Let's Talk: Enhancements!

[LeLoric]

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.

Thank you for putting out a more meaningful argument.

As far as stacking they have said they want to do away with things not stacking which has it's own benefit but that becomes less possible if someone can get the same stacking benefit from 6 different trees. Stacking enhancements are much cleaner and easier to understand for one thing and also benefit multiclassing as say ftr can take str +3 enhancements from one of it's ftr trees and also maybe str +2 from a barb tree. Not to mention what it allows in multiclassing casters which is just not available right now.

Like I have said I don't necessarily like the restrictions on trees but there are some reasons I am sure. Stacking enhancements are only possibly one of them. I doubt the dev's just arbitrarily limit trees it has it's root in other things such as game balance, enhancemnt compatibility and other facets. It's hard for us to know anything for sure without knowing everything. They have stated it's a point of contention amongst themselves too and it's still under debate which is a good thing.

Biggest thing is most likely every build will likely gain something and lose something too with these changes. The job of the devs is not to make sure each of our characters are exactly the same as they are now although maintaning the general build is likely a priority to them. The biggest job of the devs is to make each option in character building fairly close close in power yet different enough to provide distinctive builds so that more equally powerful options are viable and each is somewhat unique.

Class bonuses and the new epic system all do play a part here as it's the combined build not one specific part of it that has to remain balanced.

[Avidus]

As far as stacking they have said they want to do away with things not stacking which has it's own benefit but that becomes less possible if someone can get the same stacking benefit from 6 different trees. Stacking enhancements are much cleaner and easier to understand for one thing and also benefit multiclassing as say ftr can take str +3 enhancements from one of it's ftr trees and also maybe str +2 from a barb tree. Not to mention what it allows in multiclassing casters which is just not available right now.
I have concerns about the lack of general class tree as well and this is mostly why.

For example will Ftr str III be in all of the fighter trees? or since it now stacks will only ftr str I be in each tree? if so the tree limit is bad. If it will be in all 3 ftr trees then you could potentially have someone roll up a pure and get +9 str from enhancemnts. It's not just what the individual enhancements are it is also where they go on the tree.

Lockouts are also a concern. If over used they too will limit options, funneling players into certain builds archtypes. If under used some unforseen circumstances will certainly arise.

Maybe after the downtime we'll get some more insight to the whole system.

[dkyle]

As far as stacking they have said they want to do away with things not stacking which has it's own benefit but that becomes less possible if someone can get the same stacking benefit from 6 different trees. Stacking enhancements are much cleaner and easier to understand for one thing and also benefit multiclassing as say ftr can take str +3 enhancements from one of it's ftr trees and also maybe str +2 from a barb tree. Not to mention what it allows in multiclassing casters which is just not available right now.

Stacking is a thorny issue, but I don't think it's unworkable to have both "everything stacks", and unlimited trees.

Suppose we put the stat bonuses for each PrE at 5, 15, 25, 35, and 41 AP spent, with 2/6/12/18/20 class levels required, and each class has different stats for each PrE (so Kensai might be STR, SD might be CON, and PDK might be CHA, for example). A pure build can get at most +5 in a particular stat.

Under this scheme, a multiclass could get at most +6 in a particular stat from class PrEs, but only if it's a very deep multiclass. 18/2 would still only get +5 possible. Deep multiclasses would still have a disadvantage compared to pure and splash builds due to APs-spent-in-tree requirements discouraging spreading APs around, so I don't think that slight advantage in stat bonus is unreasonable.

Racial PrE could allow more, but that is a potential benefit to both Pure and Multiclass. I dislike Racial PrEs as currently designed, anyway, so I'd rather see them go, if there's a stacking problem, then use them to justify a 3 tree limit.

[Synthetic]

For example will Ftr str III be in all of the fighter trees? or since it now stacks will only ftr str I be in each tree? if so the tree limit is bad.

I don't like the idea of a general class tree I think the 3 pre trees reflecting different aspects of a class makes sense. I also don't understand how your example is bad I think it's a good way of handling the stacking and making str bonuses available to all the fighter PRE. So could you clarify why you view it as bad? (Outside of your +9 example which I doubt would happen)

The problem I see with a general class tree is it's to broad. People who heavily multi-class will want all the best enhancements in it and since it's a catch all they can easily justify it.

I would add though having some multi-class trees would be very cool too something that would make deep multi-classing a better option (mystic theurge type pre available to anyone take 6+ levels of divine and 6+ levels of arcane class or a melee/specialist pre tree) DnD was a class centric game with the PREs making multi classing a better option. I think they could do the same type of thing with a PRE tree in DDO.

[kingfisher]

Thank you for putting out a more meaningful argument.

As far as stacking they have said they want to do away with things not stacking which has it's own benefit but that becomes less possible if someone can get the same stacking benefit from 6 different trees. Stacking enhancements are much cleaner and easier to understand for one thing and also benefit multiclassing as say ftr can take str +3 enhancements from one of it's ftr trees and also maybe str +2 from a barb tree. Not to mention what it allows in multiclassing casters which is just not available right now.

Like I have said I don't necessarily like the restrictions on trees but there are some reasons I am sure. Stacking enhancements are only possibly one of them. I doubt the dev's just arbitrarily limit trees it has it's root in other things such as game balance, enhancemnt compatibility and other facets. It's hard for us to know anything for sure without knowing everything. They have stated it's a point of contention amongst themselves too and it's still under debate which is a good thing.

Biggest thing is most likely every build will likely gain something and lose something too with these changes. The job of the devs is not to make sure each of our characters are exactly the same as they are now although maintaning the general build is likely a priority to them. The biggest job of the devs is to make each option in character building fairly close close in power yet different enough to provide distinctive builds so that more equally powerful options are viable and each is somewhat unique.

Class bonuses and the new epic system all do play a part here as it's the combined build not one specific part of it that has to remain balanced.

i have said it all before so forgive my brevity. as to what cyr said, i do think its dumb so i say that. thats me.

i get that they want to streamline how the ui works etc, i just dont agree that further limiting multis is acceptable collateral damage. considering stacking, i dont see why they would ever want class stat enh to stack more than they already do. stats are inflated enough arent they? this is not wow, i dont need or want a 647 STR. casters is another story, and ill leave that alone lol. imo limiting trees to prevent stacking is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. this is rarely a good idea.

im sure they do have other reasons, and many people have asked WHY they want a 3 tree limit. if they would shed some more light this it would be interesting. its great that they asked for feedback and are still discussing it; fantastic even, compared to years past. but at this time, what we can see is that multi's will be hurt by the limit and for what gain?

yes this is the hard part, and a big change like this will definetly upset the applecart. i have my doubts whether or not they can maintain any semblance of balance with so many changes across multiple updates. thats a lot to ask. i think that the racial pre's will be much more likely to pigeonhole building, but epic lvls, epic ap, class abilities, all of it will be a factor like you said. its a slippery slope, and a huge undertaking, they must truely be feeling the pressure of newly released games for them to bite off this much all at once.

[Avidus]

I don't like the idea of a general class tree I think the 3 pre trees reflecting different aspects of a class makes sense. I also don't understand how your example is bad I think it's a good way of handling the stacking and making str bonuses available to all the fighter PRE. So could you clarify why you view it as bad? (Outside of your +9 example which I doubt would happen)

Having ftr str III in all the trees mean that ftr str is in all the ftr trees and if you took any of them to take advantage of this newfound stacking your locking in 2 or even all 3 of your trees, with no trees left over your other class/classes. Making multiclassing less attractive.

If you start adding in lockouts, as in taking SD ftr str prohibits you from taking kesai/pdk str you may not have enough points to progress upwards in the other ftr trees making pure ftr less attractive.

A general class tree avoids having to use lockouts and allows for the removal of the tree limit. However a person would have to be very careful of just how much was put into the general class tree. You wouldn't want to invalidate or overshadow any of the other trees.

Not too mention how rogues are going to be affected. Where will the extra sneak attack damage go? Assassin? Most if not all rogues max that out. There is one tree completely locked in. Now If you want to be an acrobat there are now 2 trees locked in. Two of your trees are already locked in on an acrobat. Where will the trap skills go? Probably mechanic. Theres all 3 trees gone you get no enhancements from your splash, strongly encoruaging staying pure.

[TiranBlade]

Here's a concept I've been working on a while and I'll have to explain it a bit.

First of all, there are tabs so all class Prestige Trees are avaiable should a character multiclass, as I don't see any harm in allowing it, with the tree structure of the game there are limitations in place, the more u spread things around the less likely you are of achieving the more powerfull abilities of puring a single tree, so I don't see any harm done. This is for all the folks out there afraid of the game becoming to restricting.

Second of all is a little something I think needs to be done, and that is different variations of the Racial tree.

Because between the two worldsets of Eberron and Forgotten Realms your dealilng with several varieties of some of the races, especially in the complexity between elves and the major difference between drow in both worldsets.

My suggetion is this, take the concept you had of switching the Prestige Trees out of the class section and do different Racial Trees based on your races.

For elf this would open up between choosing between a Valenar Elf, Areneal Elf, Khorvaire Elf, Moon Elf, Sun Elf, Wild Elf, Wood Elf, etc. Each variation having their pro's and cons based on thier heiretical background as well as each having an exclusive Prestige Line attached to their race. For example, Valenar Elves get tempest/dervish because of their racial background with scimitars, Areneal Elves get palemaster because of their background with the dead, Khorvaire Elves get the option to gain the Dragonmarked Heir for House Phiarlan, because of their diconnection the other two elven subs. Moon Elves get Archmage, Wood Elf gets Deepwood Sniper, etc.

Drow NEED the difference when your talking about drow, Eberron Drow need Assasin, while you have a major issue with Drow from Forgotten Realms, Male Drow usually go Wizard and Female Drow go Cleric, then you have the issue of the Drizzt factor which is by concept what your currently basing the Prestige Tree for the drown on. That can fit in here too.

The varitation of the racial trees have similarities in terms of having some of the same enhancements between but once you spend a point you lock in your racial tree. With this concept you can have several variations of races without having to create races for each type.

I hope you'll consider my proposal,
TiranBlade, Time Killer

http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o539/TiranBlade/DDO%20Concept%20Suggestion/EnhancementMockupSuggestion.jpg

[Failedlegend]

I would add though having some multi-class trees would be very cool too something that would make deep multi-classing a better option (mystic theurge type pre available to anyone take 6+ levels of divine and 6+ levels of arcane class or a melee/specialist pre tree) DnD was a class centric game with the PREs making multi classing a better option. I think they could do the same type of thing with a PRE tree in DDO.

I recommend you check out Pages 140-142 there was a rather lengthy discussion about multic-class PrEs there...I'd quote it all into one post but it would take WAY too much space


Having ftr str III in all the trees mean that ftr str is in all the ftr trees and if you took any of them to take advantage of this newfound stacking your locking in 2 or even all 3 of your trees, with no trees left over your other class/classes. Making multiclassing less attractive.

If you start adding in lockouts, as in taking SD ftr str prohibits you from taking kesai/pdk str you may not have enough points to progress upwards in the other ftr trees making pure ftr less attractive.


I think only having +1 in each PrE makes more sense with the stat being modified relating to the PrE PDK = +1 Cha, SD = +1 Con, Kensai = +1 Str...than the Level gating (3/6/9/12/15/18/20 IIRC) and the limit of 80AP will keep Multis from abusing it...no need for 3 Tree limit because stacking is the only reason I can think of to have the limit and honestly its a pretty lame reason

[dkyle]

Because between the two worldsets of Eberron and Forgotten Realms your dealilng with several varieties of some of the races, especially in the complexity between elves and the major difference between drow in both worldsets.

My understanding is that all characters will still originate from Eberron, but will simply visit Forgotten Realms. So all player Drow will be Eberron Drow, not FR Drow.

Allowing a choice of different "subraces" by choosing a different Racial tree could be interesting, though. Elves could certainly use the love.

[TiranBlade]

My understanding is that all characters will still originate from Eberron, but will simply visit Forgotten Realms. So all player Drow will be Eberron Drow, not FR Drow.

Allowing a choice of different "subraces" by choosing a different Racial tree could be interesting, though. Elves could certainly use the love.

Well the reason I suggested that with the drow is for the reason that the concept as it seems to me that they are working on for the drow Prestige Tree, last I checked was a drizzt tempest line, which doesn't completely fall within the confines of eberron, it falls into Forgotten Realms. That is wear I was addressing my concern at.

I still think it would be awesome since they are doing crossed worlds to open up playing from level one in both, that way those players who don't want to do much with eberron can get a more solid Forgotten Realms feel if they want. It would dramatically increase our player base. And bring much more diversity in what we can do gamewise. But this is a personal hope. Not something they have to do.

[Failedlegend]

My understanding is that all characters will still originate from Eberron, but will simply visit Forgotten Realms. So all player Drow will be Eberron Drow, not FR Drow.

Allowing a choice of different "subraces" by choosing a different Racial tree could be interesting, though. Elves could certainly use the love.

Also if they if they add gnomes it will really help alleviate the battle of WHICH gnomes to implement because while a large amount people agree on gnomes they can't seem to agree on which kind...Svirfneblini, Tinker Gnomes, Whisper Gnomes, Vanilla Gnomes, Chaos Gnomes or Various Elemental Gnomes with the most commonly requested being Tinker, Svirfneblini and of course Vanilla Gnomes.


Open up playing from level one in both, that way those players who don't want to do much with eberron can get a more solid Forgotten Realms feel if they want. It would dramatically increase our player base. And bring much more diversity in what we can do gamewise. But this is a personal hope. Not something they have to do.

Even if it's just another Korthos Island than you get sucked into a portal <Enter Lloth Cackling Here> and dumped out in Stormreach Harbor in a back alley or something

[Ancient]

The three tree concept does not sound appealing to me.

The contrived math ignores the fact that you should have choices inside each tree, and any use of math to "prove" that less choices = more choices is fundamentally flawed.

The way to balance multiple tree usage, is to balance the top end of the tree. Items at the top of the tree should be desirable, and freebies for higher tree levels should be attractive. Consider wiz splashes v.s. cleric splashes. You see some 17/x cleric splashes, but very rarely see 17/x wiz splashes? Why... because the third tier wizard PREs offers enough that most people won't splash a third level. Clerics on the other hand, don't get a third teir PRE... thus a greater number of people decide that level 18 isn't worth as much as a splash level.

The key to this isn't in nerfing the splash level... its making sure that the high end commitment offers a high end reward. Multi-classing is typically done for versatility... the three tree option takes too much away. Having a set amount of points is already self limiting because the thinner you spread those points, the fewer high end options you can afford. If a compromise is needed, perhaps add one more tree for each multi-class that must be spent on that class.

[TiranBlade]

And here is the image for those who like the 3 tree only concept, though I might not be a big fan of it, but at the same time think it can be necessary. I think the concept of switching trees out also opens up the possibility of new Non Specific and Cross Class only Prestige Trees down the road. Aka, Eldritch Knight.

