the number of deep multi-classes based on the addition of tier 3 PrEs alone (unless they all suck, in which case why push it live), even before you factor in the ability of pure classes to pick up 2 or 3 in-class or racial PrEs.

It is but at least they can make choices on level splits, PrE's and swapping in something else. Pure classes are very much more limited in their choices.Pure classes get to make the choice on level splits every level, same as multi-classes, it's just an easier choice, not a more limited one. Pure classes get more choice on (viable) PrEs, since they get to choose between 4-5 capstones instead of 1-2, and have the additional option to take 2 Tier 3s and a Tier 2; a Tier 4 and a Tier 3; A tier 3, 2 tier 2s, and a tier 1 (counting race). They would get the same, if not better options for, lateral progression, without giving up any options for vertical progression.

If they have access to all of the possibly enhancements per class simultaneously those builder will tend to gravitate to the PrE and enhancements that best suit the design and given full access that means the same classes, races, enhancements, and pre's like we have now.If your concern is that multi-classes will have all enhancements of each class available, I think you can rest assured that won't be an issue. It's also not what we have now, because we do, and still will, according to the information we've been given, have class-level restrictions on what enhancements can be taken and to what degree.


I agree discussing builds works. Pick one commonly used now with the class splits and enhancements and I'll discuss that too. Because it's deep splashing that is a concern pick one that is a deep splash. :)I did. Way back here. (http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p=4256924&postcount=1875)


He'd have hardly any AP for his other tree or for race enhancements. I can't see players giving up the other 2 trees almost complete for something like that.

If they could give up their other trees that easily I doubt we would have this many posts. ;)That's a pure class build. They're not the ones worried about losing trees.

I could be wrong on that but I expect that since it is difficult to develop 2 trees with points for the other 2 trees there isn't much reason not to multiclass and just develop the 1 tree to capstone leaving a variety of options for the other 3 trees.If you're not wrong, Human PrEs would need a serious overhaul. 8 of 39 possible primary PrEs cannot encompass all viable builds. I'm going to go with "You're wrong."

[MeliCat]

Anyone ever do an "enchantress" build in D2 where you maxed out to 20 the first level skill Warmth? A very one sided support build crazy fun to follow around a Necromancer skelly army in non fire resistant mob areas. Now there is a build that would need maybe only 1 tree. Or is front loading going to take away from that sort of thing? I can't immediately think of a DDO analogue though. Halfling bard artificer maybe?

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

I do multiclass but most of my characters are pure classes. That would just change one group of angry customers into another group of angry customers. ;)

This is a great point Aash. Turbine has it really hard because this system has to appease both types of builds, all while not making sure neither is too powerful. If pure or multi becomes the obvious choice in most situations, there will be many unhappy people. I for one love my multis as much as I love my pures. Why? Because I built each toon I have to do exactly what I want tehm to do.

The game now is just so unbalanced, its practically mundane. I believe this new system's main goal is to fix that, and bring many builds that suffered from the current, back to prominence like the devs originally planned it. I believe that its in the game's favor to have its deck reshuffled to make it more in line with all the new content that will be released in the coming years. More capable toons mean more people can run the way they want their toons to run. And that's very good for business.

This is why its perfect timing to re-balance the enhancements, finish the PrEs and introduce the new UI in the same brush stroke.

[Aashrym]

IOW there's no reason NOT to do it...so we're agreed



Hey I agree with you again..your getting good at this



Sigh...I had such hopes. Honestly I don't care that YOU don't like multiclasses alot of people do and honestly "Putting any Dev time into insuring Multi-classes isn't made irrelevant is a waste" REALLY...REALLY!!!!

Why are we listening to you again?


Oh and you ignored my response to this

I didn't ignore your list. I pulled the emerald build as the first one to take a good look at and my forum log in timed out after trying to respond, losing the response.

I was planning on looking at more when I get more time.

What I found with the emerald build was the following key enhancements per the build post:
Enhancements:
Racial Toughness 3
Fighter Toughness 2
Ninja 2
Defender 1
Touch of Death
Half Elf Rogue Dex
Racial Dex
Racial Con
Greater Mountain Stance
Human Heal Amp 2
Monk Heal Amp 2

Fighter only has stalwart defender I toughness and paladin has no enhancements listed in the build at all. I wouldn't be surprised if multiple fighter trees had fighter toughness but if it's anywhere it's in stalwart defender, leaving only 1 fighter tree that would need to be used.

Touch of death would be most likely a ninja spy enhancements and the ninja spy is a listed PrE, so that's an obvious tree. Monk healing amp is a requirement for shintao so likely in that tree. I suspect mountain stance might be in henshin so it's possible to be giving up 1 key enhancement.

In exchange 8 AP are freed on PrE costs, more on the removed AP's for them (some of which are not listed in the build I noticed), and more AP from tiered enhancement costs being replace with point for point costs. The loss of 1 key enhancement will be replaced with AP from the cost of that enhancement plus additional freed up AP to add more enhancements than were lost plus either the Henshin or Shintao PrE abilities, whichever tree is selected.

The build only has 11 key enhancements and 7/11 of them are monk and race enhancements. The current AP costs are tied up in increased tiers of the same enhancements and there appears to be very little negative impact moving this build to a 3 tree lock with a fair bit of gain.

I would suspect, looking at this 20-30 AP in ninja spy, 10-15 in stalwart defender, 15-20 in helf race, 15-25 in one of the other 2 monk trees.

I expected worse, tbh, with 12 monk levels but this looks like an easy adjustment to 3 trees.

[Aashrym]

IOW there's no reason NOT to do it...so we're agreed



Hey I agree with you again..your getting good at this



Sigh...I had such hopes. Honestly I don't care that YOU don't like multiclasses alot of people do and honestly "Putting any Dev time into insuring Multi-classes isn't made irrelevant is a waste" REALLY...REALLY!!!!

Why are we listening to you again?


Oh and you ignored my response to this

Here's your next response. This one is a bit tougher to pull off because we were told extra song was going into virt and most people suspect wand and scroll mastery to be going into spellsinger so a pure bard could be going to run into not having some of these bard enhancements too.

These are from Ghengis because you did not post the enhancement lists for any of the builds as requested, I wanted popular builds, and bard 16 fighter 2 barbarian 2 has variations. This one does use a fair number of enhancements from several areas and would need to be trimmed.

Enhancement: Bard Extra Song I Virt tree. Gone but only 1 AP spent.
Enhancement: Bard Perform I I have no idea which tree this would be in. Only 1 AP and small loss.
Enhancement: Fighter Haste Boost I
Enhancement: Fighter Critical Accuracy I This could go.
Enhancement: Fighter Strategy (Trip) I This could go.
Enhancement: Fighter Toughness I
Enhancement: Barbarian Damage Reduction Boost I
Enhancement: Barbarian Sprint Boost I
Enhancement: Barbarian Extend Rage I
Enhancement: Barbarian Extra Rage I
Enhancement: Barbarian Constitution I
Enhancement: Human Adaptability Strength I
Enhancement: Fighter Strength I
Enhancement: Bard Energy of the Music I This looks like it would be in the spellsinger tree.
Enhancement: Bard Inspired Bravery II This is no longer a requirement.
Enhancement: Bard Lingering Song I Virt tree
Enhancement: Barbarian Improved Trap Sense I This could go.
Enhancement: Bard Warchanter I
Enhancement: Human Versatility IV
Enhancement: Bard Wand Mastery IV
Enhancement: Bard Inspired Damage III
Enhancement: Bard Inspired Attack III
Enhancement: Human Greater Adaptability Constitution I
Enhancement: Racial Toughness III
Enhancement: Bard Song Magic III

The build looks like it's meant to take advantage of a lot of low cost items. Key features are war chanter PrE, inspired attack and damage, song magic, human versatility, toughness.

There is hardly anything that might be in the virt tree. This is warchanter and spellsinger tree material. There are a lot of cheap low cost fighter and barbarian enhancements but I think I would take a fighter tree and give up the few rage enhancements. Sprint boost is nice but a person can do without it where the attack speed boost and fighter strength help with the offensive nature of the build so a few kensei enhancements are likely.

Alternatively this might work out with dwarf and the stalwart unlock or the horc version and ravager in that 3rd tree. Ravager goes with the barbarian enhancement and if war chanter still provides an extra rage it might be worth ravager if rage powers any ravager abilities. The dwarf SD just makes he build a bit more survivable.

Either way the fighter is still important for feats on a melee bard and barb provides a boost to movement speed and some better burst with rage.

I would probably stick with human, and take enhancements from the kensei tree because it looks like he build would already be investing heavily in human, war chanter, and spellsinger so there would not be much left over anyway. If the PrE.5 for kensai requires 3 fighter levels it might be worthwhile to change this to bard 16 fighter 3 barbarian 1 just for the kensai bonus. This is a time will tell build.

This one might have some concessions but I can see options and most of the main points are still in tact while adding the spellsinger PrE.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

Here's your next response. This one is a bit tougher to pull off because we were told extra song was going into virt and most people suspect wand and scroll mastery to be going into spellsinger so a pure bard could be going to run into not having some of these bard enhancements too.

These are from Ghengis because you did not post the enhancement lists for any of the builds as requested, I wanted popular builds, and bard 16 fighter 2 barbarian 2 has variations. This one does use a fair number of enhancements from several areas and would need to be trimmed.

Enhancement: Bard Extra Song I Virt tree. Gone but only 1 AP spent.
Enhancement: Bard Perform I I have no idea which tree this would be in. Only 1 AP and small loss.
Enhancement: Fighter Haste Boost I
Enhancement: Fighter Critical Accuracy I This could go.
Enhancement: Fighter Strategy (Trip) I This could go.
Enhancement: Fighter Toughness I
Enhancement: Barbarian Damage Reduction Boost I
Enhancement: Barbarian Sprint Boost I
Enhancement: Barbarian Extend Rage I
Enhancement: Barbarian Extra Rage I
Enhancement: Barbarian Constitution I
Enhancement: Human Adaptability Strength I
Enhancement: Fighter Strength I
Enhancement: Bard Energy of the Music I This looks like it would be in the spellsinger tree.
Enhancement: Bard Inspired Bravery II This is no longer a requirement.
Enhancement: Bard Lingering Song I Virt tree
Enhancement: Barbarian Improved Trap Sense I This could go.
Enhancement: Bard Warchanter I
Enhancement: Human Versatility IV
Enhancement: Bard Wand Mastery IV
Enhancement: Bard Inspired Damage III
Enhancement: Bard Inspired Attack III
Enhancement: Human Greater Adaptability Constitution I
Enhancement: Racial Toughness III
Enhancement: Bard Song Magic III

The build looks like it's meant to take advantage of a lot of low cost items. Key features are war chanter PrE, inspired attack and damage, song magic, human versatility, toughness.

There is hardly anything that might be in the virt tree. This is warchanter and spellsinger tree material. There are a lot of cheap low cost fighter and barbarian enhancements but I think I would take a fighter tree and give up the few rage enhancements. Sprint boost is nice but a person can do without it where the attack speed boost and fighter strength help with the offensive nature of the build so a few kensei enhancements are likely.

Alternatively this might work out with dwarf and the stalwart unlock or the horc version and ravager in that 3rd tree. Ravager goes with the barbarian enhancement and if war chanter still provides an extra rage it might be worth ravager if rage powers any ravager abilities. The dwarf SD just makes he build a bit more survivable.

Either way the fighter is still important for feats on a melee bard and horc provides a boost to movement speed and some better burst with rage.

I would probably stick with human, and take enhancements from the kensei tree because it looks like he build would already be investing heavily in human, war chanter, and spellsinger so there would not be much left over anyway. If the PrE.5 for kensai requires 3 fighter levels it might be worthwhile to change this to bard 16 fighter 3 barbarian 1 just for the kensai bonus. This is a time will tell build.

This one might have some concessions but I can see options and most of the main points are still in tact while adding the spellsinger PrE.

****, yeah thats pretty much exactly the way I see it thusfar on Genghis, Aash. In this analysis, I'd lose little and expect to be able to pick up Ravager, which could be a big win, among other niceties. The fighter tree's versatility however might win out in the end, but I'd need to see whats available and at what cost. I'm willing to adjust the 2 fighter 2 barbarian combo up or down as soon as I find the synergies Id be most interested in, and would have no problem doing so. Adding the spellsinger PrE would most likely boost Genghis' spellpoints, concentration and UMD, all perks Genghis would gladly welcome. But, I just won't know for sure which way will be most beneficial to my playstyle and grant me the best bang for my plat until we get all the details. I'm leaning human by the way, but wont know for sure until I get all the racial tree details.

The name of the game is people are going to have to be willing to possibly give up something (both multis and pures) to get the good (aka new ) stuff... in the end you should have a better toon if you do it right. This is a great example Aash where a 3 class build potentially gains much more then he loses under the new system.

[orakio]

You have just demonstrated one of the reasons Racials shouldn't be direct copies of class PrEs (as much as much Dwarven 12/6/2 Arcane Tank would love it)

Why, because he wants to play something that doesn't fit in the current definition of a tank? This is D&D, any well thought out character should have the ability to handle pretty much any build it is designed for. Isn't that what everyone has been asking for, not to turn into WoW with its limitations and restrictions?

[dylan25]

if it would help to keep builds who whould fail after this could we keep the old setup for the enhancements at the same time of the new ones just decide which one wed like to use

[dylan25]

Why, because he wants to play something that doesn't fit in the current definition of a tank? This is D&D, any well thought out character should have the ability to handle pretty much any build it is designed for. Isn't that what everyone has been asking for, not to turn into WoW with its limitations and restrictions?

i agree with you my soultion is to choose when you make your car what one youd like to use

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

if it would help to keep builds who whould fail after this could we keep the old setup for the enhancements at the same time of the new ones just decide which one wed like to use

Thats a great sentiment but be redonkulous to balance, unnecessarily confusing for the playerbase at large, and hellish to code . ;)

You do bring up a very good talking point in the process. It would probably assist the devs if people would come up with builds that they feel will be completely impossible under the new system, forever breaking their toon.

[boomer70]

I didn't ignore your list. I pulled the emerald build as the first one to take a good look at and my forum log in timed out after trying to respond, losing the response.

I was planning on looking at more when I get more time.

What I found with the emerald build was the following key enhancements per the build post:
Enhancements:
Racial Toughness 3
Fighter Toughness 2
Ninja 2
Defender 1
Touch of Death
Half Elf Rogue Dex
Racial Dex
Racial Con
Greater Mountain Stance
Human Heal Amp 2
Monk Heal Amp 2

Fighter only has stalwart defender I toughness and paladin has no enhancements listed in the build at all. I wouldn't be surprised if multiple fighter trees had fighter toughness but if it's anywhere it's in stalwart defender, leaving only 1 fighter tree that would need to be used.