However this concept still keeps the racial subtrees, which I honestly think is a must if they are going with this system.

http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o539/TiranBlade/DDO%20Concept%20Suggestion/EnhancementMockupSuggestion2.jpg

Also continuing on the note of how to handle Human and for that matter Half Elf Prestige Trees, Human get access to serveral dragonmarked heir prestige trees as well as a more vanilla verstile one. And Half Elves get to pick up One Prestige Tree from the class that is they're dilletanted or their dragonmarked heir trees (when the second Half Elf dragonmark comes into play).

[LeLoric]

i have said it all before so forgive my brevity. as to what cyr said, i do think its dumb so i say that. thats me.

i get that they want to streamline how the ui works etc, i just dont agree that further limiting multis is acceptable collateral damage. considering stacking, i dont see why they would ever want class stat enh to stack more than they already do. stats are inflated enough arent they? this is not wow, i dont need or want a 647 STR. casters is another story, and ill leave that alone lol. imo limiting trees to prevent stacking is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. this is rarely a good idea.

im sure they do have other reasons, and many people have asked WHY they want a 3 tree limit. if they would shed some more light this it would be interesting. its great that they asked for feedback and are still discussing it; fantastic even, compared to years past. but at this time, what we can see is that multi's will be hurt by the limit and for what gain?

yes this is the hard part, and a big change like this will definetly upset the applecart. i have my doubts whether or not they can maintain any semblance of balance with so many changes across multiple updates. thats a lot to ask. i think that the racial pre's will be much more likely to pigeonhole building, but epic lvls, epic ap, class abilities, all of it will be a factor like you said. its a slippery slope, and a huge undertaking, they must truely be feeling the pressure of newly released games for them to bite off this much all at once.

And we don't necessarily know for sure that multi's will be limited.

Look at it this way. Currently you can take tier 3 of a single prestige with a small splash or pure. You can also go 12/6/x or similar and get tier 2 of one and tier 1 of another. Last you can get 8/6/6 and get three tier one pre's yet all get a total of three tiers.

With a new system you could theoretically go pure or 18 splash and get two tier 3's (6 tiers total) Ap's generally limit too much more although an additional tier one is possible with really tight ap requirements. A 12/6/2 can still get the same in theory with a tier 2 class a tier 1 class and a tier 3 racial with possible the 1 going up to 2 with really tight ap requirements. The 8/6/6 gets hurt more here but in reality these builds are pretty subpar currently too.

So this really leaves the things that we take like 1 point in. Let's look at rog sneak attack and haste boost. People with low rog splashes usually take these (unless the class already has haste boost like ftr). So if the +3 sneak attack dmg from sneak attack training is replaceable through dmg added in one of your more main lines then the need to get the 3 dmg from the rog line is negated. Likewise more classes having haste boost (already hinted at by devs for rangers) negates the need to waste an entire tree option for just haste boost from rogue. The stuff we are getting from one and two class splashes enhancement wise are not build breakers if we lose them as 95% of the time those splashes are for class benefits not enhancement perks.

One could even say that multi's may end up better as they have the ability to choose more similar prestiges. A fighter's three prestiges don't really work together all that well. One is offensive one defensive and one is more for buffing allies. A fighter who splashes into barb for example can choose both his own offensive prestige and another offensive prestige from the barb. Does a Kensai II/fb I/ravager (racial) III sound better than a Kensai III ravager (racial) III. We don't specifically know but the first could very well end up being better depending on what Kensai III gets versus FB I. It really all depends on how the devs fill each tree. If anythign this sytem is more indicative of races being better than another race versus what kind of class makeup each character has.

Getting a unified structure in place and then customizing the individual enhancements to work within that structure seems to be a better options than trying to stretch and remodel a base design to fit each individual enhancement in to work better. Is the currently proposed tree the best option? I have my concerns but I also know that using that design if enough careful thought is put into what goes in to each tree then it could work very well. It all boils down to how each tree is filled.

[boomer70]

I don't like the idea of a general class tree I think the 3 pre trees reflecting different aspects of a class makes sense. I also don't understand how your example is bad I think it's a good way of handling the stacking and making str bonuses available to all the fighter PRE. So could you clarify why you view it as bad? (Outside of your +9 example which I doubt would happen)

The problem I see with a general class tree is it's to broad. People who heavily multi-class will want all the best enhancements in it and since it's a catch all they can easily justify it.

I would add though having some multi-class trees would be very cool too something that would make deep multi-classing a better option (mystic theurge type pre available to anyone take 6+ levels of divine and 6+ levels of arcane class or a melee/specialist pre tree) DnD was a class centric game with the PREs making multi classing a better option. I think they could do the same type of thing with a PRE tree in DDO.

I think that a general class tree is almost required to make this work. Taking the simplest possible example, what do you do with the elemental spell damage lines? How do you split those up? Monks have very similar problems where do you put the stances?

On top of that I think it makes sense to be able to have a fighter that is none of kensai, defender or PDK. Those are all variations on fighter they are not the ONLY three aspects to the fighter class. What if I want to play a duelist type fighter (gimp in DDO since AC is broke but whatever)?

[TiranBlade]

I think that a general class tree is almost required to make this work. Taking the simplest possible example, what do you do with the elemental spell damage lines? How do you split those up? Monks have very similar problems where do you put the stances?

On top of that I think it makes sense to be able to have a fighter that is none of kensai, defender or PDK. Those are all variations on fighter they are not the ONLY three aspects to the fighter class. What if I want to play a duelist type fighter (gimp in DDO since AC is broke but whatever)?

A general class tree would be nice to work out, trying to figure it out now, but it may take me a bit. cause it would have to come off the three tree system and open up into an all tree system. Because if you put points into a general category for a class, then it would fall into part that those general points only go towards that classes prestige trees. For example Rogue Generals would not benefit fighter Prestiges and vise versa.

EDIT: Got my concept, working on it now.

EDIT2: Also working on this concept I see another flaw, if too many of the generals trigger, then you run into the issue of doing nothing but gerenalling into all prestige trees.

EDIT3: At that point you would then have to put a level gated restiction on General Enhancements to keep them from overtaking everything. Which is something I am sure noone wants.

[Failedlegend]

http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o539/TiranBlade/DDO%20Concept%20Suggestion/EnhancementMockupSuggestion.jpg

I don't think it needs to be spread out like that...also that version doesn't allow for adding extra tress for stuff like the Arty Pet It would make more sense to do something similar to the spell UI.

[TiranBlade]

Actually going back on my idea using the general enhancement line and then gateing the enhancemnts on it by amount of points you could spend into it per level would actually work pretty well, but then again your talking another level of restriciton on the game.

Anywho, here's the concept.

Let me know what you think.

http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o539/TiranBlade/DDO%20Concept%20Suggestion/EnhancementMockupSuggestion3.jpg

EDIT: Also had another great idea on how to get it to work, though it may take me a bit to work out, and it should solve a majority of the issues, but I think I finally got the concept I am looking for in mind. It should cover almost everyone's complaints.

[WangoFett]

I think that a general class tree is almost required to make this work. Taking the simplest possible example, what do you do with the elemental spell damage lines? How do you split those up? Monks have very similar problems where do you put the stances?

I'd expect: everything useful except spell crit would go in Archmage. spell crit lines would go in Wild Mage. Palemaster would get necro damage and crit lines, shrouds and summons and perhaps some toughness enhancements.



On top of that I think it makes sense to be able to have a fighter that is none of kensai, defender or PDK. Those are all variations on fighter they are not the ONLY three aspects to the fighter class. What if I want to play a duelist type fighter (gimp in DDO since AC is broke but whatever)?

Make a DEX based finesse Kensai, wear duelist leathers and a swashbuckler and call him a duelist. Success!

[Failedlegend]

Here's a crappy mock-up I made similar to the Spell UI that would eleminate any screen size issues with having more than 3 Trees. Of course The Trubine Devs will look 100x better than mine (Here's Hoping they incorporate the Blue/Silver UI into everything instead of the burgundy/gold look) and each PrE would have a unique Icon as opposed to the spells my wiz happened to have slotted

http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo93/Failedlegend/UIMockUP-1.png

[MaxwellEdison]

Here's a concept I've been working on a while and I'll have to explain it a bit.

First of all, there are tabs so all class Prestige Trees are avaiable should a character multiclass, as I don't see any harm in allowing it, with the tree structure of the game there are limitations in place, the more u spread things around the less likely you are of achieving the more powerfull abilities of puring a single tree, so I don't see any harm done. This is for all the folks out there afraid of the game becoming to restricting.

->SNIP (racial changes)<-

http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o539/TiranBlade/DDO%20Concept%20Suggestion/EnhancementMockupSuggestion.jpg

I like the idea for tabbing between each class for their associated enhancements. I still feel that while a character should be able to access any of the enhancements available to their selected classes/lvls, that the 3 PrE limit is a good thing as well. If each of PrE trees in your mockup had a button or checkbox to 'activate' the prestige bonuses, but limiting the character to only having 3 sets of bonuses active at a time, I think we'd be at a good compromise. The biggest obstacle then to balancing, I would think, would be the stacking enhancements.

[TiranBlade]

I like the idea for tabbing between each class for their associated enhancements. I still feel that while a character should be able to access any of the enhancements available to their selected classes/lvls, that the 3 PrE limit is a good thing as well. If each of PrE trees in your mockup had a button or checkbox to 'activate' the prestige bonuses, but limiting the character to only having 3 sets of bonuses active at a time, I think we'd be at a good compromise. The biggest obstacle then to balancing, I would think, would be the stacking enhancements.

Working on a concept similar to this, just finished it and about to post it once I get it uploaded to Photobucket*

*Edit

[Failedlegend]

I like the idea for tabbing between each class for their associated enhancements. I still feel that while a character should be able to access any of the enhancements available to their selected classes/lvls, that the 3 PrE limit is a good thing as well. If each of PrE trees in your mockup had a button or checkbox to 'activate' the prestige bonuses, but limiting the character to only having 3 sets of bonuses active at a time, I think we'd be at a good compromise. The biggest obstacle then to balancing, I would think, would be the stacking enhancements.

So IOW you'd be free to spend points in ALL trees available (limited by level gating and 80AP of course) to you but could only receive the "Free Bonuses" in your 3 chosen Paths....works for me...although I still think the Spell UI I posted earlier is more future proof for stuff like Companions/Familiars, the possibility of a 4th PrE et.

Actually I REALLY like this as it could allow Multi-Class PrEs to be implemented easier...instead of specific enhancements needed to be taken you would only need X amount of Levels in each class (see below) and have the two Pre-Req PrEs "Checked" to unlock the Multiclass PrE as your third one.

Each Tier/Free Bonus of Multi-class PrEs are unlocked by achieving the minimum level in each required class as well as a total.

ie.
Tier 1 of Arcane Trickster Requires Wizard1&Rogue1 but CHARACTER Lvl 3
Tier 2 would need Wizard 2 & Rogue 2 (Wizard 3 & Rogue 1 won't work) but Character Lvl 6
T3 = 3&3 but 9
T4 = 4&4 but 12
T5 = 5&5 but 15
T6 = 6&6 but 18
T7 = 7&7 but 20 (aka Capstone)

The "Free Bonuses" would obviously follow the 5/10/15/20/25/30/41 scheme

Wizard and Rogue are only example as the requirements for Arcane Trickster is likely any Arcane Class + Rogue.

[MaxwellEdison]

So IOW you'd be free to spend points in ALL trees available (limited by level gating and 80AP of course) to you but could only receive the "Free Bonuses" in your 3 chosen Paths....works for me.

Yeah, I had expressed the idea about 2,000 posts ago (http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p=4252060&postcount=1049) but then the arguing began and the thread exploded so it got kinda buried.


Working on a concept similar to this, just finished it and about to post it once I get it uploaded to Photobucket*

*Edit

Good to hear.

[TiranBlade]

Ok here is what is probably going to by my final concept idea unless someone comes up with a good one to add in.

It takes back the three prestiges system that was implemented, almost identical except for one thing, you have a general enhancement bar that accessable at all times, even while muliclassed. But the general enhancements are broken down into three categories. Each catagory is for a specific prestige class inside the main class. If you take an enhancement from that general sub cat, then it adds to the prestige class tree. But at the same time you can switch the other trees out for trees from other classes. It opens up their general enhancement lines as well with their own sub cats. Thos sub cats add to that classes Prestige Trees in the same manner it does the other class while your leveling.

Also this concept continues with my racial diversity adjustment.

The benefit of this new system concept idea of mine is when they dicide to add nonspecific prestiges in, the non specifics can draw enhancement from select general sub cats.

So for instance if they ever decide to put in Eldritch Knight (a multiclass prestige) it can draw enhancement points from say a single fighter general subcat and a single wizard general subcat, to benefit it.

Anyways, here's the image concept, let me know what you think.

http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o539/TiranBlade/DDO%20Concept%20Suggestion/EnhancementMockupSuggestion4.jpg

[Aelonwy]

So IOW you'd be free to spend points in ALL trees available (limited by level gating and 80AP of course) to you but could only receive the "Free Bonuses" in your 3 chosen Paths....works for me.

Funny I thought that was the idea, the Pro-Deep Multiclassing ppl were proposing way back in the middle somewhere with a similiar UI setup by Ormsbygore.

Edit: Ninja-ed.

[Failedlegend]

Funny I thought that was the idea, the Pro-Deep Multiclassing ppl were proposing way back in the middle somewhere with a similiar UI setup by Ormsbygore.

Yeah thats pretty much the idea...but I'll agree no matter how many times its suggested :D


@Tiranblade: Your idea still limits us to 3 Prestiges...general enhancements just dilute the prestige lines...the idea is we should have acess to ALL prestige lines but have to CHOOSE 3 lines that we can actually get the prestige bonuses in...so sure I can spend 5 Points in rogue Assassin but if its not one of my 3 chosen PrEs I won't get the first tier "Free Bonus"...get it?

my last post explains how multiclass PrEs would function with that



Actually I REALLY like this as it could allow Multi-Class PrEs to be implemented easier...instead of specific enhancements needed to be taken you would only need X amount of Levels in each class (see below) and have the two Pre-Req PrEs "Checked" to unlock the Multiclass PrE as your third one if you so choose.

Each Tier/Free Bonus of Multi-class PrEs are unlocked by achieving the minimum level in each required class as well as a total.

ie.
Tier 1 of Arcane Trickster Requires Wizard1&Rogue1 but CHARACTER Lvl 3
Tier 2 would need Wizard 2 & Rogue 2 (Wizard 3 & Rogue 1 won't work) but Character Lvl 6
T3 = 3&3 but 9
T4 = 4&4 but 12
T5 = 5&5 but 15
T6 = 6&6 but 18
T7 = 7&7 but 20 (aka Capstone)

The "Free Bonuses" would obviously follow the 5/10/15/20/25/30/41 scheme

Wizard and Rogue are only example as the requirements for Arcane Trickster is likely any Arcane Class + Rogue Mech.