Touch of death would be most likely a ninja spy enhancements and the ninja spy is a listed PrE, so that's an obvious tree. Monk healing amp is a requirement for shintao so likely in that tree. I suspect mountain stance might be in henshin so it's possible to be giving up 1 key enhancement.

In exchange 8 AP are freed on PrE costs, more on the removed AP's for them (some of which are not listed in the build I noticed), and more AP from tiered enhancement costs being replace with point for point costs. The loss of 1 key enhancement will be replaced with AP from the cost of that enhancement plus additional freed up AP to add more enhancements than were lost plus either the Henshin or Shintao PrE abilities, whichever tree is selected.

The build only has 11 key enhancements and 7/11 of them are monk and race enhancements. The current AP costs are tied up in increased tiers of the same enhancements and there appears to be very little negative impact moving this build to a 3 tree lock with a fair bit of gain.

I would suspect, looking at this 20-30 AP in ninja spy, 10-15 in stalwart defender, 15-20 in helf race, 15-25 in one of the other 2 monk trees.

I expected worse, tbh, with 12 monk levels but this looks like an easy adjustment to 3 trees.

I am glad you think it would be an easy adjustment. However it would totally break the build. This build is designed to take advantage of mountain stance to tank. Could it still be viable? Possible but it is not a trivial change, "Oh just drop those enhancements and pick something else". When a central feature of your builds purpose for being is not available you have to reevaluate the entire build.

This build does not in any way support your argument in fact quite the reverse. I think blithely dismissing the impact these changes would have on this build shows you clearly don't understand the issue people have with these changes.

I am not saying that just because any one build gets broken this is a horrible change. It is a horrible change regardless if everyone was given LR+20 tokens because this change will limit build choices going forward for no good reason. This build would be trivial to do if there was no 3 tree limit. I don't believe this build is ridiculously OP now so why make changes to invalidate it?

[Failedlegend]

I didn't ignore your list.

I pulled the emerald build as the first one to take a good look at and my forum log in timed out after trying to respond, losing the response.

Oh sorry I meant to type "missed" there



I expected worse, tbh, with 12 monk levels but this looks like an easy adjustment to 3 trees.

Well no really you dropped Earth Stance like in was nothing but in reality its a HUGE part of the build and the new systems causes it lose that or other critical enhancements

So this one would need at LEAST 4 Trees to function


Here's your next response. This one is a bit tougher to pull off because we were told extra song was going into virt and most people suspect wand and scroll mastery to be going into spellsinger so a pure bard could be going to run into not having some of these bard enhancements too.

How does this affect a pure bard...they have access to all three PrEs


you did not post the enhancement lists for any of the builds as requested

Sorry I missed that part I'll add the enhancement lists for the rest after I'm done replyiung to this



I wanted popular builds.


Why? Only popular builds will be affected by the change?



Bard 16 fighter 2 barbarian 2 has variations. This one does use a fair number of enhancements from several areas and would need to be trimmed.

Heh you haven't even started and you already agree that the new system will cause this build to lose alot.



Enhancement: Bard Extra Song I Virt tree. Gone but only 1 AP spent.
Enhancement: Bard Perform I I have no idea which tree this would be in. Only 1 AP and small loss.
Enhancement: Fighter Haste Boost I
Enhancement: Fighter Critical Accuracy I This could go.
Enhancement: Fighter Strategy (Trip) I This could go.
Enhancement: Fighter Toughness I
Enhancement: Barbarian Damage Reduction Boost I
Enhancement: Barbarian Sprint Boost I
Enhancement: Barbarian Extend Rage I
Enhancement: Barbarian Extra Rage I
Enhancement: Barbarian Constitution I
Enhancement: Human Adaptability Strength I
Enhancement: Fighter Strength I
Enhancement: Bard Energy of the Music I This looks like it would be in the spellsinger tree.
Enhancement: Bard Inspired Bravery II This is no longer a requirement.
Enhancement: Bard Lingering Song I Virt tree
Enhancement: Barbarian Improved Trap Sense I This could go.
Enhancement: Bard Warchanter I
Enhancement: Human Versatility IV
Enhancement: Bard Wand Mastery IV
Enhancement: Bard Inspired Damage III
Enhancement: Bard Inspired Attack III
Enhancement: Human Greater Adaptability Constitution I
Enhancement: Racial Toughness III
Enhancement: Bard Song Magic III

This one might have some concessions but I can see options and most of the main points are still in tact while adding the spellsinger PrE.

So my count is lots of important things from Virtuoso, Spellsinger, One or Two Barbarian PrEs, One or Two Fighter PrEs and of course Warchanter...thats at LEAST 5 if not 7.


Why, because he wants to play something that doesn't fit in the current definition of a tank? This is D&D, any well thought out character should have the ability to handle pretty much any build it is designed for. Isn't that what everyone has been asking for, not to turn into WoW with its limitations and restrictions?

On one hand I have no problem with it like I said my Arcane Knight (Dwarven Wiz12/Fighter6/Rogue2) would LOVE it but on the other hand it makes races ALOT more important in the scheme of builds which I don't like. I'd also much prefer actual Racial PrEs it just makes alot more sense and they could be made to supplement other PrEs instead of imitate them.



You do bring up a very good talking point in the process. It would probably assist the devs if people would come up with builds that they feel will be completely impossible under the new system, forever breaking their toon.

Well we've already determined the Genghis Khan (Bard16/Fighter2/Barb2), Emerald (Monk12/Fighter6/Rogue2) and my Arcane Tank (Wizard12/Fighter6/Rogue2) are destroyed by this change...I'm working on some more

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

snip

Excuse me failed. I built and actually play the Genghis build. I chose each aspect of that build to serve a purpose in relation to my playstyle.

I am telling you not only is the build not broken, but its probably going to come out ahead. I lose NOTHING I needed, and potentially gain perks from ravager or kensei PrEs and spellsinger.

I will not speak for the other builds (because they are not my creations) but Genghis is not only going to not be broken, but be just as effective (if not more) and be even more fun to play when Im done.

And if you'd like to challenge me on this Failed, please visit my thread in August 2012 (or whenever this goes live), and I'll show you exactly how its done.

[dkyle]

Excuse me failed. I built and actually play the Genghis build. I chose each aspect of that build to serve a purpose in relation to my playstyle.

I am telling you not only is the build not broken, but its probably going to come out ahead. I lose NOTHING I needed, and potentially gain perks from ravager or kensei PrEs and spellsinger.

But can you be so confident you won't gain less than pure Bard and 18bard/2{Ftr, Barb, or Rog) builds?

I have little doubt that many multis will gain more than they lose, compared to the current system, just because so many new enhancements are being added. My concern is how deeper multis will fare compared to pure and 18/2 builds.

[twinangel89]

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.

Out with the old, in with the new. I can't wait for the tree system to be implemented... Although it might suck having to re-spend all my action points, I'm actually looking forward to it because my level 7 halfling paladin needs it... Badly. I'm hoping to keep the dragonmark of healing though. :D

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

But can you be so confident you won't gain less than pure Bard and 18bard/2{Ftr, Barb, or Rog) builds?

I have little doubt that many multis will gain more than they lose, compared to the current system, just because so many new enhancements are being added. My concern is how deeper multis will fare compared to pure and 18/2 builds.

Yeah honestly Dkyle, I lose nothing at all imperative (In Aash's example, I'd lose fluff, grant it, its fluff I used to be better well rounded ;)) but I gain new aspects that arent fluff, that will really fortify this build. Now I cant say all 16/2/2 builds are safe, but I believe most will be. Genghis I know will be safe, and potentially is in line to score even more.

As far as how Genghis will stack vs 18/2 bards and pures, we don't know that yet. It's too early to know for sure. If I'm able to keep the 16/2/2 split I have the potential to really be sitting pretty. But then again, I have built many 18/2 and pures for people their may and/or should be advantages for going that way as well. Bards are really so customizable, so long as we have more options, I believe bards across the board (for the most part) will be gaining. (Remember we get the finished PrEs as well).

Oh and if Mad is reading... please... moar bard spells!!! :D

[dkyle]

Yeah honestly Dkyle, I lose nothing at all imperative (In Aash's example, I'd lose fluff, grant it, its fluff I used to be better well rounded ;)) but I gain new aspects that arent fluff, that will really fortify this build. Now I cant say all 16/2/2 builds are safe, but I believe most will be. Genghis I know will be safe, and potentially is in line to score even more.

As far as how Genghis will stack vs 18/2 bards and pures, we don't know that yet. It's too early to know for sure. If I'm able to keep the 16/2/2 split I have the potential to really be sitting pretty. But then again, I have built many 18/2 and pures for people their may and/or should be advantages for going that way as well. Bards are really so customizable, so long as we have more options, I believe bards across the board (for the most part) will be gaining. (Remember we get the finished PrEs as well).

How can you "know" that Genghis will be safe, if you don't know yet how it will compare to 18/2 and pures? The viability of a build lies in comparison to other possible build choices. If pures and 18/2 builds gain much more than Genghis gains, then the viability of Genghis would be in question.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

Ok let me look at this.. grant it, not my build... and I said I wouldnt do it... but its such a good build that a lot of people play. So, what the hell! :)


I didn't ignore your list. I pulled the emerald build as the first one to take a good look at and my forum log in timed out after trying to respond, losing the response.

I was planning on looking at more when I get more time.

What I found with the emerald build was the following key enhancements per the build post:
Enhancements:
Racial Toughness 3
Fighter Toughness 2
Ninja 2
Defender 1
Touch of Death
Half Elf Rogue Dex
Racial Dex
Racial Con
Greater Mountain Stance
Human Heal Amp 2
Monk Heal Amp 2

Fighter only has stalwart defender I toughness and paladin has no enhancements listed in the build at all. I wouldn't be surprised if multiple fighter trees had fighter toughness but if it's anywhere it's in stalwart defender, leaving only 1 fighter tree that would need to be used.

Touch of death would be most likely a ninja spy enhancements and the ninja spy is a listed PrE, so that's an obvious tree. Monk healing amp is a requirement for shintao so likely in that tree. I suspect mountain stance might be in henshin so it's possible to be giving up 1 key enhancement.

In exchange 8 AP are freed on PrE costs, more on the removed AP's for them (some of which are not listed in the build I noticed), and more AP from tiered enhancement costs being replace with point for point costs. The loss of 1 key enhancement will be replaced with AP from the cost of that enhancement plus additional freed up AP to add more enhancements than were lost plus either the Henshin or Shintao PrE abilities, whichever tree is selected.

The build only has 11 key enhancements and 7/11 of them are monk and race enhancements. The current AP costs are tied up in increased tiers of the same enhancements and there appears to be very little negative impact moving this build to a 3 tree lock with a fair bit of gain.

I would suspect, looking at this 20-30 AP in ninja spy, 10-15 in stalwart defender, 15-20 in helf race, 15-25 in one of the other 2 monk trees.

I expected worse, tbh, with 12 monk levels but this looks like an easy adjustment to 3 trees.

I agree with Aash here. I am beginning to create a simple formula for morphing these old builds into the new system.

1. Lay out all your enhancements.

2. Then look for losses. Losses become AP for new abilities. The sweetest spot would be to lose little, yet have the AP to gain something sweeter, all while not minimizing or eliminating the build's original concept.

3. Invest freed action points from lost enhancements/lower costs due to new system to training in new or improved areas.

Looking at the Emerald build, stats/gear are unaffected so hp are safe. Class split, gear and stats ensure saves are safe. I see the potential for gains here through a windfall of newly available AP. I think Emerald builds are fairly safe at this point, and potentially have something to look forward to in the new system.

[dkyle]

Looking at the Emerald build, stats/gear are unaffected so hp are safe. Class split, gear and stats ensure saves are safe. I see the potential for gains here through a windfall of newly available AP. I think emerald builds are fairly safe at this point.

And, again, that build is unlikely to lose much compared to the current system (assuming Earth stance doesn't become Henshin-only), but it'll be going up against pure 20 Monks, with SDIII via Racial PrE. It's hard for me to expect that a 14Monk/6Fighter with NSII/SDI is going to stack up well against a pure 20 Monk with SDIII/NSII (potentially even III).

And taking KensaiI on that multi won't be an option, unless you're willing to give up the healing amp from the Shintao tree.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

vs 20 Monk

A 20 monk is a completely different ballgame. We cannot accurately compare splits to each other or pures at this point, we still need to see the smallprint. But, I cant imagine a mixed class monk with 800+ hp, 40+ saves, 90+ AC with an abundance of DPS and further gains from the new trees have a whole lot to worry about! ;)

I just dont see the Emerald as broken at this point. And thats because he relies on much more then just enhancements. One way or another, we are going to have to wait to know for sure. http://thmg.photobucket.com/albums/v482/scaddigs/smilies/emotions/th_PullingHairOut.gif

[grodon9999]

So those of you who understand this better than me . . . would my non-hypothetical 18/1/1 human ranger be able to take his full Tempest III from class, Stalwart III from human (assuming the feat requirements are the same, Dodge overlaps for both), and a smidgeon for rogue so I could me sneak attack bonus and haste boost (though it looks like Tempest is getting that anyway from what was leaked)?

[boomer70]

And, again, that build is unlikely to lose much compared to the current system (assuming Earth stance doesn't become Henshin-only), but it'll be going up against pure 20 Monks, with SDIII via Racial PrE. It's hard for me to expect that a 14Monk/6Fighter with NSII/SDI is going to stack up well against a pure 20 Monk with SDIII/NSII (potentially even III).

And taking KensaiI on that multi won't be an option, unless you're willing to give up the healing amp from the Shintao tree.

Monks are actually a pretty good example of how forcing all enhancements into 3 trees per class is not going to work very well.

If the trees are based on the ToD set names and we gain Henshin in addition to the existing Shintao and Ninja you are going to have a pretty hard time figuring out how to divide up enhancements. If the Shintao and Ninja lines are predicated on Dark/Light path as they are currently then monks are locked out of 1/3 of all the enhancements. If they are not you are losing a whole lot of flavor of the Light/Dark concept.

[boomer70]

So those of you who understand this better than me . . . would my non-hypothetical 18/1/1 human ranger be able to take his full Tempest III from class, Stalwart III from human (assuming the feat requirements are the same, Dodge overlaps for both), and a smidgeon for rogue so I could me sneak attack bonus and haste boost (though it looks like Tempest is getting that anyway from what was leaked)?

The simple answer is maybe :)

If there is a three tree limit the exact split you are talking about might be possible depending on exact numbers prereqs etc. However that would be all your trees so anything that isn't in tempest (e.g. favored enemy bonuses) would be locked out. Might end up a net gain for your build but it would certainly play very differently than it does today.

[dkyle]

A 20 monk is a completely different ballgame. We cannot accurately compare splits to each other or pures at this point, we still need to see the smallprint.

If we cannot compare builds to each other at this point, then we cannot make claims about what multis will remain viable.

You can't have it both ways. The viability of deep multis is entirely dependent on how they compare to pures and splashes.

But, I do think we can compare builds to each other at this point. And we must to have any hope of a useful discussion. I think it's far more likely that a pure 20 Monk with SDIII and NSII will overshadow a splut with SDII and NSI, than for it to be the other way around. Guaranteed? Of course not. Nothing in this thread is guaranteed. But discussions of likelyhoods are the best way to analyze the info we have, and give meaningful feedback.


But, I cant imagine a mixed class monk with 800+ hp, 40+ saves, 90+ AC with an abundance of DPS and further gains from the new trees have a whole lot to worry about! ;)

I can.

A pure Monk with about as much HP (less base HP and feats available for toughnesses, but 20% HP boost instead of 10%, and higher CON [net +5 from SDIII and Earth IV]), strictly higher saves, strictly higher AC, more damage percent mitigation (20% instead of 15%), more DPS (larger damage die, SDIII instead of SDII, NS II or III instead of NS I), much more threat amp, DR 10/Epic and Abundant Step (relevant to tanking, and big "fun" factor).


I just dont see the Emerald as broken at this point. And thats because he relies on much more then just enhancements. One way or another, we are going to have to wait to know for sure.

He does? Strip out the enhancements, and I wouldn't give that split a second thought. I'd consider it inferior to pure Monk or pure Fighter (or possibly 18/2 Fighter/Monk) in basically every way. The combination of enhancements is absolutely core to that build. Without them, it's nothing.

[Failedlegend]

you did not post the enhancement lists for any of the builds as requested

Ok I'm gonna get started...I'll be editing this post when I'm done so bear with me

Remember all my below statements are guesses on whats in which enhancements ends up where but its the best we can do right now.

Wizard12/Fighter6/Rogue2 (PM2/SD1) "Arcane Knight"

Now let's see enhancements


Enhancement: Fighter Armor Class Boost I Stalwart
Enhancement: Rogue Damage Boost I Likely Assassin
Enhancement: Fighter Haste Boost II Kensai
Enhancement: Rogue Skill Boost I Mech
Enhancement: Dwarven Armor Mastery I
Enhancement: Dwarven Axe Damage I
Enhancement: Fighter Armor Mastery I Stalwart
Enhancement: Fighter Stalwart Defender I Stalwart
Enhancement: Wizard Improved Empowering III Wild Mage?
Enhancement: Wizard Improved Maximizing III Wild Mage?
Enhancement: Racial Toughness I
Enhancement: Racial Toughness II
Enhancement: Improved Intimidate I Stalwart
Enhancement: Improved Intimidate II Stalwart
Enhancement: Improved Open Lock I Mech
Enhancement: Improved Search I Mech
Enhancement: Acid Manipulation I
Enhancement: Frost Manipulation I
Enhancement: Storm Manipulation I
Enhancement: Flame Manipulation I
Unsure but their likely going to be split up
Enhancement: Wizard Energy of the Scholar I Archmage?
Enhancement: Wizard Energy of the Scholar II Archmage?
Enhancement: Wizard Intelligence I
Enhancement: Wizard Intelligence II
Probably all 3
Enhancement: Fighter Strength II Kensai
Enhancement: Fighter Toughness II Stalwart
Enhancement: Wizard Wand and Scroll Mastery I
Enhancement: Wizard Wand and Scroll Mastery II
Enhancement: Wizard Pale Master II Palemaster
Enhancement: Shroud of the Wraith Palemaster
Enhancement: Shroud of the Zombie Palemaster


Ok so let's that tallies up to Palemaster, Stalwart, Kensai, Archmage, Wild Mage, Mech and possibly Assassin...so that 6 Trees..possibly 7.....yep that one is broke

Sorc16/Paladin2/Rogue2 "Tukaw"


max in fire/cold
40% in force, max lineage of force (9% crit) but none in boost crit
sneak damage bonus +3
full wf power attack (-8 +16)
skill boost +2
haste boost
1 inscribe armor
+3 cha, +1 dex, +1 con, +40 hp (30 racial and 10 pally)

OK this one is a little less fleshed out..but here goes

Damage spells are likely to be split up so that Wild Mage, Palemaster & Archmage than he has HP boost from Defender of Syberis, than there's rogue haste boost which is likely Acrobat and SKill boost which is mech, SA Boost yeah thats Assassin.

So Tukaw clocks in at 7 Trees...yep that one is broken



Ok next up lets go with its Wizard cousin the "Mind Filleter"

Monk12/Wiz7/Fighter1


Enhancement: Fighter Haste Boost I Kensai
Enhancement: Fighter Strategy (Stunning Blow) I Kensai
Enhancement: Static Charge
Enhancement: Way of the Patient Tortoise III
Enhancement: Touch of Death Ninja Spy
Enhancement: Fists of Iron
Enhancement: Porous Soul
Enhancement: All-Consuming Flame
Enhancement: Monk Improved Recovery II Shintao
Enhancement: Monk Ninja Spy II Ninja Spy
Enhancement: Winter's Touch
Enhancement: Master of Stone
Enhancement: Master of Bonfires
These ones a little hard to place
Enhancement: Racial Toughness II
Enhancement: Improved Balance IV
Enhancement: Improved Concentration IV
Enhancement: Improved Jump II
Enhancement: Improved Tumble II
Enhancement: Acid Manipulation I
Enhancement: Frost Manipulation I
Enhancement: Storm Manipulation I
Enhancement: Flame Manipulation I
Likely a mix of all 3 wiz prestiges
Enhancement: Wizard Energy of the Scholar I
Enhancement: Wizard Intelligence I
Enhancement: Monk Wisdom II
Enhancement: Fighter Toughness I Stalwart
Enhancement: Wizard Wand and Scroll Mastery II
Enhancement: Wizard Pale Master I Palemaster
Enhancement: Shroud of the Zombie Palemaster



Ok when we look at Monk its really hard to place abilities but it will likely take at least 2 PrEs, than from fighter stuff we have Kensai and Stalwart and than for wizard there's at LEAST Palemaster but the elements will likely be broken up so could be all 3...so that tallies up to any where between 5 & 9 Trees...regardless this build is broken.



Want me to show more I'm pretty sure these remaining builds won't fair any better. Even if the above and below builds aren't completely broken they at LEAST lose ALOT...and honestly there's no reason NOT to remove the 3 Tree Limit.....its your turn guys now that I proved builds WILL be broken or at least brought down to a few rungs. Now prove to me that there's reason NOT to unlock it (and no your "options" math is bubcus try something else)

Rogue13/Favored Soul6/Monk1 (Acro2/AoV1) "Favoured Pole"

Rogue13/Monk6/Fighter1 (Acro2/NS1) "Ugly Stick"

Monk12/Fighter6/Rogue2 (NS2/Kensai1) "Monkcher"

Arty8/Rogue6/Ranger6 (BE1/Mech1/DWS1) "Long-shot"



He does? Strip out the enhancements, and I wouldn't give that split a second thought. I'd consider it inferior to pure Monk or pure Fighter (or possibly 18/2 Fighter/Monk) in basically every way. The combination of enhancements is absolutely core to that build. Without them, it's nothing.

Also the only system that is changing is enhancements so debating anything outside of that is frankly unrelated.

[Scraap]

So those of you who understand this better than me . . . would my non-hypothetical 18/1/1 human ranger be able to take his full Tempest III from class, Stalwart III from human (assuming the feat requirements are the same, Dodge overlaps for both), and a smidgeon for rogue so I could me sneak attack bonus and haste boost (though it looks like Tempest is getting that anyway from what was leaked)?

Short answer: Potentially.

The basic math supports 2 tier 3s in one of 3 combos: tempest capstone, stalwart capstone, or skipping both for more points to blow elsewhere. 1 rogue gets tricky. SA bonus and alacrity may be 1 tree, or could be 2, and a lack of any skill amps and boosts boosts presumes either disinterest in attempting that aspect, or that they keep with the status quo where those enhancements are overkill in the majority of content.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

If we cannot compare builds to each other at this point, then we cannot make claims about what multis will remain viable.

I said accurately. Yes there is a LOT of guesswork happening at this point. I thought that would be fairly obvious however after 2,900 posts! ;)

As for which builds remain viable or gain more mojo, I used the word potentially.

As I said before, Turbine will have to give us the smallprint for us to have a better idea than we know today. Then after all that, on some toons, we will actually have to play them to ensure it feels the same, feels better or worse, and tweak where necessary.

That doesnt mean we cant talk about how actual builds may prosper/or may not prosper with what we know at this point. I would reserve talk such as ITS BROKEN! until we get more info on tree structure, access and exactly what they contain.

[boomer70]

Ok I'm gonna get started...I'll be editing this post when I'm done so bear with me

Remember all my below statements are guesses on whats in which enhancements ends up where but its the best we can do right now.

Wizard12/Fighter6/Rogue2 (PM2/SD1) "Arcane Knight"

Now let's see enhancements


Enhancement: Fighter Armor Class Boost I Stalwart
Enhancement: Rogue Damage Boost I Likely Assassin
Enhancement: Fighter Haste Boost II Kensai
Enhancement: Rogue Skill Boost I Mech
Enhancement: Dwarven Armor Mastery I
Enhancement: Dwarven Axe Damage I
Enhancement: Fighter Armor Mastery I Stalwart
Enhancement: Fighter Stalwart Defender I Stalwart
Enhancement: Wizard Improved Empowering III Wild Mage?
Enhancement: Wizard Improved Maximizing III Wild Mage?
Enhancement: Racial Toughness I
Enhancement: Racial Toughness II
Enhancement: Improved Intimidate I Stalwart
Enhancement: Improved Intimidate II Stalwart
Enhancement: Improved Open Lock I Mech
Enhancement: Improved Search I Mech
Enhancement: Acid Manipulation I
Enhancement: Frost Manipulation I
Enhancement: Storm Manipulation I
Enhancement: Flame Manipulation I
Unsure but their likely going to be split up
Enhancement: Wizard Energy of the Scholar I Archmage?
Enhancement: Wizard Energy of the Scholar II Archmage?
Enhancement: Wizard Intelligence I
Enhancement: Wizard Intelligence II
Probably all 3
Enhancement: Fighter Strength II Kensai
Enhancement: Fighter Toughness II Stalwart
Enhancement: Wizard Wand and Scroll Mastery I
Enhancement: Wizard Wand and Scroll Mastery II
Enhancement: Wizard Pale Master II Palemaster
Enhancement: Shroud of the Wraith Palemaster
Enhancement: Shroud of the Zombie Palemaster


Ok so let's that tallies up to Palemaster, Stalwart, Kensai, Archmage, Wild Mage, Mech and possibly Assassin...so that 6 Trees..possibly 7.....yep that one is broke

Sorc16/Paladin2/Rogue2 "Tukaw"


max in fire/cold
40% in force, max lineage of force (9% crit) but none in boost crit
sneak damage bonus +3
full wf power attack (-8 +16)
skill boost +2
haste boost
1 inscribe armor
+3 cha, +1 dex, +1 con, +40 hp (30 racial and 10 pally)

OK this one is a little less fleshed out..but here goes

Damage spells are likely to be split up so that Wild Mage, Palemaster & Archmage than he has HP boost from Defender of Syberis, than there's rogue haste boost which is likely Acrobat and SKill boost which is mech, SA Boost yeah thats Assassin.

So Tukaw clocks in at 7 Trees...yep that one is broken



Ok next up lets go with its Wizard cousin the "Mind Filleter"

Monk12/Wiz7/Fighter1


Enhancement: Fighter Haste Boost I Kensai
Enhancement: Fighter Strategy (Stunning Blow) I Kensai
Enhancement: Static Charge
Enhancement: Way of the Patient Tortoise III
Enhancement: Touch of Death Ninja Spy
Enhancement: Fists of Iron
Enhancement: Porous Soul
Enhancement: All-Consuming Flame
Enhancement: Monk Improved Recovery II Shintao
Enhancement: Monk Ninja Spy II Ninja Spy
Enhancement: Winter's Touch
Enhancement: Master of Stone
Enhancement: Master of Bonfires
These ones a little hard to place
Enhancement: Racial Toughness II
Enhancement: Improved Balance IV
Enhancement: Improved Concentration IV
Enhancement: Improved Jump II
Enhancement: Improved Tumble II
Enhancement: Acid Manipulation I
Enhancement: Frost Manipulation I
Enhancement: Storm Manipulation I
Enhancement: Flame Manipulation I
Likely a mix of all 3 wiz prestiges
Enhancement: Wizard Energy of the Scholar I
Enhancement: Wizard Intelligence I
Enhancement: Monk Wisdom II
Enhancement: Fighter Toughness I Stalwart
Enhancement: Wizard Wand and Scroll Mastery II
Enhancement: Wizard Pale Master I Palemaster
Enhancement: Shroud of the Zombie Palemaster



Ok when we look at Monk its really hard to place abilities but it will likely take at least 2 PrEs, than from fighter stuff we have Kensai and Stalwart and than for wizard there's at LEAST Palemaster but the elements will likely be broken up so could be all 3...so that tallies up to any where between 5 & 9 Trees...regardless this build is broken.



Want me to show more I'm pretty sure these remaining builds won't fair any better. Even if the above and below builds aren't completely broken they at LEAST lose ALOT...and honestly there's no reason NOT to remove the 3 Tree Limit.....its your turn guys now that I proved builds WILL be broken or at least brought down to a few rungs. Now prove to me that there's reason NOT to unlock it (and no your "options" math is bubcus try something else)

Rogue13/Favored Soul6/Monk1 (Acro2/AoV1) "Favoured Pole"

Rogue13/Monk6/Fighter1 (Acro2/NS1) "Ugly Stick"

Monk12/Fighter6/Rogue2 (NS2/Kensai1) "Monkcher"

Arty8/Rogue6/Ranger6 (BE1/Mech1/DWS1) "Long-shot"



Also the only system that is changing is enhancements so debating anything outside of that is frankly unrelated.