I also made a few suggestion for Multiclass PrEs about 50 Pages back




Swiftblade: Any Arcane w/ Haste + Martial

Pirate Captain: 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 a multiclass PrE...it's just right)

Corrupt Avenger: Acolyte of the Skin + Divine Avenger

[kingfisher]

And we don't necessarily know for sure that multi's will be limited.

Look at it this way. Currently you can take tier 3 of a single prestige with a small splash or pure. You can also go 12/6/x or similar and get tier 2 of one and tier 1 of another. Last you can get 8/6/6 and get three tier one pre's yet all get a total of three tiers.

With a new system you could theoretically go pure or 18 splash and get two tier 3's (6 tiers total) Ap's generally limit too much more although an additional tier one is possible with really tight ap requirements. A 12/6/2 can still get the same in theory with a tier 2 class a tier 1 class and a tier 3 racial with possible the 1 going up to 2 with really tight ap requirements. The 8/6/6 gets hurt more here but in reality these builds are pretty subpar currently too.

So this really leaves the things that we take like 1 point in. Let's look at rog sneak attack and haste boost. People with low rog splashes usually take these (unless the class already has haste boost like ftr). So if the +3 sneak attack dmg from sneak attack training is replaceable through dmg added in one of your more main lines then the need to get the 3 dmg from the rog line is negated. Likewise more classes having haste boost (already hinted at by devs for rangers) negates the need to waste an entire tree option for just haste boost from rogue. The stuff we are getting from one and two class splashes enhancement wise are not build breakers if we lose them as 95% of the time those splashes are for class benefits not enhancement perks.

One could even say that multi's may end up better as they have the ability to choose more similar prestiges. A fighter's three prestiges don't really work together all that well. One is offensive one defensive and one is more for buffing allies. A fighter who splashes into barb for example can choose both his own offensive prestige and another offensive prestige from the barb. Does a Kensai II/fb I/ravager (racial) III sound better than a Kensai III ravager (racial) III. We don't specifically know but the first could very well end up being better depending on what Kensai III gets versus FB I. It really all depends on how the devs fill each tree. If anythign this sytem is more indicative of races being better than another race versus what kind of class makeup each character has.

Getting a unified structure in place and then customizing the individual enhancements to work within that structure seems to be a better options than trying to stretch and remodel a base design to fit each individual enhancement in to work better. Is the currently proposed tree the best option? I have my concerns but I also know that using that design if enough careful thought is put into what goes in to each tree then it could work very well. It all boils down to how each tree is filled.

unless they put all the class enhancements in every class tree, a multi will be hurt by the 3 tree limit. not saying he wont have different choices, ofc he will, but the idea of a generalist or utility build is further hurt by this limitation. there will be an additional limition on multi's that does not exsist today if they go with a 3 tree limit. imo this will limit build versatility and flavor on all builds, not just multi's. it prolly wont affect the top end builds as much because they are very focused and already give up a lot of utility for this focus. but today you can still build a high end dps toon that is versatile and has a feel that is just your own. the gap between this type and the high end build will be further widened if there is a limit. there will no doubt be some tasty combos but can you not already see the gap widening? some of the combos u mentioned are already high on lots of folks lists im sure.

melee casters of all types will also lose alot of their utility, just based on the caster lines being split up between pre's. not saying they wont get more power from a racial, but pures will benefit from this as well. the 3 tree limit hurts them and they would be better without it.

i agree about the possiblity of racial profiling so-to-speak, and the racial combo you are talking about also brings up a significant risk of pigeonholing build types into certain races even further than they are today. ive said before i really think the racial should be different from the class pre's and also inferior. different part of the change than the 3 tree limit, but imo more risky. the discussion over this has not even started yet really.

i also agree that they should get the ui right first, and that whats in the trees is important. yeah there could be a way where the devs make the majority of the pop happy with this change, i just dont see any reason why a multiclass should not get extra trees for their extra classes. after all they have already given up the higher tiers for more lower teirs. i dont think its up to anybody but the player where they spend their ap.

[MaxwellEdison]

Ok here is what is probably going to by my final concept idea unless someone comes up with a good one to add in.

It takes back the three prestiges system that was implemented, almost identical except for one thing, you have a general enhancement bar that accessable at all times, even while muliclassed. But the general enhancements are broken down into three categories. Each catagory is for a specific prestige class inside the main class. If you take an enhancement from that general sub cat, then it adds to the prestige class tree. But at the same time you can switch the other trees out for trees from other classes. It opens up their general enhancement lines as well with their own sub cats. Thos sub cats add to that classes Prestige Trees in the same manner it does the other class while your leveling.

Also this concept continues with my racial diversity adjustment.

The benefit of this new system concept idea of mine is when they dicide to add nonspecific prestiges in, the non specifics can draw enhancement from select general sub cats.

So for instance if they ever decide to put in Eldritch Knight (a multiclass prestige) it can draw enhancement points from say a single fighter general subcat and a single wizard general subcat, to benefit it.

Anyways, here's the image concept, let me know what you think.

http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o539/TiranBlade/DDO%20Concept%20Suggestion/EnhancementMockupSuggestion4.jpg

TBH, I think you've lost the simplicity which sold me on the one I had quoted above. I have a bit of a problem with your racial changes which seem to be a big driving force in this one. Mainly, I think you're overdeveloping the racial system and trying to use that to drive the class trees as well. Your system is too focused on the races which would then have a lot of options under it, namely elves (although you're mixing Eberron and FR here) and humans (inherent versatility). There is a reason elf is not a class anymore, after all.

[TiranBlade]

TBH, I think you've lost the simplicity which sold me on the one I had quoted above. I have a bit of a problem with your racial changes which seem to be a big driving force in this one. Mainly, I think you're overdeveloping the racial system and trying to use that to drive the class trees as well. Your system is too focused on the races which would then have a lot of options under it, namely elves (although you're mixing Eberron and FR here) and humans (inherent versatility). There is a reason elf is not a class anymore, after all.

Actually my concept isnt driven by the racials, infact take them out if you want, my class line still holds, it solves the issue of wanting generalized enhancements, a way to gate them into the prestige trees without becoming overpowered. And still allows for the level of multiclassing everyone wants.

So if you want it more simplified take that little black change box from the racials out and look at everything else.

Also about the races not being classes, if you are as far familiar with the racial only stuff from v.3.5 you would realize there are more options pointed directly at races only than you might think.

I.E. Races of the Wild, Races of Stone, Races of Destiny, Races of Faerun, Races of Eberron, Races of the Dragon, etc.

I would like more racial versitility as a personal thing it isn't required, but if we're talking specifics on race anyways from Turbine's perspective, why not go the length to develope it for longevity. If you actually look in depth to everything from the source books from the Pen and Paper it would explain a lot.

But on my concept of how the racial trees should very is less complex than my might think, a mjaority of the ehancements are the same, you just have subtle differences between each in terms on both how the racial Prestiges go and for instance weapon damage and hit bonus, which already exist.

I.E., Valenor Elf Weapons, Areneal Elf Weapons, and Bows.

And as a correction to an early comment on something I did with elves.

Khorvaire Elves Pre: Arcane Archer
Phiarlan Elves Pre: Dragonmarked Heir

Anyways, I hope you understand what I was going for and it's not as complicated as it might seem.

EDIT: Also, gonna come up with the checkbox veriation like you had asked for, I have an idea on how to do that as well, and goes back to the original concept you had quoted.

EDIT2: And that concept would bring a level on simplicity back to the disign, your right I did make it a bit complicated with the dropdown.

EDIT3: But part of the comlexity added was so they could put in more than just the 13 soon to be classes x3, because there are many many multiclassed prestiges, and I would also like to see them come into play.

[Aelonwy]

i agree about the possiblity of racial profiling so-to-speak, and the racial combo you are talking about also brings up a significant risk of pigeonholing build types into certain races even further than they are today. ive said before i really think the racial should be different from the class pre's and also inferior. different part of the change than the 3 tree limit, but imo more risky. the discussion over this has not even started yet really.

I agree I am somewhat concerned that race will become sooooo important to class choice that ppl will start crying gimp if you choose anything but the preferred race/class combos. On a side note if you think the race PrE's should be inferior to class PrEs, how exactly could you or would you further decrease/devalue AA? Or is AA fairly pitiful enough? ;P

[MaxwellEdison]

Actually my concept isnt driven by the racials, infact take them out if you want, my class line still holds, it solves the issue of wanting generalized enhancements, a way to gate them into the prestige trees without becoming overpowered. And still allows for the level of multiclassing everyone wants.

So if you want it more simplified take that little black change box from the racials out and look at everything else.

Also about the races not being classes, if you are as far familiar with the racial only stuff from v.3.5 you would realize there are more options pointed directly at races only than you might think.

I.E. Races of the Wild, Races of Stone, Races of Destiny, Races of Faerun, Races of Eberron, Races of the Dragon, etc.

I would like more racial versitility as a personal thing it isn't required, but if we're talking specifics on race anyways from Turbine's perspective, why not go the length to develope it for longevity. If you actually look in depth to everything from the source books from the Pen and Paper it would explain a lot.

But on my concept of how the racial trees should very is less complex than my might think, a mjaority of the ehancements are the same, you just have subtle differences between each in terms on both how the racial Prestiges go and for instance weapon damage and hit bonus, which already exist.

I.E., Valenor Elf Weapons, Areneal Elf Weapons, and Bows.

And as a correction to an early comment on something I did with elves.

Khorvaire Elves Pre: Arcane Archer
Phiarlan Elves Pre: Dragonmarked Heir

Anyways, I hope you understand what I was going for and it's not as complicated as it might seem.

Subtle distinctions and variations work great in a PnP game, but I worry when you begin turning them into code. After all, there are only subtle distinctions between the three types of handwraps and it seems inevitable that one of them is broken every update.

Personally, I don't think a general enhancement bar is completely necessary. As long as every character has access to every enhancement tree (while still being limited by class lvl) I am fairly confident that the enhancements can be balanced around it. Ideally, players should be able to build anything between 1-trick ponies (or specialists if you prefer) all the way down to the jacks-of-all (generalists). It is up to the content to steer builds towards a more balanced, viable approach.

[Failedlegend]

@Tiran: The way you have thing set-up just complicates things (Which is exactly what the devs are trying to avoid with this new system) the easiest way to get rid of the 3 Tree System without...as the opposite side argument would put " Make Multi-classes have God-Like Powers" is to

1) Put the UI into a Tab Setup similar to how Spell Levels work (see below) ...complete with a Summary Tab where you choose the 3 Prestiges yo want to receive the "Free Prestige Bonuses" from. A Tab for any pets you may have ie. Arty Dog (Hopefully Familiars, Anima Companions, and for Halfings Dinos at a later date)

2) Allow FULL access to all Prestiges tree with any level gating intact (all we know now is 2 splashes will have access up to tier 2 enhancements and that for each tier of a PrE Bonus you must be Lvl Class Level 3/6/9/12/15/18/20...Character Level for Racial Pres)

3) To Unlock a Multiclass PrE you must "Check" its two Pre-Requisite PrEs (Hovering over the greyed out Multi-class PrE will show you a tooltip with a basic description and its requirements...ie., Arcane Trickster requires Any Arcane PrE + Rogue Mechanic...than there's a special level requirement to follow for Multiclass PrEs

For example a Wizard/Rogue Arcane Trickster would look like this

ie.
Tier 1 of Arcane Trickster Requires Wizard1&Rogue1 as well as be CHARACTER Lvl 3
Tier 2 would need Wizard 2 & Rogue 2 (Wizard 3 & Rogue 1 won't work) but Character Lvl 6
T3 = 3&3 but 9
T4 = 4&4 but 12
T5 = 5&5 but 15
T6 = 6&6 but 18
T7 = 7&7 but 20 (aka Capstone)

Note: To Clarify an Wizard18/Rogue2 would only have access to Tier 2 of the Arcane Trickster Tree

4) Incorporate the Racial PrE as the "Free Bonuses" for the racial tree (just makes sense) but have them be ACTUAL racial PrEs instead of copies



It would all come together to look something like this...except less crappy (Elf Racial Tree currently selected)

http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo93/Failedlegend/UIMockUP-1.png

Sidenote: I would very much like if our entire UI adopted this Silver, Blue & White Motif as opposed to our current Burgundy and Gold Look

[TiranBlade]

Ok back down to my more simplified verson without the racial changing options.

http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o539/TiranBlade/DDO%20Concept%20Suggestion/EnhancementMockupSuggestionRevision2.jpg

This goes back to the cleaner concept I first came up with a week or so back, with the suggetion from MaxwellEdison.

You have all enhancemnts active, but you can only click a check on each one to trigger that Prestige Line, and you can only select three of them. Simplified.

You can only have 3 active prestige enhancements (freebies), but all tree enhancements are available.

EDIT:

Subtle distinctions and variations work great in a PnP game, but I worry when you begin turning them into code. After all, there are only subtle distinctions between the three types of handwraps and it seems inevitable that one of them is broken every update..


Backing off the racial changing as it is a bit complicated, I will agree. And I think we have the better concept, less complicated but still gives options.

[Vargouille]

Ok back down to my more simplified verson without the racial changing options.

(image snipped)

This goes back to the cleaner concept I first came up with a week or so back, with the suggetion from MaxwellEdison.

You have all enhancemnts active, but you can only click a check on each one to trigger that Prestige Line, and you can only select three of them. Simplified.

You can only have 3 active prestige enhancements (freebies), but all tree enhancements are available.


Some interesting ideas and well worded feedback from many recent posts.

[Failedlegend]

Snipped For Space

Thats the idea although I do still think the Spell Tab UI is alot better...simply so more Tabs can be easily added if needed...like for the Pet Enhancement lines, For any Multiclass PrEs if added, In case turbine ever wants to add a 4th PrE, Also add in the Racial PrE (unless it goes in the racial Tree but still has a checkbox), and anything else that might end up in there.

With your mock-up any time they add anything it gets this much bigger

http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j377/MadFloyd/EnhancementMockup2.jpg


Any time you add a new Tab in the Spell UI..it gets this much bigger

http://admin.tibiaml.com/images/items/1mt4x7lwShort_Sword.gif


Some interesting ideas and well worded feedback from many recent posts.

Wow Vargo...did you actually read ALL 150 pages (or at least most of it) go take a nap you brain/eyes must hurt...or have you guys been doing it in shifts lol :P

[MaxwellEdison]

EDIT:
Backing off the racial changing as it is a bit complicated, I will agree. And I think we have the better concept, less complicated but still gives options.

I agree as well. The trees may look like something from Blizzard, but all trees do. It's the ability to pick your favorite fruit from among the orchard, and turn it into your own personal fruit salad, that makes the real difference.

Hopefully all this fruit will taste good together.

[RedDragonScale]

Mmmmmm....fruuuuuuit.

[Failedlegend]

Mmmmmm....fruuuuuuit.

ewwwwwww Palemaster Fruit :P

[TiranBlade]

Some interesting ideas and well worded feedback from many recent posts.

Thanks for replying, it's good to know that our ideas and thoughts really do matter in the case of the sweeping changes coming.


I agree as well. The trees may look like something from Blizzard, but all trees do. It's the ability to pick your favorite fruit from among the orchard, and turn it into your own personal fruit salad, that makes the real difference.

Hopefully all this fruit will taste good together.

Yes I hope so, I did feel better in the long run about my original concept. I just thought it would be good to go through everyone elses ideas on what they were looking for before finally settling. I mean if you don't try and see how the concept might work, you might not learn something that you might have needed, know what I mean. :)

Thanks for the feedback Max, it really helped.

[Riggs]

It seems like this thread has been going on for months now - in forum years.

There is a massive amount of back and forth and arguing about the same issues over and over again because of a lack of any additional tidbits in at least a week it seems.

It seems that one or two features would solve most of the 1000s of posts complaints - features hinted at but never confirmed or backed up. Namely;

You could pick whatever class enhancements you wanted as long as you met whatever the level requirements would be - which has also been hinted at softening. However - those enhancements will only COUNT towards one particular prestige line per enhancement.

So - you could take str 1, apply it to Kensai. Str 2 - apply it to stalwart defender etc. You only get to take str line once, you get nothing locked out, and each point counts towards whatever line you drag it over to.

You are still limited to 3 'trees' of prestige lines - but not 3 trees of separate, distinct, and mutually exclusive (outside of your 3 trees) enhancements.

the only possible locked out enhancements would be actual specific prestige enhancements if any - like the current 'spend 4 points for tier 1' would only count for a specific line - but that seems to be going away so in the end there really should not be any specific 'prestige enhancements' it seems.

So you would have a POOL of 4 possible class/race enhancements to choose from, and they would go into one of 4 'trees'
1. General and untyped and unassigned to any particular prestige line. Any general class AP, any general racial AP - basically everything that is not a prestige line goes here.
2. Prestige line 1
3. Prestige line 2.
4. Prestige line 3.

The pool would be on one side/top/bottom, the trees on the opposite side/top/bottom.

Simple - clean, no stacking, and no restrictions on what enhancements you can TAKE - just a restriction on how many prestige lines you can qualify for and get bonuses from.

If a particular bonus only counts for a limited set of prestige lines - lets say fighter haste boost only counts for kensai and not SD - then if you have Kensai that bonus will automatically count towards it, if you dont, and dont choose or are unable to unlock it - the haste boost goes into the general unassigned pool - you still get to take it, you just cant make it count for any prestige lines. If a line like Fighter Str counts for all 3, and you have all 3 - you have to drag to to the one you want it to apply to.

Racial - as also hinted at previously - will probably, and should not - count for and unlock a tier 3 line - yet people keep arguing that this will be the case for the last 100 pages or so.

At best, and all it should ever do at most, is either allow +6 levels to qualify for a prestige line, or else make that line cheaper in AP cost - but you dont actually unlock anything with it - a elf fighter doesnt get spells no matter what, but if they take wizard levels - they can get a wizard line cheaper than another race. Or if they take 1 level, they can count as a level 7 wizard for minimum level etc.

As it is - having 3 lines under the new relaxed rules and powered up lines, and being able to have multiple same-class lines - there is going to be a significant and probably overpowered power increase across the board in the game.

The two above features - already hinted at being considered by Turbine - would solve just about every problem raised to date regarding too much or too little restrictions.

But only if same type stacking is completely out of the question. Adding in up to 4 types of stat bonuses, toughness bonuses, spell boosting bonuses ...crit multiplier bonuses...would be simply insanity on top of the already large power increase coming.

Anyone that thinks 60 Int/Cha drow (or even human) casters with some triple spell damage or necro bonus is not going to be so massively overpowered, or some triple assassin/FB/Ravager/Kensai/whatever with triple crit bonus and assassinate on top will not break the game has never been a GM/DM - and had to change a game to deal with a player with too much power.

It absolutely will happen - 100% bank on it. Every high level monster in the game will have to get +5 to every save, +10 hit dice, hit harder and more often, and yet more new and imaginative ways to hit players with unavoidable damage will be added to the game.

Said it before - anyone salivating over new big stacking numbers that thinks the whole game is not going to just get powered up to match those numbers are just living in a dreamland.

[TiranBlade]

-snip-

I agree stacking number will be an issue and a workaround for it does need to be done, I see a power creep coming anyway you look at it, however I don't think the solution is just upping everything on everything I think a long term redevelopment of the NPC is also in order, because why give us PC's and bright shiney new enhancements system and our opponents not have something similar to counteract, I'm not saying give them power ups, but give them a level of depth we're picking up in the process.

Tweaking the NPC system is gonna be a new game in and of itself, and I hope in instances of dealing with NPCs that have class levels like us they have a generic, give on some enhancements towards them, but not to such a high degree we get it. It's on the level of balance, and I think and hope our Dev team is working on doing more than just generic buffs.

[Riggs]

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.....

We're not planning builds here. We're discussing a proposed ruleset.

He is. He has said so many times already.

He also has said many times how he likes the idea of more power for pure classes and how he is against 'superman' multiclass builds - the mere phrase indicates the bias of what is considered preferable.

Since I am technically not allowed to say what another person is thinking, I can only 'hypothetically' speculate. I speculate that the person in question is vigorously and relentlessly fighting to nurf multiclasses by arguing with anyone and everyone who speaks up for NOT nurfing multiclasses.

The reference every couple posts to "Well some of us are going to plan our pure class builds and you will see how the new system will be awesome as long as multiclasses are nurfed" only serves to support my speculation.

One side is arguing for a balanced game, the other for more power for their favorite builds...hypothetically.

[Scraap]

Some interesting ideas and well worded feedback from many recent posts.

Would you mind sharing the top three interpretations you folks are debating your end in regards to the interaction between level-gating, the 5 point spent bonuses, and racial trees and unlocked pseudo-class tress after this amount of discussion, or are we to continue to speculate as if nothing has changed in the planed approach?

It'd be nice to know what options are on the table.

[Riggs]

I agree stacking number will be an issue and a workaround for it does need to be done, I see a power creep coming anyway you look at it, however I don't think the solution is just upping everything on everything I think a long term redevelopment of the NPC is also in order, because why give us PC's and bright shiney new enhancements system and our opponents not have something similar to counteract, I'm not saying give them power ups, but give them a level of depth we're picking up in the process.

Tweaking the NPC system is gonna be a new game in and of itself, and I hope in instances of dealing with NPCs that have class levels like us they have a generic, give on some enhancements towards them, but not to such a high degree we get it. It's on the level of balance, and I think and hope our Dev team is working on doing more than just generic buffs.

Giving enemies enhancement lines would be far harder to do yes. And needlessly complicated - as monsters and players do not operate by the same rules anyway.

Stacking is not simply 'an issue', it is a massive issue that impacts the entire game - and breaks it.

Adding in Monks - with unlimited wisdom bonus to AC - which I argued against and said it should be tied to level - AND adding in Icy Raiments at the same time was a massive game breaking and foolish change.

Result? Exploiter builds - and constant complaints to this day about 'pajama wearing tanks' - with the AC to be able to laugh at pretty much all content to that point.

Result? Grazing hits, epic to hit making AC useless, massive amounts of unavoidable damage in all subsequent raids, new Hp thresholds for things like 500+ point disintegrates, and unavoidable, undispellable, unsaveable medals etc...a whole, massive whack of stuff changed in the game to the detriment of many many builds that were not 'exploiter' builds but just plain old 60-70 ac builds, or plain old 450 hp builds that were just fine up to that point - that suddenly became a waste of time as all the time, points, and gear mattered almost zero in all new content.

That was because of TWO stacking bonuses to AC that got added at the same time.

If this new system has all kinds of 4x stacking all over the place - the game balance will be utterly screwed.

[Antheal]

153 pages is too much to skim through.

Will there be the "Dragonmark Heir" lines in this new system?

So I could make a Beacon of Hope/Jorasco Dragonmark Heir...?

[Failedlegend]

153 pages is too much to skim through.

Will there be the "Dragonmark Heir" lines in this new system?


Nothing concrete but as far as we know the DMs are being reduced to a single feat than any boosts including what was originally planned for each DM Heir will be part of that enhancement line.

[Vormaerin]

One side is arguing for a balanced game, the other for more power for their favorite builds...hypothetically.

Ah yes, the old "if he doesn't agree with me, he has evil motives" argument. Always a favorite...

The ideas put forward by the devs could very easily 1) massively favor pures, 2) massively favor multis, or 3) be reasonably balanced. The devil is in the details of the enhancements and the requirements for them. Until the devs are ready to show us something, anyone claiming they know which of those three it will be is flat out wrong.

A lot of enhancements are going to be added to the game or a lot of trees will have duplicates. Because there are no where near enough enhancements in the game currently to fill out 3 trees per class along the lines of the rogue mock up.

The new system has to allow multi class characters to get the enhancements relevant to the purpose of the multiclass and has to avoid putting the pure classes back into 2nd class citizen status where they used to be.

When the devs are ready to post some of the details, there will be something worth discussing again.

[WangoFett]

My main concern is that there should be multiple paths all the way through the trees to their capstones to ensure build diversity.
I don't want all capstone tempests having exactly the same enhancements picked, thus truly making them cookie cutter.

[Thlargir]

I apologise if these points have been brought up already, but not being paid to read every message in this thread, I have only read a couple hundred of the three thousand or so posts. If they have been made please treat this post as an endorsement of those positions.


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.

The changed enhancements will also help balance out many classes (think augmentation here, not nerfs).

These two issues are completely separate, and to conflate them is to increase the risk of messing both up geometrically!

If you don't like the UI, fix it. If you don't like the way enhancements are interacting - fix them. But do not fix one under the pretense of fixing the other, or try to fix both simultaneously - that would be "a bad thing".

Trees are an inherently limiting structure, this is, in of itself, "a bad thing". If you mean a GUI showing the dependency relations of the enhancement tree then that sounds like an improvement on the current UI (not that I use the current UI to plan, I use a character planner off-line to plan, I use the in game UI only to select).


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.

Frankly, I am speechless that this would be considered. Luckily I can still type. It seems to me that to force every single player, for all their characters, on all servers to reset all their enhancements (many of which are based on stat choices, feat choices, and build choice) is the worst customer service nightmare to have ever been dreamed up.


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.

Well yes we would, though we might be more forgiving if there were not issues that are broken to be fixed...

[Vormaerin]

Even if they took all 45 tempest enhancements, they'd still have 35 points to spend between race, racial prestige, AA, and DWS trees. Or whatever line they get from multiclassing.

[Vormaerin]

Trees are an inherently limiting structure, this is, in of itself, "a bad thing". If you mean a GUI showing the dependency relations of the enhancement tree then that sounds like an improvement on the current UI

What is a tree if not a GUI for showing dependency relationships?



Frankly, I am speechless that this would be considered. Luckily I can still type. It seems to me that to force every single player, for all their characters, on all servers to reset all their enhancements (many of which are based on stat choices, feat choices, and build choice) is the worst customer service nightmare to have ever been dreamed up.


This isn't the first time its been done and it worked out fine. If they replace it with a better system, its a short term nuisance that pays off with more and better game play.

[Failedlegend]

Frankly, I am speechless that this would be considered. Luckily I can still type. It seems to me that to force every single player, for all their characters, on all servers to reset all their enhancements (many of which are based on stat choices, feat choices, and build choice) is the worst customer service nightmare to have ever been dreamed up.


Why is this a problem...I constantly reset my enhancements...the only downside to this is the few people still clinging to some ancient enhancements that don't exist anymore.

[kingfisher]

On a side note if you think the race PrE's should be inferior to class PrEs, how exactly could you or would you further decrease/devalue AA? Or is AA fairly pitiful enough? ;P

no its perfect and pretty much my point, its a nice pre but by itself is rather lackluster compared to other class pre's. but if an elf ranger can get tempIII and AAII or vice versa and still splash for a few feats some sneak damage and boosts or ac and stance they would be a nice race to play again.

they could do the same thing with other pre's not in the game yet like scorpion wraith or eldritch knight and make them racial pre's. nice perks, great flavor, valuable and worth ap for sure, but not mandatory on any build of that type.

[Antheal]

Frankly, I am speechless that this would be considered. Luckily I can still type. It seems to me that to force every single player, for all their characters, on all servers to reset all their enhancements (many of which are based on stat choices, feat choices, and build choice) is the worst customer service nightmare to have ever been dreamed up.

So a player will have to spend a couple of minutes re-clicking some boxes?

What does being based on stat/feat or build choices have to do with anything?

It's only the enhancements that are being reset, not feats.

You don't even need a Siberys Dragonshard to reset enhancements.

Frankly, I consider some characters to be taking advantage of non-existant enhancement lines to be nothing short of an exploit.

[kingfisher]

lots of chuckles over the last few pages, hypothetically

[Thlargir]

What is a tree if not a GUI for showing dependency relationships?

Well, technically, a tree is a limited structure for representing the dependency relationships (each node is limited to one parent, for example). A GUI to display those dependencies could take any form. My concern is that they alter the current flexibility to fit into some preconceived notion of "correct" builds.


This isn't the first time its been done and it worked out fine.

I believe that there are a much greater number of players now, most of whom are casual. They are likely to have a much lower threshold of pain in such matters.

Furthermore, there is also a precedent for leaving features "grandfathered" in, and only forcing the player to update when resetting or TRing, etc.

[Thlargir]

Why is this a problem...I constantly reset my enhancements...the only downside to this is the few people still clinging to some ancient enhancements that don't exist anymore.

Given your proclivity for enhancement resetting it seems it would not be an issue for you. I am referring to those who do not do so on such a regular basis.

[Thlargir]

What does being based on stat/feat or build choices have to do with anything? It's only the enhancements that are being reset, not feats.

iirc certain enhancements are dependent on stats and/feats selected. One can expect further such dependencies in any new system. Where such dependencies differ, current builds will be broken.

This fact appears to be implicitly accepted by the devs as they appear not to be able to come up with a mechanism to auto-update enhancements from the current system to whatever the proposed system ends up with.

[Failedlegend]

Well, technically, a tree is a limited structure for representing the dependency relationships (each node is limited to one parent, for example). A GUI to display those dependencies could take any form. My concern is that they alter the current flexibility to fit into some preconceived notion of "correct" builds.


Actually most of these issues have already been addressed...I'll try to sum it up the more popular suggestions.

- Allowing Free Access to ALL Trees your character has access to but only allowing a character to choose (see Check box in picture) three PrEs they actually get the "Free Prestige Bonuses"..after choosing the Three you can still spend AP in other tress you just won't get any of the "Free Bonuses"...this will also solve issues where you DON'T want bonuses (currently some PrEs have negatives) from a particular line but do want some enhancements...also some people don't like PrEs so they can check no boxes if they so choose.

http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o539/TiranBlade/DDO%20Concept%20Suggestion/EnhancementMockupSuggestionRevision2.jpg

- Multiclass PrEs using the above function when a character selects 2 PrEs that fulfill a multiclass Pres Requirements (see below) they can choose to select that PrE as their 3rd Prestige..how far you can go up that Tree is determined by the Class Levels


ie.
Tier 1 of Arcane Trickster Requires Wizard1&Rogue1 but CHARACTER Lvl 3
Tier 2 would need Wizard 2 & Rogue 2 (Wizard 3 & Rogue 1 won't work) but Character Lvl 6
T3 = 3&3 but 9
T4 = 4&4 but 12
T5 = 5&5 but 15
T6 = 6&6 but 18
T7 = 7&7 but 20 (aka Capstone)

This means the MOST you could take in one class and still have access to the capstone is Lvl 13 ie. Rogue13/Wizard7 or 12Wizard/7Rogue/1Fighter...meaning you can't get any higher than Tier 2 in your Highest Classes PrE. This is too make it so NOT taking a multiclass PrE won't gimp you but you can still have you main class to a decent level if you do wish to pursue a multiclass PrE.