<sarcasm>
After seeing that breakdown I am 100% certain these builds will all be better than they are today.
Just look at all the AP they will save by not being able to waste them on trees we dont think are useful the build concept. Top that off with a racial prestige (that doesn't fit in the limit but whatever) and you will be that much more uber. Ignore the fact that you would have been better if you never multiclassed in the first place and that every build rolled after this point will be strictly better than yours. You will be better than you are today though so you will love it. trust me

</sarcasm>

[boomer70]

Lets say they implement the changes as presented with a three tree limit. What if at some point down the road they decide they really want to add a new PrE? What happens to all the enhancements that were split among the 3 original trees? Do they create a full tree of new enhancements only available to that PrE? What happens to builds at that point? Does everyone get access to 4 trees now since at least one class would have 4 PrEs?

[Failedlegend]

Lets say they implement the changes as presented with a three tree limit. What if at some point down the road they decide they really want to add a new PrE? What happens to all the enhancements that were split among the 3 original trees? Do they create a full tree of new enhancements only available to that PrE? What happens to builds at that point? Does everyone get access to 4 trees now since at least one class would have 4 PrEs?

This is why I honestly think a tab system similar to the Spell UI would work much better in the first place and would be future proof for any additions....and stuff like the Arty's Dog (hopefully in the future Ranger Animal Companion,Familiars and Halfing Dinos) would have a spot to go. It could even have the Summary of Enhancements Page where amount of points spent in each tree...you class levels and any received PrE bonuses are well summarized

[dkyle]

I said accurately. Yes there is a LOT of guesswork happening at this point. I thought that would be fairly obvious however after 2,900 posts! ;)

It is obvious that we are looking at and discussing the most likely hypotheses given the info we have. There's much more to that than "guesswork".


As for which builds remain viable or gain more mojo, I used the word potentially.

But you've been speaking about Genghis, and SDI/NSII builds remaining viable, yet are unwilling to entertain any attempt to compare them to pure or splash builds.


That doesnt mean we cant talk about how actual builds may prosper/or may not prosper with what we know at this point.

OK, then let's discuss. I gave my analysis of how I think an SDIII/NSII pure Monk is likely to compare in the new system. What do you think of it?

So far, anytime anyone attempts to compare builds, you just say we can't, because we don't know enough yet. Yet you are willing to speculate on how "viable" certain builds will be. It seems like you're willing to engage in speculation only when you're trying to prove your own points.


I would reserve talk such as ITS BROKEN! until we get more info on tree structure, access and exactly what they contain.

But talk such as "the ruleset described in this thread is likely to move in a direction away from viable multiclassing" is entirely reasonable at this time. Which is the point I've been trying to make. Reserving such talk is entirely counterproductive to the point of the thread.

We can make reasonable hypotheses about the unknown info, and use them to draw reasonable conclusions on what the implications of ruleset described in this thread are likely to be.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

It is obvious that we are looking at and discussing the most likely hypotheses given the info we have. There's much more to that than "guesswork".

Well for those of us that know how to make builds work, naturally its more then elementary guesswork. But, without certain details, we are all just drawing with erasable ink.

But you've been speaking about Genghis, and SDI/NSII builds remaining viable, yet are unwilling to entertain any attempt to compare them to pure or splash builds.

At this point, I just don't consider it feasible. Now I'm not trying to stop you from coming to your own conclusions, however I'm going to reserve judgement until I have more information about the tree structure, access and costs involved. Without that information, there's not a whole lot of certainty that can be drawn.

OK, then let's discuss. I gave my analysis of how I think an SDIII/NSII pure Monk is likely to compare in the new system. What do you think of it?

Since I dont know what's in those trees, I have no opinion at this point, sorry.

But talk such as "the ruleset described in this thread is likely to move in a direction away from viable multiclassing" is entirely reasonable at this time. Which is the point I've been trying to make. Reserving such talk is entirely counterproductive to the point of the thread.

Aash and I both believe the Emerald and Genghis lose very little and potentially gain. There's nothing there that proves either build is anywhere near broken. Again we wont know for sure until we know more.

We can make reasonable hypotheses about the unknown info, and use them to draw reasonable conclusions on what the implications of ruleset described in this thread are likely to be.

Reasonable is the big word there. I agree with you that we can make reasonable hypotheses. I also think its perfectly natural that we can see totally different outcomes from the same set of criteria.



Answers in beige.

I will say deep splashes like 9/9/2, 10/6/4, 10/8/2 etc might seem the most challenging. However its perfectly possible that they also gain depending on the details in those builds and the details yet forthcoming from Turbine. Its the really deep splashes that I expect will become the most reliant on the new enhancements and tree access rules that we just dont have information on yet. That does not mean they are doomed, but there will be those that will insist "its broken", until the day Turbine releases a workable model with all the small print so we can create new toons and morph our builds into the new format.

[LeLoric]

Ok I'm gonna get started...I'll be editing this post when I'm done so bear with me

Remember all my below statements are guesses on whats in which enhancements ends up where but its the best we can do right now.

Wizard12/Fighter6/Rogue2 (PM2/SD1) "Arcane Knight"

Now let's see enhancements


Enhancement: Fighter Armor Class Boost I Stalwart
Enhancement: Rogue Damage Boost I Likely Assassin
Enhancement: Fighter Haste Boost II Kensai
Enhancement: Rogue Skill Boost I Mech
Enhancement: Dwarven Armor Mastery I
Enhancement: Dwarven Axe Damage I
Enhancement: Fighter Armor Mastery I Stalwart
Enhancement: Fighter Stalwart Defender I Stalwart
Enhancement: Wizard Improved Empowering III Wild Mage?
Enhancement: Wizard Improved Maximizing III Wild Mage?
Enhancement: Racial Toughness I
Enhancement: Racial Toughness II
Enhancement: Improved Intimidate I Stalwart
Enhancement: Improved Intimidate II Stalwart
Enhancement: Improved Open Lock I Mech
Enhancement: Improved Search I Mech
Enhancement: Acid Manipulation I
Enhancement: Frost Manipulation I
Enhancement: Storm Manipulation I
Enhancement: Flame Manipulation I
Unsure but their likely going to be split up
Enhancement: Wizard Energy of the Scholar I Archmage?
Enhancement: Wizard Energy of the Scholar II Archmage?
Enhancement: Wizard Intelligence I
Enhancement: Wizard Intelligence II
Probably all 3
Enhancement: Fighter Strength II Kensai
Enhancement: Fighter Toughness II Stalwart
Enhancement: Wizard Wand and Scroll Mastery I
Enhancement: Wizard Wand and Scroll Mastery II
Enhancement: Wizard Pale Master II Palemaster
Enhancement: Shroud of the Wraith Palemaster
Enhancement: Shroud of the Zombie Palemaster


Ok so let's that tallies up to Palemaster, Stalwart, Kensai, Archmage, Wild Mage, Mech and possibly Assassin...so that 6 Trees..possibly 7.....yep that one is broke

Sorc16/Paladin2/Rogue2 "Tukaw"


max in fire/cold
40% in force, max lineage of force (9% crit) but none in boost crit
sneak damage bonus +3
full wf power attack (-8 +16)
skill boost +2
haste boost
1 inscribe armor
+3 cha, +1 dex, +1 con, +40 hp (30 racial and 10 pally)

OK this one is a little less fleshed out..but here goes

Damage spells are likely to be split up so that Wild Mage, Palemaster & Archmage than he has HP boost from Defender of Syberis, than there's rogue haste boost which is likely Acrobat and SKill boost which is mech, SA Boost yeah thats Assassin.

So Tukaw clocks in at 7 Trees...yep that one is broken



Ok next up lets go with its Wizard cousin the "Mind Filleter"

Monk12/Wiz7/Fighter1


Enhancement: Fighter Haste Boost I Kensai
Enhancement: Fighter Strategy (Stunning Blow) I Kensai
Enhancement: Static Charge
Enhancement: Way of the Patient Tortoise III
Enhancement: Touch of Death Ninja Spy
Enhancement: Fists of Iron
Enhancement: Porous Soul
Enhancement: All-Consuming Flame
Enhancement: Monk Improved Recovery II Shintao
Enhancement: Monk Ninja Spy II Ninja Spy
Enhancement: Winter's Touch
Enhancement: Master of Stone
Enhancement: Master of Bonfires
These ones a little hard to place
Enhancement: Racial Toughness II
Enhancement: Improved Balance IV
Enhancement: Improved Concentration IV
Enhancement: Improved Jump II
Enhancement: Improved Tumble II
Enhancement: Acid Manipulation I
Enhancement: Frost Manipulation I
Enhancement: Storm Manipulation I
Enhancement: Flame Manipulation I
Likely a mix of all 3 wiz prestiges
Enhancement: Wizard Energy of the Scholar I
Enhancement: Wizard Intelligence I
Enhancement: Monk Wisdom II
Enhancement: Fighter Toughness I Stalwart
Enhancement: Wizard Wand and Scroll Mastery II
Enhancement: Wizard Pale Master I Palemaster
Enhancement: Shroud of the Zombie Palemaster



Ok when we look at Monk its really hard to place abilities but it will likely take at least 2 PrEs, than from fighter stuff we have Kensai and Stalwart and than for wizard there's at LEAST Palemaster but the elements will likely be broken up so could be all 3...so that tallies up to any where between 5 & 9 Trees...regardless this build is broken.



Want me to show more I'm pretty sure these remaining builds won't fair any better. Even if the above and below builds aren't completely broken they at LEAST lose ALOT...and honestly there's no reason NOT to remove the 3 Tree Limit.....its your turn guys now that I proved builds WILL be broken or at least brought down to a few rungs. Now prove to me that there's reason NOT to unlock it (and no your "options" math is bubcus try something else)

Rogue13/Favored Soul6/Monk1 (Acro2/AoV1) "Favoured Pole"

Rogue13/Monk6/Fighter1 (Acro2/NS1) "Ugly Stick"

Monk12/Fighter6/Rogue2 (NS2/Kensai1) "Monkcher"

Arty8/Rogue6/Ranger6 (BE1/Mech1/DWS1) "Long-shot"



Also the only system that is changing is enhancements so debating anything outside of that is frankly unrelated.

This is all speculative. Devs have already said some enhancements will be going away completely, likely some of them you list. We've also had feedback that suggests that some enhancements will be combined. Also there is no way to know what tree an exisitng enhancement gets put in.

Im not necessarily for limiting of trees but this kind of speculation does nothing for saying that they should do away with it.

People saying a three class character gets only 33% of their current options is blatently false as currently those three split characters don't have full access to a class line anyways. A ftr tree with 12 levels in it is not the equal of a rog tree with only 2 levels in it. So if the new system goes in and I use my 13 rog 6 ftr 1 monk and I take two trees of rog and one ftr I probably still have access to well over 50% of the enhancements that would be available to me if there was no tree limit. Sure I could take three monk trees but that would be pretty moronic on my part.

What it really boils down to as far as whether to allow more trees is does limiting the trees still allow us to make equal or better characters than we have now. And also would having access to 6 tier 1 pre's for a 6/6/8 type build be too OP when compared to someone running two tier 3 pre's form the same class.

I don't think the 6 tier 1 prestige character would be op. With the exception of course of stacking stat enhancements that would probably need to be removed if all tiers are opened up. A dual tier 3 prestige character would probably be much more focused and stronger.
However, that's really hard for me to say with any certainty without knowing what each pre entails and what enhancements are available in each tree.

This thread has blown up into way too much speculative banter over the same topics that are rehashed over and over.

[LeLoric]

So those of you who understand this better than me . . . would my non-hypothetical 18/1/1 human ranger be able to take his full Tempest III from class, Stalwart III from human (assuming the feat requirements are the same, Dodge overlaps for both), and a smidgeon for rogue so I could me sneak attack bonus and haste boost (though it looks like Tempest is getting that anyway from what was leaked)?

Not sure anyone would understand it better than anyone else as so little information has been put out there. A lot of assumptions have to be made to even speculate what you could or could not take. First most in your example would be can human's even take stalwart.

From what has been put out though I would think in your case you would be more limited by total action points. Feat requirements should be going away from what I can tell which will be a big boon to tempests. Tempest III would be 30 points stalwart another 30 (either would go to 41 if you are able to take and want the capstone). You have to also take a set number of human tree points to unlock stalwart. You would definitely not be able to take anything from the other two ranger lines if you wanted rog stuff. However it may be more beneficial to you to drop any rog stuff as you can only get 1 levels worth of stuff for a second ranger tree like deepwood for some favored bonuses.

I think it's far more likely for something to get broken in this new setup from some combo of new enhancements versus someone not getting enough of what they already have.

[dkyle]

But, without certain details, we are all just drawing with erasable ink.

Of course we are. And there is nothing wrong with that. We're giving feedback on the specific set of rules described in this thread, and what we expect is likely to happen if they were to be released. We're not able to discuss what the game will actually be when the new system is released, with any real certainty, but that's entirely besides the point.

Future information, and changes in plans, will not change my opinion of the specific set of rules described in this thread so far. Only arguments on the basis of the info we know now can change my opinion on the ruleset we've been told about so far. Once we find out more, we'll be looking at a new set of rules, and my opinion on those rules may very well be different than my opinion on the current set of rules. But it would be silly to let that stop me from giving feedback on the current set of rules.


At this point, I just don't consider it feasible. Now I'm not trying to stop you from coming to your own conclusions, however I'm going to reserve judgement until I have more information about the tree structure, access and costs involved. Without that information, there's not a whole lot of certainty that can be drawn.

Since I dont know what's in those trees, I have no opinion at this point, sorry.

Except that you have expressed a quite clear opinion that both Genghis and Emerald builds are likely to be viable. A declaration of viability inherently implies a comparison to all possible alternative builds. Why is it that you can express a clear, and seemingly quite certain, opinion on that, but looking at even a single comparison is just impossible for you?

We're looking at SDI/NSII vs. SDIII/NSII. How can you not have a sense of which is likely to be stronger? The pure Monk gets basically all the enhancements the multiclass split gets, and more. There have been no class feature changes stated in this thread, so 20 Monk vs 14Monk/6 Fighter shouldn't be a mystery. Really the only unknown variable is if there's a race with racial enhancements that's incredibly well suited for the build, moreso than Dwarf. Does that really seem likely?


Aash and I both believe the Emerald and Genghis lose very little and potentially gain.

And I do not disagree. But this does not mean that Emerald and Genghis will remain viable builds. Viability is about comparison to alternatives. If you cannot compare builds (as you've said you can't), then calling a build "viable" is meaningless.

Essentially, making a reasonable hypothesis of viability requires the ability to make reasonable hypotheses about comparisons of builds. Yet you are claiming that one is possible, and the other is not.


Reasonable is the big word there. I think its perfectly natural that we can see totally different outcomes from the same set of criteria.