The "Free Bonuses" would obviously follow the 5/10/15/20/25/30/41 scheme

Wizard and Rogue are only example as the requirements for Arcane Trickster is likely any Arcane Class + Rogue Mech.

Here's some examples of PrE requirements both Specific and Very Broad




Swiftblade: Any Arcane w/ Haste + Martial

Pirate Captain: 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 a multiclass PrE...it's just right)

Corrupt Avenger: Acolyte of the Skin + Divine Avenger

- A "Favored PrE System" near the beginning of this thread a dev said that the reasoning for the racial PrE choices was based on their "Favored" Class but there's two inherent problems with that one being it makes that race LESS likely to go that class and two it presents some serious balance issues...so it was responded to with the "Favored PrE System" which when the correct race is climbing a tree they are considered X amount of levels higher (X to be determined by devs) for the purposes of any Level gating (currently we know the "Free Bonuses" have level gates of 3/6/9/12/15/18/20) there was also a suggestion for a special enhancement that only a Single Classed Characters with the correct "Favored" Race could take.

- REAL Racial PrEs...PrEs actually specific to that race (preferably Ebberon related as well)...not as powerful as Class PrEs but instead of making it take on of your three Trees that you choose (see above) it would just be part of the racial system and be gained as you put APs into the Racial Tree (5/10/15/20/25/30..possibly 41)



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

Halfling: Talenta (Essentially a Dinosaur Rider - Ebberon Specific)

Dwarf: Dwarven Defender (Fairly self explanatory...seems to be a mix of Monk Earth Stance & Stalwart with a little immunity to knockdown thrown in)

Drow Elf: Scorpion Wraith (No idea..but its eberron specific and people seem to approve)

Elf:Arcane Archer AND Reaver Blade (AA because they have it already & R--Blade because its Specific to Ebberon Elves)

Half-Orc: Bloodfist or Eye of Gruumsh

Human: Steelsky Liberator (Basically focuses on Larger enemies especially Dragons)

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

- Giving each PrE only +1 in a Stat to keep power creep at a minimum than each PrE would get a +1 Stat specific to that PrE ie. Kensai = +1 Str, Stalwart = +1 Con, Dragon Knight = +1 Cha.


- Less Cumbersome UIs...the main problem I forsee with the suggested UI is its size right now we could easily fit all 3 PrEs for all three classes in it but if Dev ever want to add anything to it (ie. A 4th PrE, Familiar/Companion Enhancement Line, Multiclass PrEs) It would get WAY too big...something similar to the Spell Level UI (see shoddy mock-up below) would be alot easier to modify.

http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo93/Failedlegend/UIMockUP-1.png

Note: The actual size of the Spell UI tabs is much smaller I was just trying to get this done quickly

Note2: I Actually really like the Silver/White UI and its basic design MUCH better than the current Burgundy and Gold look...I'm hoping they upgrade the whole UI that way.


iirc certain enhancements are dependent on stats and/feats selected. One can expect further such dependencies in any new system. Where such dependencies differ, current builds will be broken.

Well lucky you one of the things that devs plan to do is relax alot of the feat requirements so the feats you take are the ones you want to take not the ones you take have to take because the Pre-Reqs told you too...if your not ok with this than feel free to offer suggestions they seem quite open to it right now.


Given your proclivity for enhancement resetting it seems it would not be an issue for you. I am referring to those who do not do so on such a regular basis.

Whether I have a proclivity for it or not it's a minor inconvenience not matter which way you look at it...but again if you have a suggestion of how they can NOT reset people enhancements when their completely changing the way Enhancements are taken AND changing the majority of said enhancements...hopefully for the better...but in this I trust them and judging by the request for more Mournlanders (volunteer testing server - Like NDA signing early access) they plan to playtest this hard.

Anyways I got this thing called sleep to do...try not to burn the place down while I'm gone eh :P

[EnjoyTheJourney]

I tried reading a few attempts to make this more complicated than the original propose framework, and most of them seem written in a foreign language.

I at least have a few months of forum reading to help me out, and I'm still not following some of this. I hope the devs run some of these proposals by newer players to get their feedback on this, before giving in to proposals that might make this an over-engineered, overly complicated system.

[bigolbear]

another thought in my tiny mind has surfaced.


What if....


What if the 3 tree limit were to come in and stay in BUT.....The level gating was completely removed?

You could then have builds such as battle clerics/ spell swords etc splashing a lvl of fighter to access the kensai tree.
Posibly overpowered, but considering theres a tree limit probably not.

Often the point of multiclassing is that your characters main function becomes that of a class that is not necesarily your highest. Honestly im not sure how I feel about this - but im throwing it out there for discussion.

now about multiclass trees:
I talked earlier about remembering the OLD multiclasses, such as 'Elf' and dwarven fighter cleric. At the time I suggested that there should be racial enhancemnts that allowed deeper progression in certain trees. For example a dwarven fighter cleric that selects the 'dwarven faith' enhancement should be considered 4 levels higher in both cleric and fighter for the purpose of what enhancemnts they can pick.

Im now going to expand on that.

EXPAND YOUR MIND, IMAGINE FLOATING TREES!

Imagine if you will that in the future turbine decides to create a bunch of deep multiclass prestiges. The system they implement now needs to allow for this, its always good to future proof your self.

We could have multiclass prestige trees that have requirements such as:
one or more feats.
X levels of a class and Y levels of another class.
race.

and this brings me to thinking. There is no reason we cant have 'general class trees' that contain the core essence of what a class does, these could be floating trees - opened up as selectable when you have taken either 1 level in that class, the active past life feat for that class or another specific feat, example mental toughness could open up the general wizard tree.

Overall my biggest concern with a 3 tree system remains that in splitting things up we are going to be denied access to fundamental core abilites - im particularly concerned how things like elemental damage lines(fire, ice, healing etc) will be split and how that restiction may lead to multiclasses being forced to take only the enhancement trees from their main class. I know many of you share that concern and im faily confident the devs do too.

enjoy, discuss etc.

[porq]

Wow Vargo...did you actually read ALL 150 pages (or at least most of it) go take a nap you brain/eyes must hurt...or have you guys been doing it in shifts lol :P

It's threads like this that make me glad to have set options to show 100 posts per page.
Less clicking for next page is good.

[Scraap]

Wild notion: action points spent similarly to skill points.

Rather than a binary level gate, any points spent in a tree over and above that trees (class * 4, simple display next to the points spent readout) cost twice as much.

Favored class/pre trees treat the expenditure as a 1:1.

[voxson5]

how long before Failedlegend posts those 2 pics again? 1 page, 2?

Place your bets :D

[Antheal]

another thought in my tiny mind has surfaced.


What if....


What if the 3 tree limit were to come in and stay in BUT.....The level gating was completely removed?

You could then have builds such as battle clerics/ spell swords etc splashing a lvl of fighter to access the kensai tree.
Posibly overpowered, but considering theres a tree limit probably not.

Often the point of multiclassing is that your characters main function becomes that of a class that is not necesarily your highest. Honestly im not sure how I feel about this - but im throwing it out there for discussion.

now about multiclass trees:
I talked earlier about remembering the OLD multiclasses, such as 'Elf' and dwarven fighter cleric. At the time I suggested that there should be racial enhancemnts that allowed deeper progression in certain trees. For example a dwarven fighter cleric that selects the 'dwarven faith' enhancement should be considered 4 levels higher in both cleric and fighter for the purpose of what enhancemnts they can pick.

Im now going to expand on that.

EXPAND YOUR MIND, IMAGINE FLOATING TREES!

Imagine if you will that in the future turbine decides to create a bunch of deep multiclass prestiges. The system they implement now needs to allow for this, its always good to future proof your self.

We could have multiclass prestige trees that have requirements such as:
one or more feats.
X levels of a class and Y levels of another class.
race.

and this brings me to thinking. There is no reason we cant have 'general class trees' that contain the core essence of what a class does, these could be floating trees - opened up as selectable when you have taken either 1 level in that class, the active past life feat for that class or another specific feat, example mental toughness could open up the general wizard tree.

Overall my biggest concern with a 3 tree system remains that in splitting things up we are going to be denied access to fundamental core abilites - im particularly concerned how things like elemental damage lines(fire, ice, healing etc) will be split and how that restiction may lead to multiclasses being forced to take only the enhancement trees from their main class. I know many of you share that concern and im faily confident the devs do too.

enjoy, discuss etc.

Don't forget that this game was originally supposed to be based on the tabletop Dungeons & Dragons game, version 3.5...

I just hope that whatever new system the enhancements mechanic takes, it remembers that it's suppsed to be Dungeons & Dragons, not generic-medieval-fantasy-MMO.

[Failedlegend]

how long before Failedlegend posts those 2 pics again? 1 page, 2?

Place your bets :D

Hush :P I was making a summary for Thlargir and anyone else who doesn't want to read 150 Pages because he was asking alot of questions that have already been answered in many ways so I thought I'd him up to speed so if he so wished he wished to provide feedback he could do so based on the current state of discussion.


I tried reading a few attempts to make this more complicated than the original propose framework, and most of them seem written in a foreign language.


I don't see whats complicated about any of our current suggestions..if anything most are fairly self-explanatory and If the devs actually updated the Compendium or had a tutorial blurb show up the first time you used it, it would be fine....if the player hits the "X" button that's their own problem.

Look at my post near the top of the page it explains everything decently well and it could be easily refined (and be made less "foreign lauguagey") into a quick tutorial and/or NPC with explanations of how it functions (Give the Trainers something to do since this UI is gonna put them out of a job) and again if the player ignores that help its their own problem.

Honestly there's already been enough changes for "New" players...its 10D6 NOT 10-60...but no it was to hard to use Advice chat to ask what 10D6 meant so this iconic piece of DnD must be removed.

TL;DR There's already enough dumbing down (ie. Removal of Dice Notations) we don't need more of it...there's tutorial blurbs and Helper NPCs for a reason..also the 3 Tree limit was probably to "Make things easier" for new players and look how that turned out.

We don't want the ga,e to be crazy complex that no one understands anything but we also don't want it to turn into "Generic Fantasy MMO #5072" and to prevent that we have to keep the basis of the PnP system not necessarily 3.5 just PnP Turbine Edition..which is inherently a bit complicated. If you can't handle that go Play WoW or something it holds you hand the entire way...until a random Lvl 100 Troll Mage starts killing off all your quest givers because he's bored.


another thought in my tiny mind has surfaced.
What if the 3 tree limit were to come in and stay in BUT.....The level gating was completely removed?


That would make pures largely irrelevant and still limit variety among multiclassers. So definate net loss there.

[TiranBlade]

-major snip-

Yep, cumbersomeness might be an issue lemme see if I can come up with a solid idea to fix that. :)

EDIT: Got an idea, similar to what you have, less cumbersome, but not as clunky looking.

[TiranBlade]

Here's a condenced version that might make Failedlegend happy.

http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o539/TiranBlade/DDO%20Concept%20Suggestion/EnhancementMockupSuggestionCondenced.jpg

EDIT: And it's starting to look like a folded open book with a bunch of tabs....,

Hey good idea make the spell section actually look like a folded open book. :D

EDIT2: With the tabs hiding which trees are checked for the Prestige, how about we put a stamp, highlight, or some sort of marker on the end of the tab of one that is selected to cut down slightly on the confusion from the condencing of this UI element. Not to mention some sort of marker on the class tabs to also show which classes are the ones picking up the prestiges. Also to help cut confusion.

[Failedlegend]

Here's a condensed version that might make Failedlegend happy.

Picture Snipped

Close but Class 1/2/3 should be along the side with the Trees at the top because any new categories (ie. Animal Companion, Multiclass PrEs,etc.) would go along the side

Also there should be a Summary tab with stuff like AP spent (and Total AP Gained),your 3 chosen Prestiges and whatever else would be useful...A button to the tutorial..maybe brief descriptions of each PrE available to you (Make it just the icon and the Desc is a tooltip) a good place to show some flavour text and the Pre-Reqs for Multiclass PrEs (If implemented)

I know I'm being picky but I want to make sure it's perfect before the devs move on because the further they move along the harder it will be to change.

Otherwise I "The Blind Prophet" APPROVE!!!! :P +1



Hey good idea make the spell section actually look like a folded open book. :D

That would be awesome...the UI needs an update anyway...it just so bleh.

[TiranBlade]

Close but Class 1/2/3 should be along the side with the Trees at the top because any new categories (ie. Animal Companion, Multiclass PrEs,etc.) would go along the side

Also there should be a Summary tab with stuff like AP spent (and Total AP Gained),your 3 chosen Prestiges and whatever else would be useful...A button to the tutorial..maybe brief descriptions of each PrE available to you (Make it just the icon and the Desc is a tooltip) a good place to show some flavour text and the Pre-Reqs for Multiclass PrEs (If implemented)

I know I'm being picky but I want to make sure it's perfect before the devs mone on because the firther they move along the harder it will be to change.

Otherwise I "The Blind Prophet" APPROVE!!!! :P +1



That would be awesome...the UI needs an update anyway...it just so bleh.

Ah, I get what your saying, hmmm, lemme give this another try.

[TiranBlade]

Ah, I get what your saying, hmmm, lemme give this another try.

Aaaaaaaaand, here it is.

http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o539/TiranBlade/DDO%20Concept%20Suggestion/EnhancementMockupSuggestionCondenced2.jpg

EDIT: I meant it to have a check mark just below the AP on the tab to show which had been selected as a Prestige Line.

[Failedlegend]

Aaaaaaaaand, here it is.

Pic Snipped

EDIT: I meant it to have a check mark just below the AP on the tap to show which had been selected as a Prestige Line.

Works for me has alot of info without cluttering it too much and has room for expansion to add more things (ie.Multiclass Pres) if the Devs wish. The Trees of course would be labeled with whatever the PrE is and the racial PrE would be part of the racial Tree..since that just makes sense.

[Yan_PL]

Aaaaaaaaand, here it is.
snip

EDIT: I meant it to have a check mark just below the AP on the tab to show which had been selected as a Prestige Line.

can we get this interface without actual changes to current enhancements? this interface looks CLEARER, BETTER, and stuff. also, I'd suggest showing 1 tab at the time instead of keeping racial permanently on, and making 'Racial' just like 'Class' or 'Pet' tab.

[TiranBlade]

can we get this interface without actual changes to current enhancements? this interface looks CLEARER, BETTER, and stuff. also, I'd suggest showing 1 tab at the time instead of keeping racial permanently on, and making 'Racial' just like 'Class' or 'Pet' tab.

I'd concidered added racial into the same tab type like Class and Pet to condence it further but didn't get to it. And honestly I personally am going to welcome the change to this game, it needs a bit more diversity, which it will once worked out.

[Failedlegend]

I'd concidered added racial into the same tab type like Class and Pet to condence it further but didn't get to it. And honestly I personally am going to welcome the change to this game, it needs a bit more diversity, which it will once worked out.

Yeah I want these changes to come the initial proposal is just a little flawed and from what I've seen it seems like their taking our concerns to heart and to the planning room :P

As long as they continue to feed us info and let us run with it I think it will turn out fine

[TiranBlade]

The problem with condencing it further is the over abundance of clutter, which from the original concept is what they were trying to prevent in the first place. Also, I'm not sure if the pet enhancement line belongs with the racial and class enhancements due to pets being currently on a different enhancement line, weither or not that changes. We'll know when they let us know.

[red_cardinal]

I tried reading a few attempts to make this more complicated than the original propose framework, and most of them seem written in a foreign language.

I at least have a few months of forum reading to help me out, and I'm still not following some of this. I hope the devs run some of these proposals by newer players to get their feedback on this, before giving in to proposals that might make this an over-engineered, overly complicated system.

In the current UI, scrolling is your friend and he isn't a bad friend. I'd like the old system with just finished PrEstiges. That would suffice.
Maybe just shorten the scrolling somehow by rearranging the elements and showing them differently.

This new UI seems overly complicated, no matter who proposed what.

[Failedlegend]

In the current UI, scrolling is your friend and he isn't a bad friend. I'd like the old system with just finished PrEstiges. That would suffice.

Actually it's a HORRIBLE system and needs to be changed...also without those changes you won't be seeing those PrEs they'll continue to trickle out at the current pace.

[red_cardinal]

Actually it's a HORRIBLE system and needs to be changed

I agree to the certain point. For Art 8/Rgr 6/Rog 6 build it's a HORRIBLE system. But that's because of scrolling. You get really A LOT of options. That may be changed by grouping elements in the current UI differently.
You would still scroll, but not that much. It's GROUPING of elements which is badly shown.

[gloopygloop]

another thought in my tiny mind has surfaced.


What if....


What if the 3 tree limit were to come in and stay in BUT.....The level gating was completely removed?

I think that's an interesting idea, but one specific issue that it would bring is having people get their capstone at level 11.

[EnjoyTheJourney]

...

TL;DR There's already enough dumbing down (ie. Removal of Dice Notations) we don't need more of it...there's tutorial blurbs and Helper NPCs for a reason..also the 3 Tree limit was probably to "Make things easier" for new players and look how that turned out.

We don't want the game to be crazy complex that no one understands anything but we also don't want it to turn into "Generic Fantasy MMO #5072" and to prevent that we have to keep the basis of the PnP system not necessarily 3.5 just PnP Turbine Edition..which is inherently a bit complicated. If you can't handle that go Play WoW or something it holds you hand the entire way...until a random Lvl 100 Troll Mage starts killing off all your quest givers because he's bored.

tl;dr on this quote:
There's a definite, inviolate "core" of what D&D is; you know what that is and I don't. If I can't understand or deal with your ideas about how to play this game and the efforts to educate newer players (because clearly your way is the right way), then I should go play WOW or something else that "holds my hand."

Nice.

A goodly chunk of DDO has been made gratuitously tricky or complicated. Resource swaps for challenges is a recent example; they could have been made very simple and there is no reason inherent in D&D for why they needed to be complicated. But, it takes a set of flowcharts to explain them. The track record clearly indicates that when the devs have been given a choice between a simple way of doing things and a way that makes things more complicated (often pointlessly), they tend to make things more complicated. I'm glad that they're aiming to make the enhancement system simple; hopefully they stick to their guns on that point, however the system turns out.

More generally, D&D has not necessarily and always been about consulting thick, complex manuals. It could be played that way. But, it could also be played with DMs making up some of their own rules, for balance reasons and to keep things fun. And, keeping things relatively simple is, for very large numbers of people, likely to be much more enjoyable than repeatedly needing to consult the table of contents and/or index of some long rulebook.

Finally, your references to "we" suggests that there's some defined group out there opposing the proposed enhancement tree structure. There's a very small percentage of all players who happen to be prolific posters making a determined effort to proclaim doom before a system has been implemented, or even tested. Which leads to the following ...


That would make pures largely irrelevant and still limit variety among multiclassers. So definate net loss there.
This kind of language comes across as over-the-top. Neither pures nor multi-class choices have ever been "largely irrelevant", other than to perhaps a tiny minority of hardcore players for whom there are "Best in class" builds and anything else is a "Gimply flavor build."

Efforts to hype up the stakes involved if the devs don't follow your preferred way of doing things has the ironic effect of undercutting the extent to which your arguments are persuasive.

[Vormaerin]

I agree to the certain point. For Art 8/Rgr 6/Rog 6 build it's a HORRIBLE system. But that's because of scrolling. You get really A LOT of options. That may be changed by grouping elements in the current UI differently.
You would still scroll, but not that much. It's GROUPING of elements which is badly shown.

Its actually horrible because there is no easy way to tell what you need for some higher level enhancement or how much it will cost without scrolling back and forth with the "show all" activated.

Which is hellish if you have any levels of fighter or arcane caster

[MaxwellEdison]

Here's a condenced version that might make Failedlegend happy.

http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o539/TiranBlade/DDO%20Concept%20Suggestion/EnhancementMockupSuggestionCondenced.jpg

EDIT: And it's starting to look like a folded open book with a bunch of tabs....,

Hey good idea make the spell section actually look like a folded open book. :D

EDIT2: With the tabs hiding which trees are checked for the Prestige, how about we put a stamp, highlight, or some sort of marker on the end of the tab of one that is selected to cut down slightly on the confusion from the condencing of this UI element. Not to mention some sort of marker on the class tabs to also show which classes are the ones picking up the prestiges. Also to help cut confusion.

I like this layout, it's clean and simple.


Aaaaaaaaand, here it is.

http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o539/TiranBlade/DDO%20Concept%20Suggestion/EnhancementMockupSuggestionCondenced2.jpg

EDIT: I meant it to have a check mark just below the AP on the tab to show which had been selected as a Prestige Line.

This is definitely more in line with FailedLegend's vision. However, it also helps illustrate my concerns with it.

First: Too much focus on pet enhancements. Currently, only the Artificer has a need for pet enhancements. Druid most likely will and there is a very small, yet non-zero, chance Rangers will. I don't think the pet enhancements need to be folded into the character enhancement screen. It would work better to be able to access them from the pets own character sheet.

Second: Multi-class PrE's. Correct me if I am wrong, but I can't think of any time when multi-class PrE's have been mentioned with any of the plans for the future. As such, I don't think the UI should be built around their future inclusion. If they ever did get included just add a fourth PrE tab on each of it's component classes.

[Vargouille]

Wow Vargo...did you actually read ALL 150 pages (or at least most of it) go take a nap you brain/eyes must hurt...or have you guys been doing it in shifts lol :P

There may be occasional skimming, but some of us have been keeping up!

[dkyle]

I think that's an interesting idea, but one specific issue that it would bring is having people get their capstone at level 11.

Keeping character level gating would fix this, without undermining the intended boon to multiclassing.

But my biggest concern would be making sure deep multis get something significant that splashes don't get. I suggested a while back that most of the enhancements could have no class level requirements, but some of them would.

But even then, I just don't like the three tree limit for the simple fact that it makes it harder to combine a variety of enhancements from many sources into a novel combination.

[Auran82]

I mentioned it much much earlier in the thread, but if they insist on limiting trees, a decent compromise would be to have a single class character have 1 (race) + 3 (Class) active trees, and for each additional class, you get one extra active class tree, up to a total of 5. Split however you want across your Class/Race PREs.

[Aesop]

I like this layout, it's clean and simple.



This is definitely more in line with FailedLegend's vision. However, it also helps illustrate my concerns with it.

First: Too much focus on pet enhancements. Currently, only the Artificer has a need for pet enhancements. Druid most likely will and there is a very small, yet non-zero, chance Rangers will. I don't think the pet enhancements need to be folded into the character enhancement screen. It would work better to be able to access them from the pets own character sheet.

Second: Multi-class PrE's. Correct me if I am wrong, but I can't think of any time when multi-class PrE's have been mentioned with any of the plans for the future. As such, I don't think the UI should be built around their future inclusion. If they ever did get included just add a fourth PrE tab on each of it's component classes.

I'd agree with the first but the second one has been talked about in the past a couple times. a LONG time ago though.

Heck Tiranblade could condense the whole thing down to 1 panel on the left with PrE subpanels tabs that scroll out to the side when selected leaving the primary panel open simultaneously. The Race panel will likely have between 2-3 PrEs eventually and each class will have 3 or more as well. Race will end up looking exactly like a Class Panel anyway really.

Aesop

[orakio]

Keeping character level gating would fix this, without undermining the intended boon to multiclassing.

But my biggest concern would be making sure deep multis get something significant that splashes don't get. I suggested a while back that most of the enhancements could have no class level requirements, but some of them would.

But even then, I just don't like the three tree limit for the simple fact that it makes it harder to combine a variety of enhancements from many sources into a novel combination.

Character level gating on PrE's/capstone but not on enhancements would prevent the early capstone effect. It is the idea I liked the most as it means that multi's aren't limited on number of enhancements they have the exact same number as pure's. The character decision then becomes "Do I stay pure with the (typically) weaker class features and less PrE synergy but access to higher ranks of PrE's and capstone? Do I multiclass and get potentially more synergy in my PrE's, more/better class features but sacrifice capstone and access to a couple tier 3 PrE's?" I feel like creates interesting character decisions without too blatantly favoring one or the other, but maybe its just me.

I want to see decisions in characters being made, decisions are what makes characters fun and makes them feel like your own.

I like some of the mockups with the Class tabs and PrE tabs, General enhancements would really help with things like monk stances and other class enhancements that probably shouldn't be limited to a specific tree. Personally though I would prefer if the General trees were kept as small as possible(10-20 points max), containing only the absolute essentials. It would be interesting if you could then select a class PrE to put all of those points towards through a dropdown box but that wouldn't have to be an essential feature either.

[Yan_PL]

I'd concidered added racial into the same tab type like Class and Pet to condence it further but didn't get to it. And honestly I personally am going to welcome the change to this game, it needs a bit more diversity, which it will once worked out.
I like the new UI, and I like my old enhancements. I believe most of them have balanced costs and level requirements. I got used to this. Everybody got used to this. New interface package looks a lot better, but mechanical changes to existing stuff would probably obsolete A LOT of builds, and that's also something I'm afraid of. Characters would need to be "started anew", and carefully re-thought. And i have just 5 characters i regularly play; think of amount of time needed for 'force updating' old chars of people with 6 alts on every server.

So, my plea is, don't break it too much, we're counting on ya.

[boomer70]

Aaaaaaaaand, here it is.

http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o539/TiranBlade/DDO%20Concept%20Suggestion/EnhancementMockupSuggestionCondenced2.jpg

EDIT: I meant it to have a check mark just below the AP on the tab to show which had been selected as a Prestige Line.

I like the idea of tabs to display the various groups of options. However, I still have problems with what those options actually will be.

Seems I am in the minority but I am still very much not a fan of splitting the enhancements up into prestige groups and giving bonuses based on points spent.

Someone (couldn't find the post sorry) mentioned that they felt AA was fine as a racial prestige because it was not OP and mostly flavor. I actually think all the prestiges should be designed that way. By having prestiges mostly be relegated to bonuses at various tiers you are losing a lot of flavor and flexibility that prestiges could offer.

For example, I don't think many people would be happy if by spending X number of AP in the Wild Mage tree (say spell crit was in that tree as some has suggested it might be) then all of a sudden their spells start acting like wild spells (unless I guess those effects were always strictly better than the non wild version of the spell which isn't the flavor of the pre at all).

AP spent in tree giving bonuses also could cause some real headaches from a balance perspective as you will have min/maxers calculating what the optimal number of points to spend in each tree are based on what the bonus is for that point. While this in and of itself isn't a bad thing, build optimization should be not only possible but encouraged, I think it could be difficult to get the balance right when you have to consider what bonus might kick in for selecting that enhancements. Say you add a new enhancement to the system that you think is balanced, now you also have to consider what the impact will be with whatever free bonus could come with the user purchasing that enhancement.

I am very much in favor of letting us pick whatever we want for our characters. I don't need or want an incentive to select the enhancements that some one thinks are the ones that make a good tank when I am trying to build a tank. If you want to guide people to make smarter choices redo the build paths. Make them viable. Hold contests to get players/forumites to design them.


Your proposal probably addresses some of the general concerns about lock multis out of their available options though.

Summary:
- In favor of tabs for groups of enhancements.
- I have some problems with the tree display inside those tabs as outlined but trees could be made to work.
- No racial prestiges as special entities.
- Racial tab with expanded options to concentrate more on what your race "is good at". i.e. 50-60 AP worth of choices per race.
- Races would have special options for 1-3 "favored" classes that allow them to add/modify class functions to work more in keeping with the racial theme. Dwarven rangers should be different from elven ones.
- Class tab for each class containing enhancements which build on the class abilities. 80-100 AP worth of points in each tree. Should be possible to spend all your points just in your class/race trees.
- Prestige tree showing all prestiges and what the qualifications are and allowing you to select a prestige to "enter".
- Prestige entry should not be restricted by class. Other features can be used to make entry easier for some classes. Some examples would be class feature (sneak attack dice, arcane spell level, rage, smite, etc), skill ranks, BAB, feats, enhancements, race, (maybe) character level.
- A tab for each prestige you enter containing roughly 25-30+ AP worth of options. Should require a significant investment to gain maximum benefit and a not insignificant entry cost.
- Feat Prestige tab to contain enhancements that improve feats that you have selected much like the toughness line does now. Think Power Critical is useless now what if there were enhancements that allowed you to apply special effects on a critical hit if you take the feat. Would make the feat hard to give up for a DPS build. Other good candidates are Weapon Focus (allowing non-fighters to get better with specific weapons), Dodge, TWD, etc. Basically anything that gives a benefit that is primarily overshadowed by the scope of DDOs number inflation. This would make any feat potentially a useful choice (although I would admit Skill Focus (Swim) might still not be a great feat choice).
- Other tabs for past life, dragonmark, companion enhancements.

[Failedlegend]

I like this layout, it's clean and simple.



This is definitely more in line with FailedLegend's vision. However, it also helps illustrate my concerns with it.

First: Too much focus on pet enhancements. Currently, only the Artificer has a need for pet enhancements. Druid most likely will and there is a very small, yet non-zero, chance Rangers will. I don't think the pet enhancements need to be folded into the character enhancement screen. It would work better to be able to access them from the pets own character sheet.