But what benefit is there to requiring the degree of certainty you're demanding? Why is it better to throw up our hands and say "we can't even try to compare builds", instead of doing the best we can? We don't need to be absolutely certain of anything at this point. Or even close to certain. Any feedback regarding what biases and tendencies might be present, no matter how subtle or uncertain, in the ruleset the devs have presented to us, is potentially useful feedback. We're not deciding whether to respec or delete characters, or stop playing, or actually changing the game ourselves. We're just giving feedback.

[Thrudh]

Hmm, how do I put this nicely. Okay, forget nice.

This is exactly the type of thing we talk about when players complain about developers not having a clear understanding of the game.

Cookie cutter builds arise because some options are better then others. There is not magic about this. It is simple numbers. No not simple numbers of anyone can build a gimp with some random combo. That is not useful nor relevant at all.

Players are discussing the worries that we will have less NEAR THE TOP END OF THE SCALE OPTIONS not that we will have less any random flavor build options. No one cares about the theoretical max number of builds. That is a pointless number.

I have to agree with Cyr here... Pointing out all the possible worthless combos like it's a good thing scares me. Ten good builds, and 54,000 crappy ones is not a good system...

All we care about is that we still have 100+ decent builds like we do today.

[djinnishah]

My hubby & I have been playing on DDO for over 4 yrs and we play daily. My first year was literally spent creating and deleting toons as I learned 'how' to build. If this new system makes it easier on noobs, so be it, as long as it doesn't hinder the dedicated and experienced players.

I am concerned with the possiblility of nerfing custom built toons via unnecessary pre-reqs. Some enhancements are just unrealistic when you have a vision of what you want your toon to be.

It'll be a pain when all the enhancements are reset, specifically for players that have multiple toons on multiple servers. I have 6 on Sarlona, 4 on Cannith, etc. etc. This 'reset' is going to be seriously time consuming, in particular for level 20's and TR's.

I'd also agree completely that the nerfing of rangers needs to be corrected. Its one of my favorite classes to play.

I'm just going to keep my fingers crossed and hope this all works out for the best. I maintain a certain amount of faith in the developers, as its in their best interest to draw more players to the game, not drive them away. I'm sure they have the interest of the dedicated players at heart. Guess we'll see when the changes take place.

[Thrudh]

While Riggs may have a flair for the dramatic he's right and we've proved it multiple times and honestly "Your Side" hasn't actually said much beyond Your wrong and lets wait and see.

Actually, it's the opposite... Most crys of "It's going to break the game!" have been completely wrong in the past...

I'm willing to mostly wait and see without declaring doom... I'm very glad we get a chance to offer feedback.

[grodon9999]

Not sure anyone would understand it better than anyone else as so little information has been put out there. A lot of assumptions have to be made to even speculate what you could or could not take. First most in your example would be can human's even take stalwart.

From what has been put out though I would think in your case you would be more limited by total action points. Feat requirements should be going away from what I can tell which will be a big boon to tempests. Tempest III would be 30 points stalwart another 30 (either would go to 41 if you are able to take and want the capstone). You have to also take a set number of human tree points to unlock stalwart. You would definitely not be able to take anything from the other two ranger lines if you wanted rog stuff. However it may be more beneficial to you to drop any rog stuff as you can only get 1 levels worth of stuff for a second ranger tree like deepwood for some favored bonuses.

I think it's far more likely for something to get broken in this new setup from some combo of new enhancements versus someone not getting enough of what they already have.


its' still looking like my pures, 18/1/1s, and 18/2s will wind-up getting better with these changes. My 12/6/2s on the other hand we'll have to see. It won't be able to get everything I want but a net-gain is looking likely.

Turbine needs to give us more information.

[Chai]

I see you guys are tralking about the Ghengis build...

I think the Ghengis is going to be blown right off the map. Ive been playing one for 4+ years now with X bard 2 fighter 2 barbarian - (cap being 20 its 16/2/2) - Its a fantastic melee warchanter.

Why be anything less than 20 bard when its likely the most popular and functional bards will be pure + racial combat PRE.

Hmmm, 2 capstones over 0 capstones possible, enhancements, spells, and buffs all the way to 20, on top of whatever racial PRE you choose.

What would you gain from 2barbarian + 2fighter enhancement wise that doesnt get completely destroyed by being able to go up 2 bard trees and an entire racial melee PRE? Top that off with more spell points for not splashing, capstone, +1 more hit and damage on song.

Going up spellsinger AND warchanter tree + racial combat tree will turn multiclass bards into second rate builds. Heres where the discussion splits because while the "optimists" (LOL) will claim that the new bards will still be more powerful than the old ones were, the realists (s'right) understand that we have entered the cookie cutter bard era. Trees will likely be warchanter + spellsinger + racial combat. 16/2/2 wont hold a candle to it. The reasons to take barbarian and fighter levels decrease due to the three tree limit. I like my point of con, point of str, extra rage, 10 more HP, run speed, attack speed boost, but if you take all that, now you have to be either warchanter OR spellsinger - cant be both. Goodbye Ghengis, nice knowing ye....Was a great build under the current system, but will disappear once we can be both warchanter and spellsinger in the same bard, with a three tree limit. Ghengis is a perfect example of a build that WOULD BE viable if there was no tree limit, because all the enhancements from barbarian and fighter can still be taken while still being able to go up spellsinger and warchanter trees. This will not be the case however....

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

And I do not disagree. But this does not mean that Emerald and Genghis will remain viable builds.

Very true. This is exactly why until we get more data, there is no way to know for certain how one build compares to another, as we don't even know what the prestiges will come packaged with and how they will relate to each other.

We can only speak loosely at this point, and I agree fully, as I've said all along, our opinions may change drastically when Turbine divulges more info.

[dkyle]

Very true. This is exactly why until we get more data, there is no way to know for certain how one build compares to another, as we don't even know what the prestiges will come packaged with and how they will relate to each other.

We don't need to be certain how one build compares to another! I am not claiming to be certain. It is needlessly restrictive to demand certainty at this stage. That is the whole point I'm trying to make, that you keep dodging. What we believe is likely given the available evidence is sufficient for the purposes of feedback.

And you seem to understand this on some level, seeing as you've made statements about the viability of Genghis and Emerald. All I'm asking is why those statements are certain enough to be said, yet a comparison of Emerald and pure Monk is somehow so uncertain it can't even be attempted. Again, a statement of viability requires the ability to compare builds. Claiming that a build will be viable is a stronger claim than comparing two specific builds, because the claim of viability inherently implies a comparison to all alternatives. Do you not agree?


We can only speak loosely at this point, and I agree fully, as I've said all along, our opinions may change drastically when Turbine divulges more info.

First, whether or not our opinions may change drastically is entirely besides the point. This thread is about the specific set of rules that the devs have proposed. We should not withhold our feedback or throw up our hands and give up just because our opinions might change with more info. That defeats the whole point of the thread.

Second, you haven't always been speaking "loosely".

These statements both sound at least as certain as anything I currently believe about where the system will end up:


Looking at the Emerald build, stats/gear are unaffected so hp are safe. Class split, gear and stats ensure saves are safe. I see the potential for gains here through a windfall of newly available AP. I think Emerald builds are fairly safe at this point, and potentially have something to look forward to in the new system.


But, I cant imagine a mixed class monk with 800+ hp, 40+ saves, 90+ AC with an abundance of DPS and further gains from the new trees have a whole lot to worry about! ;)

Why can you make statements like these, but not compare what you expect of Emerald vs. Pure Monk?

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

Why be anything less than 20 bard when its likely the most popular and functional bards............................................. .............................

Ok Chai, anyone who starts off with "Why be anything less than..." makes me laugh. Such a narrow viewpoint is not very well fitted for character creation, most certainly not a bard! :D

There will be plenty of reasons for bards to multi-class in the new system. Pure bards do not get 100% ownership in any tree. There hopefully will be many reasons to go pure or to go multi, and if I need to make adjustments I'm perfectly willing to make them if they make sense to the build.

Now about the "blown out of the water" comment, you are on dream street...

Bards versatility will make it much more likely to integrate smoothly into the new system. I think bards might be gaining the most of all the classes out of these changes, as we get rehauled enhancements and finished PrEs, its just pure unlettered to think any bard is "blown out of the water" at this early stage (6+ months to go, and very incomplete info released thusfar, including absolutely nothing about bard PrEs).

You are welcome to debate in my thread this summer whether the choices I make are valid or not, and whether it is worth persuading as a build option vs pures, or any other split. Im going on my intuition that there room for almost everybody, if you plan effectively.

[Silverleafeon]

Silly, silly, silly me...

Overlooking the obvious that I already know.

Epic level are coming.

The level cap will eventually go to 30 (maybe higher).

Going back to the Epic Rules for 3rd edition handbook~~

When one hits level 21, one can take an epic level in a class that already has 20 levels,
or you can take a level in another class.

Hence, a fighter might have 20 normal levels along with 10 epic levels,
or a fighter might have 18 normal levels for Kensie 3 along with 12 cleric levels for Radiant Servant 2.

Obviously the list would go on, and the Epic enhancements are separate from heroic enhancements, but the class potential splits could be far different than people are describing here in this thread.

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Epic_Level_Basics

[LeLoric]

I see you guys are tralking about the Ghengis build...

I think the Ghengis is going to be blown right off the map. Ive been playing one for 4+ years now with X bard 2 fighter 2 barbarian - (cap being 20 its 16/2/2) - Its a fantastic melee warchanter.

Why be anything less than 20 bard when its likely the most popular and functional bards will be pure + racial combat PRE.

Hmmm, 2 capstones over 0 capstones possible, enhancements, spells, and buffs all the way to 20, on top of whatever racial PRE you choose.

What would you gain from 2barbarian + 2fighter enhancement wise that doesnt get completely destroyed by being able to go up 2 bard trees and an entire racial melee PRE? Top that off with more spell points for not splashing, capstone, +1 more hit and damage on song.

Going up spellsinger AND warchanter tree + racial combat tree will turn multiclass bards into second rate builds. Heres where the discussion splits because while the "optimists" (LOL) will claim that the new bards will still be more powerful than the old ones were, the realists (s'right) understand that we have entered the cookie cutter bard era. Trees will likely be warchanter + spellsinger + racial combat. 16/2/2 wont hold a candle to it. The reasons to take barbarian and fighter levels decrease due to the three tree limit. I like my point of con, point of str, extra rage, 10 more HP, run speed, attack speed boost, but if you take all that, now you have to be either warchanter OR spellsinger - cant be both. Goodbye Ghengis, nice knowing ye....Was a great build under the current system, but will disappear once we can be both warchanter and spellsinger in the same bard, with a three tree limit. Ghengis is a perfect example of a build that WOULD BE viable if there was no tree limit, because all the enhancements from barbarian and fighter can still be taken while still being able to go up spellsinger and warchanter trees. This will not be the case however....

2 capstones is 82 total ap spent not mention the ap spent for racial lines to unlock the racial pre.

Bards are notoriously light on feats and even with some relaxing of feat requirements a splash for feats alone is probably still going to be a decent choice. 16/2/2 may no longer be that good but if they sayed with the current setup and added just tier 3 of warchanter odds are the 16/2/2 would morph to 18/2 anyways. I think many melee focused bards may go 18/2 warchanter 3 and racial like you said with the two ftr being for feats and maybe a small splash into kensai tree or possibly pdk depending on what it does. 18/1/1 may be good too and keep the run speed many love.

[LeLoric]

its' still looking like my pures, 18/1/1s, and 18/2s will wind-up getting better with these changes. My 12/6/2s on the other hand we'll have to see. It won't be able to get everything I want but a net-gain is looking likely.

Turbine needs to give us more information.

Yeah in all reality things will probably see a slight increase for the most part even if they don't get exactly what they have now.

More info would be nice yes. Tease us a little more with some tidbit today MadFloyd.

[dkyle]

There will be plenty of reasons for bards to multi-class in the new system. Pure bards do not get 100% ownership in any tree. There hopefully will be many reasons to go pure or to go multi, and if I need to make adjustments I'm perfectly willing to make them if they make sense to the build.

What rules described in this thread seem likely to increase viability of deep multi-class and multi-splash Bards, compared to pure or single-splash Bards? Because, obviously, being unable to reasonably take enhancements from those Rogue/Fighter/Barb levels tends to reduce the viability of multiclasses, compared to the current system. What new rule do you believe counterbalances that loss, in favor of deep multis?

Or are you simply speculating based on wishful thinking, and just assuming that the devs will get it right, and accomplish the goals they've stated? Your "hopefully" sounds like that's the case.

[boomer70]

Ok Chai, anyone who starts off with "Why be anything less than..." makes me laugh. Such a narrow viewpoint is not very well fitted for toon creation, most certainly not a bard! :D

There will be plenty of reasons for bards to multi-class in the new system. Pure bards do not get 100% ownership in any tree. There hopefully will be many reasons to go pure or to go multi, and if I need to make adjustments I'm perfectly willing to make them if they make sense to the build.

Now about the "blown out of the water" comment, you are on dream street...

Bards versatility will make it much more likely to integrate smoothly into the new system. I think bards might be gaining the most of all the classes out of these changes, as we get rehauled enhancements and finished PrEs, its just pure unlettered to think any bard is "blown out of the water" at this early stage (6+ months to go, and very incomplete info released thusfar, including absolutely nothing about bard PrEs).

Pure bards may in fact gain the most out of the changes. A bards versatility often plays well with multiclassing. Multiclass to heighten one aspect of a bard at the expense of the others. In order to make 3 independant trees for bards I would envision that there will be enhancements that end up doing what multiclassing does now i.e. strengthening aspects of a bard moreso than is currently the case. Warchanter is likely to get more combat related enhancements (remember they have to fill up a whole tree with (probably) unique enhancements). So if I can do what multiclassing does without losing any class features why would i multi?

This is on top of the silly 3 tree limit that if enhancements are split among 3 trees will mean that multiclasses will have to actually be less versatile (because they have to sacrifice a weak tree) in order to hope to compete with pure builds. This will either lead to far fewer multiclasses in general or at least fewer multiclass builds once someone figures out what the exact right splits are to make a multi build viable.

[dkyle]

Silly, silly, silly me...

Overlooking the obvious that I already know.

Epic level are coming.

The level cap will eventually go to 30 (maybe higher).

Going back to the Epic Rules for 3rd edition handbook~~

When one hits level 21, one can take an epic level in a class that already has 20 levels,
or you can take a level in another class.

Hence, a fighter might have 20 normal levels along with 10 epic levels,
or a fighter might have 18 normal levels for Kensie 3 along with 12 cleric levels for Radiant Servant 2.

Obviously the list would go on, and the Epic enhancements are separate from heroic enhancements, but the class potential splits could be far different than people are describing here in this thread.

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Epic_Level_Basics

We've been told that Epic levels will not work that way. They won't just be additional class levels. They will use a different system.

[LeLoric]

What rules described in this thread seem likely to increase viability of deep multi-class and multi-splash Bards, compared to pure or single-splash Bards? Because, obviously, being unable to reasonably take enhancements from those Rogue/Fighter/Barb levels tends to reduce the viability of multiclasses, compared to the current system. What new rule do you believe counterbalances that loss, in favor of deep multis?

Or are you simply speculating based on wishful thinking, and just assuming that the devs will get it right, and accomplish the goals they've stated? Your "hopefully" sounds like that's the case.

For many bards just getting the extra feats from fighter levels will often be enough reason to splash. Regardless of enhancement system. There are still lots of benefits just from being a class even if you cant or dont want to take any of the enhancements. In all likelyhood the only thing you would miss out on by splashing is any class granted stuff (mighty rage for barbs, caster spell slots, etc.) and the 41 point capstone. Actually there has been no confirmation that the capstone would require lev 20. If a class likes the benefit of 2 feats, evasion, pally saves, barb run speed, umd or anything similar over a capstone choice they will splash it's that simple.

We also have literally no idea how the epic levels are going to play out and how that factors into all this something the devs have to keep in mind for a lot of this development.

[Failedlegend]

Well it's a good thing I spent so much time on working out those enhancements and speculating on the future because the people that asked me to do so completely ignored them.

http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p=4274402&postcount=2939

Edit: OH sorry one person did respond...to tell me all my data is invalid due because its speculation...but this entire thread is speculation...which the devs asked us to comment on despite the need to speculate..but according you guys we shouldn't provide feedback to will get more information...but the Devs want feedback before they move ahead and they can't give us more info until they move ahead so they need our feedback but we shouldn't give feedback until we move ahead but they need ou...you get it yet or should I say it a few more times.


For many bards just getting the extra feats from fighter levels will often be enough reason to splash. Regardless of enhancement system. There are still lots of benefits just from being a class even if you cant or dont want to take any of the enhancements. In all likelyhood the only thing you would miss out on by splashing is any class granted stuff (mighty rage for barbs, caster spell slots, etc.) and the 41 point capstone. Actually there has been no confirmation that the capstone would require lev 20. If a class likes the benefit of 2 feats, evasion, pally saves, barb run speed, umd or anything similar over a capstone choice they will splash it's that simple.

We also have literally no idea how the epic levels are going to play out and how that factors into all this something the devs have to keep in mind for a lot of this development.

Yes but thats not the system that's changing enhancements are so other systems such as feats and class abilities are largely irrelevant in this thread especially since as I showed alot of multi-class build rely on enhancements to be viable vs. Single-Class builds especially one's that don't have Full BAB progression or have Non-Caster Levels etc.

The simple fact is Single class and multiclasses are both gaining alot from this new system due to new enhancements, improved enhancements,etc. and although we don't know what those are we can consider them equal until we actually see them for the purpose of speculation but when we look at possible losses Multi-Classes clearly lose alot while Single classes lose nothing leading to a clear net loss for Multis..this honestly isn't opinion based on the best we can speculate on the current information this new system in its current state is detrimental to Multiclasses (The Favored PrE System, Multiclass PrEs, Actual racially themed racial PrEs, Removing the Tree Limit & A Tabbed UI instead of a single tab could all help with this)

[Chai]

Ok Chai, anyone who starts off with "Why be anything less than..." makes me laugh. Such a narrow viewpoint is not very well fitted for character creation, most certainly not a bard! :D

Its exactly that, the NARROWING of possible options that makes what I stated true. You are supporting the narrow viewpoint here, not myself. I am supporting removing the three tree limitation which doesnt currently exist but will in the new system if they go ahead with it as planned.


There will be plenty of reasons for bards to multi-class in the new system. Pure bards do not get 100% ownership in any tree. There hopefully will be many reasons to go pure or to go multi, and if I need to make adjustments I'm perfectly willing to make them if they make sense to the build.

This is incorrect. Pure bards can climb 2 bard trees and a racial tree.

In relation to ehnancements, what are these reasons to splash? None. In order to take one enhancement from a 2 level limited fighter tree you need to sacrifice an entire bard tree or your entire racial to do so. Call it an assumption if you want, but I dont feel 2 level limited fighter tree will


Now about the "blown out of the water" comment, you are on dream street...

Much of the ghengis combat strength lies in those barbarian + fighter levels - if you take enhancements in both, you will be restricting yourself to merely one bard tree, OR one racial tree, not both. Being high up in spellsinger, high up in warchanter, and high up in racial PRE will completely PWN enhancements in 2 level restricted fighter, 2 level restricted barbarian, and one bard OR one racial tree.


Bards versatility will make it much more likely to integrate smoothly into the new system. I think bards might be gaining the most of all the classes out of these changes, as we get rehauled enhancements and finished PrEs, its just pure unlettered to think any bard is "blown out of the water" at this early stage (6+ months to go, and very incomplete info released thusfar, including absolutely nothing about bard PrEs)....

Bards are versatile now....however, not in the new system as far as builds go when limited to 3 trees. I have clearly demonstrated how the three tree limit does away with multiclassing and makes pure the best choice. Enter the era of cookie cutter pure bards being the best optimized builds.


You are welcome to debate in my thread this summer whether the choices I make are valid or not, and whether it is worth persuading as a build option vs pures, or any other split. Im going on my intuition that there room for almost everybody, if you plan effectively.

I will be more than happy to outline what you are losing by not staying pure bard, and having full access to spellsinger, warchanter, and racial trees. This will be the cookie cutter combo - the splashes will be second rate. Pure will provide the best of spellsinger and warchanter + the racial combat PRE. The whole point of the ghengis level split is to make use of barbarian con, run speed, toughness, extra rage, and rage duration + fighter haste boost, + 1str + 2 feats. You will still have the two feats, but if you take the class enhancements I just outlined, you now have one tree left. Your choices will be 16 level limit in warchanter OR spellsinger OR virtuoso OR full racial PRE. One of the above. That level split isnt worth it without the enhancements. Taking the enhancements in the split classes compromises the rest of the build options. Meanwhile in other news, pure bard will have access to full spellsinger, full warchanter, and full racial PRE. This debate in the upcoming summer thread wont be a debate at all I think. It will be a long list of stuff the ghengis loses to pure bards. Each time you put an enhancement point into either one of the two splash classes, that list gets longer, as you just sacrificed an entire tree somewhere else to do so.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

Why can you make statements like these, but not compare what you expect of Emerald vs. Pure Monk?

Builds like Emerald rely so heavily on class split, gear and stats to do what they do best.

Without a look at whats contained in the trees, I'm just not ready to offer my opinion on a comparison between mutli vs pure monk (same as I said with bards) because I just dont know enough details. All I can say with a fair amount of certainty is Emerald looks like it will be highly effective in a PvE setting in most any quest in the game in the right hands.

[dkyle]

For many bards just getting the extra feats from fighter levels will often be enough reason to splash.

Depends on the feat prereq situation. If weapon focus goes away as a Warchanter prereq (which seems likely), that dramatically reduces the incentive to splash.

But still, extra feats plus enhancements is simply a greater incentive than extra feats alone. Just because there's still some reason to splash, doesn't mean the incentive to do so isn't reduced. The claim isn't that there will be no reason to splash. Rather, that there will be less reason to splash. Especially double-splashes.


Actually there has been no confirmation that the capstone would require lev 20.

We've been told that the bonus tiers require levels 3/6/9/12/15/18/20. For Racial PrEs, those are character levels. But there haven't been any announced Bard Racial PrEs, and class PrEs are class level.


We also have literally no idea how the epic levels are going to play out and how that factors into all this something the devs have to keep in mind for a lot of this development.

Indeed. Therefore, they can't really play any role in our feedback. Withhold feedback because of unknown information is counterproductive. We should endeavor to do the best we can with the info we do have.

[kingfisher]

I think it's far more likely for something to get broken in this new setup from some combo of new enhancements versus someone not getting enough of what they already have.

the 3 tree limit is dumb, serves no purpose, and takes a lot of the flavor and variety out of many builds. i also dont think it will break the game, just make it less interesting along with causing a lot of people to lr/tr. its pretty clear that pures will be getting a larger boost than multi's so limitng the perks of mulitclassing, whether they are worth taking or not, feels like an additional, uneeded kick in the pants.


I have to agree with Cyr here... Pointing out all the possible worthless combos like it's a good thing scares me. Ten good builds, and 54,000 crappy ones is not a good system...

All we care about is that we still have 100+ decent builds like we do today.

imo this is where we are headed. not necessarily just 10 good builds, but a limited number of widely accepted builds as opposed to the larger variety we have now. sure you will be able to make 961597649 combos, but why would you?


Actually, it's the opposite... Most crys of "It's going to break the game!" have been completely wrong in the past...

I'm willing to mostly wait and see without declaring doom... I'm very glad we get a chance to offer feedback.

idk about 'breaking' the game, but it could just make it less original, less fun, and less interesting for some while making it easier for others. its that change towards what most other mmo's are like that bothers people. that and the idea of having to lr/tr numerous builds because someone at turbine decided that changing the enhancement system was on the top of their list.

there is no choice but to wait and see but they did ask for feedback (careful what you ask for! ;))


its' still looking like my pures, 18/1/1s, and 18/2s will wind-up getting better with these changes. My 12/6/2s on the other hand we'll have to see. It won't be able to get everything I want but a net-gain is looking likely.

Turbine needs to give us more information.

the 12/6/2 builds stand to suffer the most maybe because they are in some case built around pre's. 18/x and pures stand to gain, depending on their race.

the racial pre's, imo, are the biggest risk to both variety and unbalance. especially using exsisting class pre's for the racials. imo it would be bad to give a racial pre that is such a boost to dps (or tanking or whatever) that any build going for top dps needs to be that race or it will fall way down in comparison. besides that some of the choices are questionable, like giving drow tempest. give me a break with the salvatore stuff please.

imo racial pre's should be small and cheap and ORIGINAL, not something thats already out there and available in a class.

[dkyle]

Builds like Emerald rely so heavily on class split, gear and stats to do what they do best.

How is Emerald any less dependent on enhancements than Pure Monk? I'd say it's far more dependent on enhancements!

I have a build that's similar to Emerald (Fighter12/Monk8 instead of Fighter6/Monk14). I can safely say that the split is all about enhancements. Without enhancements, the build makes little sense.


Without a look at whats contained in the trees, I'm just not ready to offer my opinion on a comparison between mutli vs pure monk (same as I said with bards) because I just dont know enough details. All I can say with a fair amount of certainty is Emerald looks like it will be highly effective in a PvE setting in most any quest in the game in the right hands.

Whether it'll be capable of being "effective" isn't the important question. Almost any build can be "effective" in sufficiently skilled hands. How it compares to alternative builds is the important question.

If all you mean to say is that the Emerald build won't be nerfed to the point of being completely useless, then I would agree. But that tells me nothing about what I care about, which is having a vibrant ecosystem of viable builds.

If pure Monk with racial SDIII outclasses Emerald, as seems likely to me given what we know, then it isn't really a viable choice any more. Whether a skilled person can be "effective" with it or not. A truly skilled person would recognize that he'd be even more effective with a better build.

And why aren't you ready to offer your opinion? Do you truly feel that both possible outcomes are completely, absolutely, equally likely? If you feel that either is even slightly more likely than the other, then why are you choosing to withhold potentially valuable feedback? I just don't get it... Why is sitting on your hands more helpful than engaging in discussion?

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

snip
Not interested in discussing it with you anymore Chai. Gave my outlook. You can agree or disagree. Have no more questions or answers for ya. If you want to see how bards stay relevant in 2012/2013, just watch my thread. I am expecting a big boost for Mississippee and a big boost in Genghis.

I'll discuss the details in my threads when I've made my final decisions.

[dkyle]

If you want to see how bards stay relevant in 2012/2013, just watch my thread. I am expecting a big boost for Mississippee and a big boost in Genghis.

Noone is denying the viability of Bards in general. You're reading things that just aren't there. The concern is deep multi and double-splashed Bard builds, in comparison to pure and single-splash builds.

I expect big boosts for both Mississippi and Genghis compared to their current state, too, under the current proposed system. I just expect a far bigger boost for pure builds like Mississippi than to builds like Genghis.


I'll discuss the details in my threads when I've made my final decisions.

This makes no sense to me. Why not discuss the details we have now, in this thread, when it can actually help the devs? How does waiting for a "final decision" help anyone?

Honestly, noone's going to think badly of you if you make an assessment now that turns out to not reflect the game that ultimately gets released. At least, I should certainly hope not. This thread is about the specific rules the devs have proposed at this time, not the game that ultimately gets released.

We're not planning builds here. We're discussing a proposed ruleset.

[kingfisher]

There will be plenty of reasons for bards to multi-class in the new system.

there will be less reason than there was before the change if they limit each character to 3 trees. no not NO reasons, just LESS. less is bad. idc how you spin it, having less will hurt the utility and flavor of many multiclass builds. the whole point here is too show that the 3 tree limit hurts some folks while helping none. there is no reason for it.

[Chai]

Not interested in discussing it with you anymore Chai. Gave my outlook. You can agree or disagree. Have no more questions or answers for ya. If you want to see how bards stay relevant in 2012/2013, just watch my thread. I am expecting a big boost for Mississippee and a big boost in Genghis.

I'll discuss the details in my threads when I've made my final decisions.

Bards will stay relevant. Pure bards.

I am expecting pure 20 bard spellsinger / warchanter / kensai (insert other racial PRE here) will be the big thing, and class splits like 16/2/2 to become "flavor builds" - a term I dont necessarily favor, but due to the ginormous differences in tree access between the pure and multiclass, is justified.

[Failedlegend]

Not interested in discussing it with you anymore Chai. Gave my outlook. You can agree or disagree. Have no more questions or answers for ya. If you want to see how bards stay relevant in 2012/2013, just watch my thread. I am expecting a big boost for Mississippee and a big boost in Genghis.

I'll discuss the details in my threads when I've made my final decisions.

Actually you really haven't you've really only disagreed with eveyrone else without actually giving any reasons let alone possible suggestions, told people we can't give proper feedback until we get more info despite the fact that the devs asked for feedback.

Your either trolling or just need attention cause honestly if we took all your posts out of this thread along with your supporters most of what would be left would be useful feedback for the devs.