Second: Multi-class PrE's. Correct me if I am wrong, but I can't think of any time when multi-class PrE's have been mentioned with any of the plans for the future. As such, I don't think the UI should be built around their future inclusion. If they ever did get included just add a fourth PrE tab on each of it's component classes.

I didn't say ANY of these were guarenteed besides I was just using them as examples of things the Devs MAY want to add in the future so it would be better to make a UI that can have stuff added to it now than try to force new stuff into a crowded UI.

Also the second UI works better for the pick 3 concept as you can see all the PrEs at once so it makes it easy to choose your 3

[dkyle]

I mentioned it much much earlier in the thread, but if they insist on limiting trees, a decent compromise would be to have a single class character have 1 (race) + 3 (Class) active trees, and for each additional class, you get one extra active class tree, up to a total of 5. Split however you want across your Class/Race PREs.

My concern here is that it's a huge boost to splashes, which doesn't really need the help. Now, if you splash even a single leve, you get to take your Racial PrE, and all three of your class's PrEs. Currently, both Pures and Splashes have to swap out a primary class tree to get the Racial PrE.

Once we're at 5 class PrEs, I just don't see much game balance difference between that and unlimited trees. With 5 trees, stacking issues for multis compared to pures could already be a problem, so would have to be addressed.


Character level gating on PrE's/capstone but not on enhancements would prevent the early capstone effect.

Did you mean Class level? The rest of your post makes more sense if you meant class level, not character level.

Character level-only limits on enhancements, but class level limits on PrEs, could be a reasonable way to go. It would depend on how much gets put into the PrE ranks, and how much gets put into the enhancements themselves.

[Scraap]

Its actually horrible because there is no easy way to tell what you need for some higher level enhancement or how much it will cost without scrolling back and forth with the "show all" activated.

Which is hellish if you have any levels of fighter or arcane caster

Actually, that brings up an interesting point: Just how are you addressing Kensai weapon mastery, since that tree bifurcates into a small shrapnel grenade?

[Meat-Head]

http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo93/Failedlegend/UIMockUP-1.png





It's been suggested before, but this basic idea makes the most sense to me. Also, Titan's mockup of the three-tree with the generals at the bottom (post #3026ish I think) is good too.


My sense from the devs' posts is something like: Yep, we're debating some of the same stuff you guys are.


In case it matters, I'm against the strict 3-tree limit. I've heard the arguments for it. Yes, I know new enhancements MIGHT make up for those that are "lost". Yes, I know that you will now have MORE PrEs available than before (i.e. you can now have TWO TIER 3 PrEs!) But that is a function of reduced Enh costs. It has nothing to do with the trees.

Further more, the artificial separation required of monk stances, arcane damage lines, etc.. just adds one more reason NOT to force the tree limit.

[Vargouille]

Wild notion: action points spent similarly to skill points.

Rather than a binary level gate, any points spent in a tree over and above that trees (class * 4, simple display next to the points spent readout) cost twice as much.

Favored class/pre trees treat the expenditure as a 1:1.

Interesting ideas.

[Scraap]

Interesting ideas.

Interesting enough that it adds enough trade-off limitations to kill off that 3 tree limit? (had to ask)

[Coldin]

Lots of interesting ideas, but I am worried that trying to incorporate them may make the system over complicated.

Talking to newer players of DDO, enhancements seem to be a key thing they don't entirely grasp. I've met a few players past level 10 that had no idea Prestige Enhancements even existed. As far as I'm aware, there's little information in-game that directs players how deep the enhancement system is, or even all the options that are available to them.

So while I like all the ideas being presented to make this new tree system more robost, I'm a little hesitant that it will end up making it too complex. Deep and flexible costumization doesn't necessarily have to have lots of special rules and complications.

Edit: Also, I really don't mind the three tree limit. I know people are concerned about it making multiclasses have less options than pure classes, but I think the wider choice in what trees a multiclass can take will make up for it.

[Failedlegend]

Talking to newer players of DDO, enhancements seem to be a key thing they don't entirely grasp. I've met a few players past level 10 that had no idea Prestige Enhancements even existed. As far as I'm aware, there's little information in-game that directs players how deep the enhancement system is, or even all the options that are available to them.


I don't see whats complicated about the UI Tiran made (or even the shoddy one I made)...I think its fairly self explanatory.

Even stuff like Multiclass PrEs and Favored PrE and various other systems that have been suggested are quite simple and if any info is required a tutorial NPC would suffice (Give the trainers something to do)

As far as the 3 Tree limit its great were getting a bunch of new enhancements but so do Single-Classes...and they get more...so theres less reason enhancement wise to multiclass...and theres really no reason for thwe limit beyond making it "easier"

[BruceTheHoon]

It is commendable od Turbine employees to kep following this thread, but for me (and I can only assume that for many other people too), it's gotten TL;DR some time ago.
I now only manage to read devs' responses and their near vicinity and some of the ideas really worry me.
I still don't know what will happen with all the common class enhancements. Will they be forcefully pushed into arbitrary prestige trees? That, as I know it's been said many times before, will really damage many 3-class builds.

Anyway, my point is, that silence of many here doesn't necessarily mean agreement.
I implore Trubine employees to take that under consideration when sieving for ideas.
I (and again, I can only assume that many more) am waiting for some feedback from Turbine - not just acknowledgement - before giving feedback again.

[Meat-Head]

It is commendable od Turbine employees to kep following this thread, but for me (and I can only assume that for many other people too), it's gotten TL;DR some time ago.

Anyway, my point is, that silence of many here doesn't necessarily mean agreement.
I implore Trubine employees to take that under consideration when sieving for ideas.
I (and again, I can only assume that many more) am waiting for some feedback from Turbine - not just acknowledgement - before giving feedback again.



Uh.. You're NOT the only one. I followed it closely for about the first 2500 posts. After that, I think most of the concerns have been pointed out. Need to see where they are headed in order to give much more feedback now IMO.

[Coldin]

I don't see whats complicated about the UI Tiran made (or even the shoddy one I made)...I think its fairly self explanatory.

Even stuff like Multiclass PrEs and Favored PrE and various other systems that have been suggested are quite simple and if any info is required a tutorial NPC would suffice (Give the trainers something to do)

As far as the 3 Tree limit its great were getting a bunch of new enhancements but so do Single-Classes...and they get more...so theres less reason enhancement wise to multiclass...and theres really no reason for thwe limit beyond making it "easier"

I don't mind Tiran's UI model actually. It's fairly nice and condense. Though I believe I still might like to see more than the racial and one class tree at a time.

Multiclassing, in my opinion, is to have more options available, not necassarily better or worse options. I believe that's accomplished just fine by letting players swap out one tree for another they might find more suitable. At best, we're talking about a player only being able to get up to the top of two tree anyway. (Unless of course they change how many APs a player gets.) Being able to spend points in 9 different trees might be great for the advanced player, but I'm just worried it would be too much for the casual player to deal with.

[Failedlegend]

I don't mind Tiran's UI model actually. It's fairly nice and condense. Though I believe I still might like to see more than the racial and one class tree at a time.

Multiclassing, in my opinion, is to have more options available, not necassarily better or worse options. I believe that's accomplished just fine by letting players swap out one tree for another they might find more suitable. At best, we're talking about a player only being able to get up to the top of two tree anyway. (Unless of course they change how many APs a player gets.) Being able to spend points in 9 different trees might be great for the advanced player, but I'm just worried it would be too much for the casual player to deal with.

I can understand that by why handicap veteran players because a new player might just get a bit overwhelmed...when i first started playing the game i found the community quite readily answered any questions I had...stupid or not.

[ormsbygore]

http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o539/TiranBlade/DDO%20Concept%20Suggestion/EnhancementMockupSuggestionCondenced.jpg

EDIT: And it's starting to look like a folded open book with a bunch of tabs....,


Interesting Idea, similar(but still different and new) to the one I thoought of here...



http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/716/nimenhancementtreemocku.png

[Meat-Head]

Interesting Idea, similar(but still different and new) to the one I thoought of here...


FWIW Orms, yours is still my favorite (though the devs would make it prettier)

:)

To the people who say "it'll be too complicated" I say:

1. They'll learn
2. It's not THAT complicated
3. Let the braindead go play another MMO. [WoW is turning into Pokemon and kung-fu panda (paraphrased from a friend who is a WoW player)]
4. Rolling a gimp toon in DDO is like a right of passage. :P We've all done it.

[TiranBlade]

I like this layout, it's clean and simple.



This is definitely more in line with FailedLegend's vision. However, it also helps illustrate my concerns with it.

First: Too much focus on pet enhancements. Currently, only the Artificer has a need for pet enhancements. Druid most likely will and there is a very small, yet non-zero, chance Rangers will. I don't think the pet enhancements need to be folded into the character enhancement screen. It would work better to be able to access them from the pets own character sheet.

Second: Multi-class PrE's. Correct me if I am wrong, but I can't think of any time when multi-class PrE's have been mentioned with any of the plans for the future. As such, I don't think the UI should be built around their future inclusion. If they ever did get included just add a fourth PrE tab on each of it's component classes.

Yeah, I put in a later edit or post, don't remember which at this point that stated to the degree, I shouldn't have put the pet tab in, I don't think it fits because the pet is on a different enhancement system.

[maddmatt70]

Has it been established somewhere in all of these posts what Humans will be able to take for racial prestige enhancements? Will humans have their pick of any prestige enhancement in the game or just their pick of any racial prestige enhancment? I would not mind on my human cleric taking the current Favorite soul prestige enhancement in addition to the radiant servant one for instance.

[dkyle]

Has it been established somewhere in all of these posts what Humans will be able to take for racial prestige enhancements? Will humans have their pick of any prestige enhancement in the game or just their pick of any racial prestige enhancment? I would not mind on my human cleric taking the current Favorite soul prestige enhancement in addition to the radiant servant one for instance.

We've not been told much about Humans. Just that they'll be able to choose from some set of PrEs. Could be all of them, could be the ones other races get, could be ones that only they get. We've also been told that Humans would have to spend more to unlock their Racial PrE.

[boomer70]

Well things seemed to have died down so I thought I would post an idea for a reworked Stalwart Defender prestige. This is designed with the idea that prestige would be separate entities that you meet certain non-class level specific criteria to enter. Obviously some stuff could be used under a different scheme.

Basically this breakdown would spread out the benefits of the class over most smaller enhancements. In order to get all of the same benefits that SD gives now it will cost significantly more AP than the 8 it costs now. This is intentional. Prestige "classes" are supposed to represent a focus on a specific role. 8 AP is hardly an investment at all. Also by spreading out the benefits you no longer have to be 18/12/6 to see such a huge jump in power. If you look at the benefits granted by the prestige currently it is so OP above what none prestige classes grant that it is virtually impossible to balance.

To mitigate this, I added some new abilities to the class. I tried to avoid entirely new mechanics to increase implementation speed. It also gives a lot more flexibility to pick what areas of the prestige to focus on.

Stalwart Defender I
Requirements: BAB +6, one of (Combat Expertise, Dodge), one of (Shield Mastery, Tower Shield Proficiency), one of (Toughness, Diehard), Intimidate 6 ranks, AC Boost I
Cost: 4 AP
Benefit: You gain the ability to enter a defensive stance by expending a use of AC Boost.
Defensive Stance
Stance Type: Morale (can’t be used with other Morale based stances)
You gain a +1 Competence bonus to Strength and Constitution, +10% bonus to Hit Points, a +2 dodge bonus to AC, +1 bonus to DCs to resist combat maneuvers, a +1 bonus to Will saves, a +2 Competence bonus to Intimidate, and a +15% Competence bonus to Incite (threat). While in a defensive stance you move 25% slower. You can end your stance at any time but when you do you become Fatigued. If you become incapacitated your stance ends. Because of the concentration required to maintain your stance spells cost twice their normal spell point cost when cast while you are in stance.

Morale Stance
Examples: Defensive Stance, Power Surge, Rage
Can’t enter a Morale Stance when fatigued or exhausted.

Stalwart Defender II-V
Requirements: 8/16/24/32 AP spent in tree
Cost: 1/1/1/1
Benefits: stacking DR 1/- per tier

Improved Defense I-III
Requirements: Dodge, Defender I/III/V
Cost: 1/1/1
Benefit: +1 stacking AC per tier.

Improved Intimidate I-III
Requirements: Defender I/III/V
Cost: 1/1/1
Benefit: +2 Intimidate per tier

Improved Tower Shield Mastery I-III
Requirements: Tower Shield Prof, Defender I/III/V
Cost: 1/1/1
Benefit: +1 MDB with tower shield per tier.

Defensive Shield I-III
Requirements: Shield Mastery, Defender I/III/V
Cost: 1/1/1
Benefit: DR 2/- per tier with shield (doesn't stack except with itself)

Intimidating Presence I-III
Requirements: Shield Proficiency, Defender I/III/V
Cost: 1/1/1
Benefit: +25% Incite when using a shield per tier.

Mobile Stance I-III
Requirements: Defender I/II/III
Cost: 1/1/1
Benefit: decreases movement penalty in stance by 5% per tier.

Hardy Stance I-V
Requirements: Defender I/II/III/IV/V
Cost:1/1/1/1/1
Benefit: additional +1 Con per tier when in stance.

Powerful Stance I-V
Requirements: Defender I/II/III/IV/V
Cost: 1/1/1/1/1
Benefit: additional +1 Str per tier when in stance.

Intimidating Stance I-V
Requirements: Defender I/II/III/IV/V
Cost: 1/1/1/1/1
Benefit: +10% Incite per tier when in stance

Willful Stance I-V
Requirements: Defender I/II/III/IV/V
Cost: 1/1/1/1/1
Benefit: +1 Will save per tier when in stance.

Defensive Reflexes I
Requirements: Defender I/III/V
Cost: 1/1/1
Benefit: +2 Reflex save per tier when in stance.

Clear Mind I-II
Requirements: Defender II/IV
Cost: 2/2
Benefit: Reroll failed Will save once per tier while in stance

Internal Fortitude
Requirements: Defender II, Hardy Stance I
Cost: 2
Benefit: Immune to conditions poisoned, diseased, nauseated, fatigued and exhausted while in stance

Smash I-II
Requirements: Defender II/IV
Cost: 2/2
Benefit: Gain an increase of 20% chance per tier to Shield Bash while in stance.

Riposte I-II
Requirements: Defender II/IV, Dodge
Cost: 2/2
Benefit: You gain the Riposte ability. Tier 2 grants twice the proc rate.

Fearless Defense
Requirements: Defender II
Cost: 2
Benefit: You are immune to the effects frightened and shaken while in stance.

Immobile Stance
Requirements: Defender II
Cost: 2
Benefit: While in stance you are immune to knockdown/knockback but move 10% slower.

Improved Armor Mastery I-II
Requirements: Defender III/V
Cost: 1/1
Benefit: +1 MDB when in heavy armor per tier. Tier 2 grants +1 MDB in medium armor.