Leslie's Stance: Trust the Devs, everything you say is wrong and I'm always right despite not actually making any suggestions or feeback.

Yeah I'm sure the devs find that REAL useful.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

And why aren't you ready to offer your opinion? Do you truly feel that both possible outcomes are completely, absolutely, equally likely? If you feel that either is even slightly more likely than the other, then why are you choosing to withhold potentially valuable feedback? I just don't get it... Why is sitting on your hands more helpful than engaging in discussion?

Because I'd rather be fairly certain before I speak. I'm fairly certain Chai is completely incorrect about multi-class bards. I'm fairly certain how Genghis and the Emerald build will operate (and yes I agree enhancements are vitally integral, but with the wrong stats and gear and class split, those #s just arent as luscious). 20 monk to me is a mystery. So is 20 Bard. You know why? Because it all comes down to how Turbine is going to define game balance. That will make enhancements PrEs and costs fluctuate. I can easily envision how they can underpower and overpower multis and pures, so really I dont feel like its very effective to say "multis are blown out of the water, or pures are blown out of the water". Beyond that, I'm waiting for the entire system (specifically the enhancements and tree structure/access) to be announced before I start breaking down pros and cons of one build vs another build in a public forum.

[Chai]

there will be less reason than there was before the change if they limit each character to 3 trees. no not NO reasons, just LESS. less is bad. idc how you spin it, having less will hurt the utility and flavor of many multiclass builds. the whole point here is too show that the 3 tree limit hurts some folks while helping none. there is no reason for it.

Exactly.

If they left the 3 tree limitation out of the plan what I outlined would still be a good pure build - spellsinger-warchanter-racial PRE. However...class splits like the ghengis would also still be optimal, because the sacrifice to being able to go all the way up each bard tree is made up for by the combat abilities gained in the enhancement lines of the splash classes. A three tree limitation makes that class split far less attractive than pure looks, because in order to use the splash class enhancements you have to sacrifice one of the bard trees, or the full racial tree.

Not having an arbitrary three tree limitation is a win win situation to both scenarios, and it is still limited by level split as well as total number of points one can spend.

[Silverleafeon]

I would also imagine that taking regular levels in a class after level 20 would result in extra heroic action points~4 per level.

[-Mojo-]

I realize not everyone will be interested in this sort of thing, but for those who are, here's an updated mockup of the race panel of the new enhancement UI.

http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j377/MadFloyd/EnhancementMockup2.jpg

Sorry so simplistic with this post but for the record, I think this Mock looks AWSOME!
if it is anything like this then Kudos...

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

if we took all your posts out of this thread along with your supporters most of what would be left would be useful feedback for the devs.

Said like a true patriot of his own opinion.

Your side has contributed, and so has ours. Who contributed more? I think its equal all the way around. We all stated what we want and dont want to happen. We all stated what we think will happen. Some of us believe "its already done" and some of us believe "theres a lot more to be decided." Some are willing to adapt to change and some fear change with their lives.

Bottom line is you simply disagree with our side. And that I'm ok with.

[kingfisher]

Not having an arbitrary three tree limitation is a win win situation to both scenarios, and it is still limited by level split as well as total number of points one can spend.

yep, and i really dont understand why some folks want to argue FOR this at all. makes no sense to me, unless you take into consideration previous posts where some stated that they believed multi's needed a nerf. then all the arguing for a 3 tree limit makes perfect sense. helps no one, hurts some, but hey all the other mmo's do it so why dont we? give me a break.

[boomer70]

Because I'd rather be fairly certain before I speak. I'm fairly certain Chai is completely incorrect about multi-class bards. I'm fairly certain how Genghis and the Emerald build will operate (and yes I agree enhancements are vitally integral, but with the wrong stats and gear and class split, those #s just arent as luscious). 20 monk to me is a mystery. So is 20 Bard. You know why? Because it all comes down to how Turbine is going to define game balance. That will make enhancements PrEs and costs fluctuate. I can easily envision how they can underpower and overpower multis and pures, so really I dont feel like its very effective to say "multis are blown out of the water, or pures are blown out of the water". Beyond that, I'm waiting for the entire system (specifically the enhancements and tree structure/access) to be announced before I start breaking down pros and cons of one build vs another build in a public forum.

Well if you are so certain they those particular builds will be fine please enlighten us. A lot of us don't see how that will be the case and maybe you have some insights that we are overlooking.

Given the ruleset of the proposed system I believe build variety will be negatively impacted. I think this is true for both pure, splash, and deep multis. With an arbitrary 3 tree limit there are going to be choices that are so clearly suboptimal that no one will make them. I believe it will be possible to make effective builds under whatever new system they implement I just also believe there will be far far fewer good ways to do that.

[Failedlegend]

Sorry so simplistic with this post but for the record, I think this Mock looks AWSOME!
if it is anything like this then Kudos...

Oh much agreed I love the subtle background enough detail to matter but not enough that it hurts your eyes trying to look at the icons...I would love if the whole UI took on this Grey, Blue, Silver,White Motif and dropped the horrid Burgundy and Gold (see reset tree button)


I would also imagine that taking regular levels in a class after level 20 would result in extra heroic action points~4 per level.

You've already been told it's a completely separate system

Anyways here's some example of deep multi-classes and their current enhancements


Remember all my below statements about enhancements and the new tree are pure educated speculation based on the current information we have.

Wizard12/Fighter6/Rogue2 (PM2/SD1) "Arcane Knight"


Enhancement: Fighter Armor Class Boost I Stalwart
Enhancement: Rogue Damage Boost I Likely Assassin
Enhancement: Fighter Haste Boost II Kensai
Enhancement: Rogue Skill Boost I Mech
Enhancement: Dwarven Armor Mastery I
Enhancement: Dwarven Axe Damage I
Enhancement: Fighter Armor Mastery I Stalwart
Enhancement: Fighter Stalwart Defender I Stalwart
Enhancement: Wizard Improved Empowering III Wild Mage?
Enhancement: Wizard Improved Maximizing III Wild Mage?
Enhancement: Racial Toughness I
Enhancement: Racial Toughness II
Enhancement: Improved Intimidate I Stalwart
Enhancement: Improved Intimidate II Stalwart
Enhancement: Improved Open Lock I Mech
Enhancement: Improved Search I Mech
Enhancement: Acid Manipulation I
Enhancement: Frost Manipulation I
Enhancement: Storm Manipulation I
Enhancement: Flame Manipulation I
Unsure but their likely going to be split up
Enhancement: Wizard Energy of the Scholar I Archmage?
Enhancement: Wizard Energy of the Scholar II Archmage?
Enhancement: Wizard Intelligence I
Enhancement: Wizard Intelligence II
Probably all 3
Enhancement: Fighter Strength II Kensai
Enhancement: Fighter Toughness II Stalwart
Enhancement: Wizard Wand and Scroll Mastery I
Enhancement: Wizard Wand and Scroll Mastery II
Enhancement: Wizard Pale Master II Palemaster
Enhancement: Shroud of the Wraith Palemaster
Enhancement: Shroud of the Zombie Palemaster


Ok so let's that tallies up to Palemaster, Stalwart, Kensai, Archmage, Wild Mage, Mech and possibly Assassin...so that 6 Trees..possibly 7.....yep that one is broke

Sorc16/Paladin2/Rogue2 "Tukaw"


max in fire/cold
40% in force, max lineage of force (9% crit) but none in boost crit
sneak damage bonus +3
full wf power attack (-8 +16)
skill boost +2
haste boost
1 inscribe armor
+3 cha, +1 dex, +1 con, +40 hp (30 racial and 10 pally)

OK this one is a little less fleshed out..but here goes

Damage spells are likely to be split up so that Wild Mage, Palemaster & Archmage than he has HP boost from Defender of Syberis, than there's rogue haste boost which is likely Acrobat and SKill boost which is mech, SA Boost yeah thats Assassin.

So Tukaw clocks in at 7 Trees...yep that one is broken



Ok next up lets go with its Wizard cousin the "Mind Filleter"

Monk12/Wiz7/Fighter1


Enhancement: Fighter Haste Boost I Kensai
Enhancement: Fighter Strategy (Stunning Blow) I Kensai
Enhancement: Static Charge
Enhancement: Way of the Patient Tortoise III
Enhancement: Touch of Death Ninja Spy
Enhancement: Fists of Iron
Enhancement: Porous Soul
Enhancement: All-Consuming Flame
Enhancement: Monk Improved Recovery II Shintao
Enhancement: Monk Ninja Spy II Ninja Spy
Enhancement: Winter's Touch
Enhancement: Master of Stone
Enhancement: Master of Bonfires
These ones a little hard to place
Enhancement: Racial Toughness II
Enhancement: Improved Balance IV
Enhancement: Improved Concentration IV
Enhancement: Improved Jump II
Enhancement: Improved Tumble II
Enhancement: Acid Manipulation I
Enhancement: Frost Manipulation I
Enhancement: Storm Manipulation I
Enhancement: Flame Manipulation I
Likely a mix of all 3 wiz prestiges
Enhancement: Wizard Energy of the Scholar I
Enhancement: Wizard Intelligence I
Enhancement: Monk Wisdom II
Enhancement: Fighter Toughness I Stalwart
Enhancement: Wizard Wand and Scroll Mastery II
Enhancement: Wizard Pale Master I Palemaster
Enhancement: Shroud of the Zombie Palemaster



Ok when we look at Monk its really hard to place abilities but it will likely take at least 2 PrEs, than from fighter stuff we have Kensai and Stalwart and than for wizard there's at LEAST Palemaster but the elements will likely be broken up so could be all 3...so that tallies up to any where between 5 & 9 Trees...regardless this build is broken.



Want me to show more I'm pretty sure these remaining builds won't fair any better. Even if the above and below builds aren't completely broken they at LEAST lose ALOT...and honestly there's no reason NOT to remove the 3 Tree Limit.....its your turn guys now that I proved builds WILL be broken or at least brought down to a few rungs. Now prove to me that there's reason NOT to unlock it (and no your "options" math is bubcus try something else)

Rogue13/Favored Soul6/Monk1 (Acro2/AoV1) "Favoured Pole"

Rogue13/Monk6/Fighter1 (Acro2/NS1) "Ugly Stick"

Monk12/Fighter7/Arty1 (NS2/Kensai1) "Monkchersai"

Arty8/Rogue6/Ranger6 (BE1/Mech1/DWS1) "Long-shot"

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

I believe it will be possible to make effective builds under whatever new system they implement I just also believe there will be far far fewer good ways to do that.

That we will find out soon enough.... ahem... I mean this coming summer! :p

Its going to be a long freaking wait :(

[LeLoric]

the 3 tree limit is dumb, serves no purpose, and takes a lot of the flavor and variety out of many builds. i also dont think it will break the game, just make it less interesting along with causing a lot of people to lr/tr. its pretty clear that pures will be getting a larger boost than multi's so limitng the perks of mulitclassing, whether they are worth taking or not, feels like an additional, uneeded kick in the pants.



Saying something is dumb is the absolute worst way to try and present a point. It undermines anything else you want to say. It's also the worst way to get any dev to ever take your comment seriously. You may not like what they are doing but that still doesn't leave any reason to insult their work.

The rest of what you say is speculation. There is no way to say that any of what you say is true or even likely true without further information. Fact is devs have stated many of our current enhancements will be gone and others will be combined. Many new ones will also be added.

I am sceptical myself of limiting trees but also can see some of the need for it in limiting stacking abilities and the likes. It may mean that every build may not have exactly what they have now but that also opens up ways to take something different that you currently can't. I also see a need to at least have some sort of similarity in that a fighter is still a fighter and a rog is still a rogue. Unlimited choices blur the class lines too much making lfm grouping much more of a crapshoot than it is now. Too much variation makes it too hard to create content and gear to fit everyone. The system as laid out will still have many different options and character builds available many of which will be heavy splashes. Maybe not as much now but truth be told some classes have no reason to go beyond a certain lev now as they get all of their bonus by then. Other classes really get nothing for large stretches of their development. Getting nothing from lev 12 until 18 or 20 in a class is not good for creative design. This is bad design and a new system can help fix this if done right.

Fact is enhancements are only part of the equation here. We also have class abilities and feats and also the new epic system being implemented. Class abilities are often reason for a splash as much as any enhancement currently. This will remain a popular reason for splashing.

[Failedlegend]

Unlimited choices blur the class lines too much making lfm grouping much more of a crapshoot than it is now.

GOOD can we get rid of MyDDO while were at it cause that would be an improvement to grouping in my books.

When I throw up an LFM beyond specific requirements (ie. Need 30+ Str for lever) I just take the first 5 or 11 people that hit the LFM.

[dkyle]

Because I'd rather be fairly certain before I speak.

Certain about where the game will be when it's released? Or certain about the biases and tendencies of the specific set of rules proposed in the thread?

And either way, how does waiting for certainty help the devs with feedback, more than saying where you think things are currently leaning?


I'm fairly certain how Genghis and the Emerald build will operate (and yes I agree enhancements are vitally integral, but with the wrong stats and gear and class split, those #s just arent as luscious).

20 monk to me is a mystery. So is 20 Bard. You know why? Because it all comes down to how Turbine is going to define game balance.

How are 20 Monk and 20 Bard any more or less dependent on how "Turbine is going to define game balance"?

Why can you be fairly certain how Genghis and Emerald will operate, and not how 20 Monk and 20 Bard will operate?


That will make enhancements PrEs and costs fluctuate. I can easily envision how they can underpower and overpower multis and pures, so really I dont feel like its very effective to say "multis are blown out of the water, or pures are blown out of the water".

"Blown out of the water" is obviously a hyperbole. But it's a statement of what seems likely given what we know currently. The "effective" part is the argument justifying that statement.

And of course you can envision both ways. So can I. But such non-commitment is useless. Unless you think "both ways" are absolutely equally likely, arguing which one you think is more likely is useful.


Beyond that, I'm waiting for the entire system (specifically the enhancements and tree structure/access) to be announced before I start breaking down pros and cons of one build vs another build in a public forum.

Then, frankly, you're choosing to be less useful to the process than you could be, and I think you're missing the whole point of the thread. This is a feedback thread; not a build advice for Update 14 or whatever thread. You've basically spent the whole thread telling us that we shouldn't really even be discussing the system, since we can't "know" what will happen. Instead of actually engaging in a real discussion, and analyzing the rules as we know them, to provide useful feedback, you seem to prefer to undermine that discussion.

If I claim that the rules are likely to harm deep multiclasses, a counterargument that contributes to the discussion and provides useful feedback would be one that argues that the rules are not likely to do so. Not a blanket statement that I can't possibly "know" that will happen. Yes, I'm well aware of that. But it's besides the point. I'm not claiming to "know" what will happen when the system is actually released.

A provisional analysis of Emerald vs Pure 20 Monk now, no matter how uncertain, plus a final analysis latter, is strictly more useful, as feedback to the devs, than sitting on your hands now, and doing a final analysis latter.



Said like a true patriot of his own opinion.

Your side has contributed, and so has ours. Who contributed more? I think its equal all the way around. We all stated what we want and dont want to happen. We all stated what we think will happen. Some of us believe "its already done" and some of us believe "theres a lot more to be decided." Some are willing to adapt to change and some fear change with their lives.

Who in this thread believes "it's already done"? Who in this thread is unwilling to adapt to change? Please cite specifics.


Bottom line is you simply disagree with our side. And that I'm ok with.

It's more than that. I disagree with Aash's arguments, because I do not think they are sound. But I ultimately believe that he is genuinely trying to produce real feedback.

I disagree with your fundamental approach to this thread. You do not appear to be interested in providing actual, useful feedback to the devs. You seem more interested in being non-committal and "optimistic" now, so you can be "right" when the system is released.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

Well if you are so certain they those particular builds will be fine please enlighten us. A lot of us don't see how that will be the case and maybe you have some insights that we are overlooking.

Because there will always be people that just knows how to make builds work. There is a community that will have folks come forward to show how things work and offer ideas and proven methods that can only be realized through extensive gameplay. Then people will decide for themselves what they like and dont like about what info is being offered online. (Imagine DDO with out the DDOwiki or the DDOforums) Information travels and good methods and bad methods become realized in time.

I think this new system will spur MORE PEOPLE to the forums to talk about their experiences/new builds etc. I see that as really good for the game.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

And either way, how does waiting for certainty help the devs with feedback, more than saying where you think things are currently leaning?

Because I prefer facts to fiction when it comes to spending time discussing builds and how they relate to each other.

Everyone has offered their opinion on a vast array of topics. Some have simply repeated said opinion hundreds of times. I'm the type of person who prefers to say things once. Twice if you didnt hear me. I dont like walls of text nor do I like repeating myself endlessly for the sole purpose of discussing potentially improbable outcomes. Dont have time for that. I'm happy just reading and pick and choose when and where I decide to give an opinion. I think everyone's opinion is equally valuable.

It is all speculation at this point. Today I speculated about a couple of builds. Nothing is set in stone. Not until the devs say it is.

[leadhead]

No frustration here. The tree idea is awesome, it would really help me plan my character.

If the enhancement changes mess up my current characters...well I have altitus anyway so its just a great excuse to reroll LOL!

[Silverleafeon]

Since the level cap is increasing, I assume that one can continue taking multiclassing levels such as:

15 cleric and 15 wizard (when the level cap is 30)

I also asume one would gain 40 heroic action points extra due to taking heroic multiclass levels as one gained Epic levels 21 thru 30. (4 per level)

One would lose any Epic enhancement action points, Epic feats, Epic class features, Epic spellcasting, ect...

All in all, a rather significant eye opening point of view.

Looking forward with great interest to the year of the Dragon, and hoping to get a cute pet for my main character.

[boomer70]

Because there will always be people that just knows how to make builds work. There is a community that will have folks come forward to show how things work and offer ideas and proven methods that can only be realized through extensive gameplay. Then people will decide for themselves what they like and dont like about what info is being offered online. (Imagine DDO with out the DDOwiki or the DDOforums) Information travels and good methods and bad methods become realized in time.

I think this new system will spur MORE PEOPLE to the forums to talk about their experiences/new builds etc. I see that as really good for the game.

Well then I guess I will have to bow to your ultimate build godness. You are so awesome that you can build anything with one hand tied behind your back (3 tree limit) and hopping on one leg (no general enhancements) while blindfolded (non-unique racial PrE).

Those of us that are not build savants are trying to provide feedback that will make the character creation process useful and enjoyable for us mortals (and not just GuitarGods).

I do think you are right that if the system were to be implemented as proposed more people would be spurred to the forums I just don't think it would be for the good of the game. You think this thread is bad, wait till you inflict this on the 99% of people not reading this thread.

[Cyr]

Saying something is dumb is the absolute worst way to try and present a point. It undermines anything else you want to say. It's also the worst way to get any dev to ever take your comment seriously. You may not like what they are doing but that still doesn't leave any reason to insult their work.


If someone feels something is dumb then it is the honest way of presenting their point and the most accurate way.

There is nothing wrong with stating how you feel about someone's work product particularly when they are asking for feedback about it. If you feel it is dumb then saying something else is counterproductive.

People can throw up their hands and say that they are taking their ball and going home, but a developer who does this over feedback is only hurting themselves and their company by doing so. Customers giving honest feedback is a blessing be it negative or positive. It allows a company to tailor their product to their customers tastes. That is awesome for the bottom line at the end of the day.

Oh as for devs ignoring you if you say something they did was 'dumb' that is complete garbage. You might not get as many jokes between the devs and you when you post or conversations about kickers, but about the real stuff they are just as likely if not more likely to respond and remember your comments then those who self moderate their feedback into the most banal of terms.

[LeLoric]

If someone feels something is dumb then it is the honest way of presenting their point and the most accurate way.

There is nothing wrong with stating how you feel about someone's work product particularly when they are asking for feedback about it. If you feel it is dumb then saying something else is counterproductive.

People can throw up their hands and say that they are taking their ball and going home, but a developer who does this over feedback is only hurting themselves and their company by doing so. Customers giving honest feedback is a blessing be it negative or positive. It allows a company to tailor their product to their customers tastes. That is awesome for the bottom line at the end of the day.

Oh as for devs ignoring you if you say something they did was 'dumb' that is complete garbage. You might not get as many jokes between the devs and you when you post or conversations about kickers, but about the real stuff they are just as likely if not more likely to respond and remember your comments then those who self moderate their feedback into the most banal of terms.

Dumb is an argument for third graders. It offers no feedback at all and sets the reader on the offensive immediately. Dev's I am sure listen to feedback but dumb is not feedback.

Example: Dev's your idea won't work because it interracts poorly with this. (Feedback)

Example: Dev's this is dumb and wont work (not feedback)

You can disagree with something without insulting it's possible even on the internet.

[dkyle]

Because I prefer facts to fiction when it comes to spending time discussing builds and how they relate to each other.

It's not facts vs fiction. It's the current set of facts, vs the set of facts we'll have later.

We know many facts about a system of rules that the devs have asked feedback about. Why are you unwilling to give real feedback about that specific set of rules?


Everyone has offered their opinion on a vast array of topics. Some have simply repeated said opinion hundreds of times. I'm the type of person who prefers to say things once. Twice if you didnt hear me. I dont like walls of text nor do I like repeating myself endlessly for the sole purpose of discussing potentially improbable outcomes. Dont have time for that. I'm happy just reading and pick and choose when and where I decide to give an opinion. I think everyone's opinion is equally valuable.

You do realize that we have almost exactly the same number of posts in this thread, right?

Also, Aash beats both of us by far, and is the most prolific poster, so repetition is hardly solely the domain of us "pessimists".

Bottom line is that not all opinions are equally valuable. If I were a dev, I'd much rather see post after post of "I don't like this, because it's likely to cause X, Y, and Z, and I think it should work this other way instead" than a whole thread of "I can't be certain of anything until I see everything, but I have faith in you guys to get it right!"


It is all speculation at this point. Today I speculated about a couple of builds. Nothing is set in stone. Not until the devs say it is.

Of course it is speculation. What you don't seem to understand is that speculation is the whole point of this thread. We are speculating about what we feel the impact a specific set of rules (that we know many facts about) is likely to have on the game. That's how we can give feedback on a propsed set of rules. Without "speculation", this thread would be entirely pointless, and the devs would get absolutely nothing of value from it.

I really don't understand why you think it's only worth discussing things that are set in stone. Doesn't it make much more sense to discuss things before they're set in stone, so the best possible things actually get set in stone?

If you were on a committee to commission a statue for a local historical site, would you argue against proofreading the inscription until it's "set in stone"? Because until then it would be "fiction"?

[Avidus]

I have posted a couple times in this thread. It has grown alot since then.
I have been following the discussion.

I do not like, want nor endorse a 3 tree limit. It seems needless and confining.
There are already plenty of restrictions in place there is no need for more.

Stating that there are a gajillion total combinations does no good for anyone. Did that number include all the PrE's? If so it was calulated incorrectly. Monk/Pally PrE's cannot mix with Barb/Bard PrE's. Also it has been mentioned that stances will play a role and more things will be stance like. So therefore DoS + Stalwart combinations must be thrown out as well.

Simply running through all the permutations and combinations is not always the answer.
Not to mention that just because something is a possible combination doesn't mean it will be used at all or even remotely enjoyable to anyone.

Simply stating that there are a gajillion combinations sounds like you are trying to 'sell' me on your idea without sound evidence that my concerns over the seemingly impending 3 tree limit are being addressed.

Also how many combinations do we have available now? How many of them do you see on the live servers?

We need to express our concerns now. Not once it is on Lamaland or whatever they change the name to. By then it will be too late for real, effective change. Express our concerns now, let the devs debate internally then come to us with another piece of information so we can give continuing feedback and help shape our game.

If we keep waiting for more information this change will pass us by.

[kingfisher]

Saying something is dumb is the absolute worst way to try and present a point. It undermines anything else you want to say. It's also the worst way to get any dev to ever take your comment seriously. You may not like what they are doing but that still doesn't leave any reason to insult their work.

The rest of what you say is speculation. There is no way to say that any of what you say is true or even likely true without further information. Fact is devs have stated many of our current enhancements will be gone and others will be combined. Many new ones will also be added.

I am sceptical myself of limiting trees but also can see some of the need for it in limiting stacking abilities and the likes. It may mean that every build may not have exactly what they have now but that also opens up ways to take something different that you currently can't. I also see a need to at least have some sort of similarity in that a fighter is still a fighter and a rog is still a rogue. Unlimited choices blur the class lines too much making lfm grouping much more of a crapshoot than it is now. Too much variation makes it too hard to create content and gear to fit everyone. The system as laid out will still have many different options and character builds available many of which will be heavy splashes. Maybe not as much now but truth be told some classes have no reason to go beyond a certain lev now as they get all of their bonus by then. Other classes really get nothing for large stretches of their development. Getting nothing from lev 12 until 18 or 20 in a class is not good for creative design. This is bad design and a new system can help fix this if done right.

Fact is enhancements are only part of the equation here. We also have class abilities and feats and also the new epic system being implemented. Class abilities are often reason for a splash as much as any enhancement currently. This will remain a popular reason for splashing.

dumb is just the short version, ignore it if it offends you. i dont really see setting a limit on the trees as 'work' either, but ok. the limit still serves no purpose, helps no one, and is an additional limit to multi's that is not needed. no it wont break the game, but it will take out a lot of variety and flavor and cost a lot of folks time effort and $. i dont see the point.

yes there will be new enhancements. this has nothing to do with further limiting a multi beyond the class level and total ap restrictions in place for all characters.

they already deal with stacking in the game today. this should not be an issue. agree with everything else you said there but the blurred class lines would not be because they let mulitclassers have additional trees for additional classes taken. this hurts no one. the blurred class lines you are speaking of will come from OP racial pre's, imo. spreading out the enhancements and adding more to the upper levels is ok, as long as they dont flip the swtich and backload all the enhancements. btw, this will also hurt multi's.

we are only speaking of enhancements, so the rest of the benefits of splashing are not a concern here. yes they will still exsist. yes there will still be reasons to multi. no that does not make it ok to further limit a multi's options just because, imo.

[saco]

Personally was never a fan of the whole enhancement concept, wished they stick to how it is in the rulebooks and that was actual PrE classes you took lvls in and had actual prereq classes.

Stoked that there will be some PrEs finally coming but this just stinks of a "WoWification" but this new system is leap n bounds better than the current system.

[Failedlegend]

Personally was never a fan of the whole enhancement concept, wished they stick to how it is in the rulebooks and that was actual PrE classes you took lvls in and had actual prereq classes.


Actually I LOVE the way Turbine translated Prestiges in DDO because I actually loathed the way it was done in 3/3.5...actually I was trying to create a system similar to how DDO handles prestige classes although 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.



Stoked that there will be some PrEs finally coming but this just stinks of a "WoWification" but this new system is leap n bounds better than the current system.

As much as I'd hate DDO to get any closer to the "Standard" MMO formula there's a reason most MMOs use the Tree system..it's easy for both devs and players to utilize but I believe as a collective we can create a Tree system using DDOs unique systems that leaves your standard tree system back in the 90s.

Edit: We've officially hit 3000 posts...poor poor Madfloyd

[Cyr]

Dumb is an argument for third graders. It offers no feedback at all and sets the reader on the offensive immediately. Dev's I am sure listen to feedback but dumb is not feedback.

Example: Dev's your idea won't work because it interracts poorly with this. (Feedback)

Example: Dev's this is dumb and wont work (not feedback)

You can disagree with something without insulting it's possible even on the internet.

Example: the 3 tree limit is dumb, serves no purpose, and takes a lot of the flavor and variety out of many builds...

You know the post you actully quoted and complained about.

I am see lots of feedback there that is specific. They are also putting a label on it of 'dumb' which goes towards their emotional response to it. What feedback was offered by 'dumb'...well let's see that the poster really does not like it? Jeez, that seems like an important aspect of feedback to me. When you moderate your feedback that basic important aspect indicating your overall feeling about something is often lost.

Do I think the posters response was the most articulate way to put their point...no, but I do think it was an honest reflection of their actual feedback which is the whole point. Heck, I do not even agree with most of their logic, I think the three tree limit does have reasoning behind it and I long ago gave my feedback on the subject in the thread and ways to address those possible concerns alternatively so the three tree limit could be eliminated.

I think you mean it puts the reader on the 'defensive' which of course is possible. It evokes an emotional response from the reader. Which is actually a good thing when you want your feedback to be remembered. If someone reads lots of feedback which gets them into 'defensive mode' then a smart person realizes that hey alot of people do not like this and it would be a dang good idea to figure out why if it is not readily apparent from reading the rest of their feedback.

[TiranBlade]

I don't know if it's wowification or not, I like the concept of being able as a class to dabble into multiple areas, it has a lot of potential of resembling real life over the Prestige Class System (though good, is rather ristrictive), especially considering in real life I'm a Jack of all Trades. I have experience in many many areas, but I never full master nothing, though I'm trying to change that with a few areas. I like this concept and hope to see it improve and flurish.

Anyways, my two copper commons,
TiranBlade, Time Killer