Improved AC Boost I-II
Requirements: Defender III/V
Cost: 1/1
Benefit: Your AC boosts last 50% longer per tier.

Renewed Defense I-II
Requirements: Defender III/V
Cost: 2/2
Benefit: Gain healer's bounty-like effect while in stance. Tier I grants CMW, Tier II grants CCW (min CL to cast). Proc rate 5%.

Mighty Resilience I-II
Requirements: Defender III/V
Cost: 1/1
Benefit: Gain 5% additional HP per tier when in stance.

Stalwart Defense
Requirements: Defender IV
Cost: 2
Benefit: You gain the effect of a Stalwart Pact spell when you enter your stance. The spell ends when you leave stance. The caster level is equal to your character level.

[orakio]

As commendable as your effort is boomer it moves away entirely from what the purpose of the trees are and what the developers have stated their intentions to be. Much of what you have could very well be enhancement options for stalwart but you have SOOOOO many restrictions on every enhancement on there and there are no real 2nd or 3rd ranks of the PrE listed. I know you have "Stalwart defender 2-5" but really, 1/- Dr is supposed to simulate a tier 2 or tier3 PrE?

A big part of the new tree system concept is keep it simple. You have 79 AP just for stalwart enhancements listed in there, just seems like a bit much and takes nearly 40 of it just to give what you get outta SD3 now.

Personally I think Stalwart and DoS are in decent spots and need more of just a translation to the new system rather than a rework.

[boomer70]

As commendable as your effort is boomer it moves away entirely from what the purpose of the trees are and what the developers have stated their intentions to be.
That was the entire point. I don't like what they have proposed so I am proposing an alternative.


Much of what you have could very well be enhancement options for stalwart but you have SOOOOO many restrictions on every enhancement on there and there are no real 2nd or 3rd ranks of the PrE listed.
There are very few restrictions listed except that you have to take a tier 1 enhancement before you can take a tier two.

I know you have "Stalwart defender 2-5" but really, 1/- Dr is supposed to simulate a tier 2 or tier3 PrE?
No it is not supposed to be a tier 2 or 3. The point is to smooth out the development of the prestige over the life of the character.
To help understand it think of how Arcane Archer works now. You need to have Conjure +2 Arrows before you can get the next special arrow.

As I explained in the intro, it is supposed to take more of an investment to get the best abilities. Currently the game is entirely built around the PrEs because they provide so much for so little investment (8AP for tier IIIs). You have to take the concept in the context it was intended, that the class enhancements get a rework providing many more and stronger options. It should be an option to be a defender not a requirement.


A big part of the new tree system concept is keep it simple. You have 79 AP just for stalwart enhancements listed in there, just seems like a bit much and takes nearly 40 of it just to give what you get outta SD3 now.

Personally I think Stalwart and DoS are in decent spots and need more of just a translation to the new system rather than a rework.

The idea of having many choices (79AP) is that you should have to make a trade off. This is not the case today so it seems like a big change but it would definitely help balance things because there wouldn't be MASSIVE increases in character power at 6/12/18 breakpoints.

I really am not sure how this is any more complicated than the proposed system. You can easily display a tree with each tier of SD I-V as a root and each option available as a row much like the tree provided by the devs (except there wouldn't be the ability to take an option multiple times at the same tier).

The point is I don't like the new system so I am showing an alternative.

[orakio]

I don't mean to be offensive but your proposal is pretty ridiculous and just adds to the overall complication and bloat found in the current enhancement system. Your proposal does little other than increasing the relative cost of a PrE to 5x what it currently does, although it does add a ton of new enhancements.

Btw, there are a TON of restrictions in the enhancements you suggested. Every single one has PrE rank requirements, some have feat requirements that have nothing to do with the enhancement. "Improved Defense I-III, requires: dodge" +1 bonus to ac, why does it require dodge? I am struggling to think of anything in the current system with a feat requirement that isn't a PrE or that the enhancement isn't directly related to (i.e. improved power attack). As a matter of fact, you can't even pick a single one of those enhancements without picking a PrE first, that seems a bit odd if you don't necessarily want the PrE.

Why should you prevent people from being able to rage while entering the defender stances? Why are you adding an pointless 100% spellpoint cost increase to the defender stance like it is combat expertise all of a sudden? All you did was make a FUBAR'd version of stalwart defender because you think PrE's should take up more of a character investment. That isn't to say that some of the enhancements wouldn't be awesome for the proposed tree system but you totally neutered PrE's themselves. Might as well do away with PrE's altogether with what you suggested and just build it all into enhancements...and ignore what 90% of players have asked for over the last few years.



The idea of having many choices (79AP) is that you should have to make a trade off. This is not the case today so it seems like a big change but it would definitely help balance things because there wouldn't be MASSIVE increases in character power at 6/12/18 breakpoints.

I really am not sure how this is any more complicated than the proposed system. You can easily display a tree with each tier of SD I-V as a root and each option available as a row much like the tree provided by the devs (except there wouldn't be the ability to take an option multiple times at the same tier).

The point is I don't like the new system so I am showing an alternative.

I don't think you understand how the PrE roots are designed to work under the dev's proposed system. You don't put points into those root abilities to unlock things, they are unlocked as you invest in the tree. They are also staggered now for levels 3/6/9/12/15/18/20 creating less distinct breakpoints than you see with the current 6/12/18 splits of PrE's. That being said the game itself currently see's pretty large increases in monster progression and dungeon difficulties around those 6/12/18 breakpoints, it all evens out.

It is ok to reduce the baseline effectiveness of some PrE's when entering the new system so that you have more enhancements and distinction for people with deeper investment but your suggestion goes so far beyond that, it just wrecks PrE's.

[Seikojin]

Kind of off topic, but every time I see this thread title, I hear the dwarf in the first dragon age game saying Enchantment!

[TiranBlade]

Kind of off topic, but every time I see this thread title, I hear the dwarf in the first dragon age game saying Enchantment!

Sandal: Enchantment?
: pause :
Sandal: ENCHANTMENT!!

[TiranBlade]

Interesting Idea, similar(but still different and new) to the one I thoought of here...

I forgot about your idea comletely though I had seen it before, yours was a good idea, I just thought I would work around the ideas of others using what the Devs intend to use in the first place. Pretty much it all condenced down.

[Artos_Fabril]

Well things seemed to have died down so I thought I would post an idea for a reworked Stalwart Defender prestige. This is designed with the idea that prestige would be separate entities that you meet certain non-class level specific criteria to enter. Obviously some stuff could be used under a different scheme.[...]I think that by massively increasing the cost associated with taking a PrE without increasing the benefits, or at least incorporating other benefits, you're basically proposing an across-the-board nerf to PrEs, both multi-class and pure.

That said, here's an example of what I want to see for Rogue enhancements:


General Tab
Enhancement Name Cost Progression Class Level Requirement Benefit
Faster Sneaking 1/1/1/1/1 1/4/7/10/13 10% faster movement while sneaking
Sneak Attack Training 1/1/1/1/1/1/1 1/4/7/10/13/16/19 +2 Sneak attack Damage per level
Sneak Attack Accuracy 1/1/1/1 2/5/9/14 +1 to-hit to sneak attacks per level
Subtlety 2/2 3/9 Your attacks produce 15% less threat per tier
Device Mastery 2/2/2/2 1/6/11/16 +1 to Disable Device, Open Locks, and UMD per level
Stealth 1/1/1/1 1/6/11/16 +1 to Hide and Move Silently per tier
Haste boost 1/1/1/1/1 1/5/9/13/17 10% haste boost for first tier, 5% each additional tier
Skill Boost 1/1/1/1 1/4/7/10 +2 skill boost first tier, +1 each additional tier
Damage Boost 1/1/1/1/1 1/5/9/13/17 10% damage boost for first tier, 5% each additional tier
Rogue Dexterity 2/2/2/2 1/6/11/16 +1 Dexterity per tier
Wand and Scroll Mastery 1/1/1/1/1 2/5/8/11/14 +15% increase to effectiveness of wands/scrolls/other items that cast spells

The General Tab contains no tier unlocks or benefits, and is class-level gated as noted. The general tab is automatically available with 1 rogue level , Half-Elf Dilettante: Rogue (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Half-Elf_Dilettante:_Rogue), or the rogue active past life feat, Past Life: Sneak of Shadows (http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Feat:Past_Life:_Sneak_of_Shadows).
Half Elf Diletante: Rogue would count as 1 level of rogue for the purpose of class-level requirements. Dilettante enhancements would increase this level by 1 each. Past Life: Sneak of Shadows would count as 2 levels of rogue for the purpose of class-level requirements. A Half-Elf with Rogue Dilettante, all dilettante enhancements and Sneak of Shadows would count as a level 5 rogue for the purpose of general enhancements, but would not be eligible for any of the PrE trees. These "virtual levels" are added to rogue levels for general enhancements, but not for PrEs.


Acrobat
Enhancement Name Cost Progression Class Level Requirement Benefit
Acrobatics 1/1/1/1 3/6/9/12 +1 to Balance, Jump, Tumble
->Showtime 1/1/1/1/1/1/1 1/3/5/7/9/11/13 1 use per tier of "Showtime" (as current Showtime, no boost use)
->->Prime Time 1/1/1 9/11/13 Showtime adds 3/6/10% doublestrike
->->->Grand Finale 3 15 Consume a use of your "Showtime" ability to gain 15% doublestrike and 50% fortification bypass for 8 seconds
->->->->Encore! 1 18 Striking the killing blow on a red- or purple-named monster returns a use of your "Showtime" ability
Tactical Staff 1/1/1/1/1/1 2/6/10/14/18 +1 bonus per tier to all tactics feats with quarterstaff equipped
Staff Training 1/1/1/1/1 2/5/8/11/14 Increase the Enhancement Bonus of your Quarterstaff by +1 per tier
->Staff Fencing 1/1/1/1/1/1 6/8/10/12/14/16 Gain 2% fortification bypass and +1 deflection bonus to AC per tier while using a quarterstaff
->->Defense Staff 1/1/1 9/12/15 5% competence bonus to damage reduction per tier with staff equipped
->Staff Specialization 1/1/1 6/9/12 +2 damage per tier with equipped staff
->->Staff Expertise 1/1/1/1/1 9/11/13/15/17 +2% per tier to glancing blow damage or off-hand proc rate with staves
->->->->Staff Mastery 2/2 15/18 +1 to Staff Critical Threat per tier
->->->->->Staff Impact 2 18 +1 to Staff Critical Multiplier
->Staff Blitz 2 3 Treat Staves as double-weapons
Uncanny Relfexes 1/1/1/1 4/6/8/10 Uncanny Dodge grants additional +1 AC and +1 reflex per tier
->Uncanny Dodger 1/1/1 6/9/12 Uncanny Dodge lasts 10 seconds longer per tier
->->Uncanny Mind 1/1/1 9/11/13 Uncanny Dodge also grants +2 per tier to will saves
->->Uncanny Body 1/1/1 9/11/13 Uncanny dodge also grants +2 per tier to fortitude saves
->->->Uncanny Evasion 3 18 Uncanny Evasion gives the rogue a second chance on a failed reflex save
Nimble Strike 1/1/1/1 3/6/9/12 Add 2 points of your dexterity bonus to sneak attack damage per tier
Slow Fall 3 4 Gain Slow Fall as a monk of equal level
Aerobatics 2 15 +20% movement speed while falling


Granted Benefits:
Tier .5 +10% movement speed
Tier 1 +5% attack speed with Staves +2 uses of uncanny dodge
Tier 1.5 +1 use of uncanny dodge
Tier 2 Immunity to knockdown and slippery surfaces
Tier 2.5 +1 use of uncanny dodge
Tier 3 Full ability bonus to damage with staff as double-weapon, or +15% glancing blow damage and 5% effect proc rate as two-handed
Capstone +2 to dexterity and gain incorporeal miss chance equal to your reflex save

PrE tiers granted at levels 3/6/9/12/15/18/20, points spent requirement 4/8/16/20/24/31, total of 77 points worth of options. Arrows (->) show dependencies. A character could spent almost all of their points in acrobat enhancements, or just over 1/3rd, and pick up other trees. A character could gain the capstone taking only staff enhancements, no staff enhancements, or some of each. Capstone would either become a stance, or mutually exclusive, in order to prevent a character getting more than 1.


Assassin
Enhancement Name Cost Progression Class Level Requirement Benefit
Stealth 1/1/1/1 3/6/9/12 +1 to hide, move silently, and bluff
->Running Silent 1/1/1/1/1 4/7/10/13/16 1 use per tier of 35% sprint boost, while stealthed only
Assassin's Focus 1/1/1/1/1/1/1 1/3/5/7/9/11/13 1 use per tier of "Assassin's Focus"*
->Assassin's Quickness 1/1/1 9/11/13 Assassin's Focus adds 3/6/10% doublestrike
->->Penetrating Focus 3 15 Consume a use of "Assassin's Focus" to ignore 100% of fortification for 10 seconds
->->->The Big Hit 1 18 A successful Assassinate returns one use of your "Assassin's Focus"
The Subtle Knife 1/1/1 6/12/15 Your attacks cause 10% less threat per tier (stacks with Subtlety)
Serrated Knives 1/1/1/1/1 2/6/10/14/18 Your dagger/kukri criticals reduce enemy AC and fortification by 1% for 10 seconds, 1 stack per tier
Knife Sharpening 1/1/1/1/1 2/5/8/11/14 Increase the Enhancement Bonus or your Dagger or Kukri by +1 per tier
->Razor Edges 1/1/1 8/12/16 +2 damage per tier with equipped daggers and kukris
->->Flashing Blades 1/1/1/1/1 9/11/13/15/17 2% chance per tier to proc a 'Deception' effect on hit
->->->Knife Mastery 2/2 15/18 +1 to critical multiplier with knives on 20/19-20
->->->->Stiletto 2 18 +1 to critical threat range with daggers
Poisoner 2 3 Choose one of three poisons (see current assassin I poisons)
->Concentrated Poisons 1/1/1/1/1 6/9/12/15/18 +1 per tier to the DC of your poisons
->->Cunning Poions 3 12 Add your intelligence modifier to the DC of your poisons
->->->Corrosive Poison 1/1/1 6/12/18 Your poisons deal 2d6 untyped damage per tier to enemies who are immune to poison
->Experienced Poisoner 2 15 Gain Immunity to Poison and Disease
Weighted Dice 2/2/2 2/11/20 Increase the minimum result of your sneak attack dice by 1 per die, per tier

*Assassin's Focus: +2 to hit with sneak attacks, +20 to confirm criticals, bypass 10% of fortification, when attacking from stealth, you have 100% offhand attack chance.
Granted Benefits:
Tier .5 +15% faster movement while sneaking; +2 to Hide, Move Silently, and Fortitude saves
Tier 1 +1d6 sneak attack damage
Tier 1.5 +1d6 sneak attack damage
Tier 2 Assassinate (dex based); +2 to Hide, Move Silently, and Fortitude saves
Tier 2.5 +1d6 sneak attack damage
Tier 3 Vorpal Assassinate; +2 to Hide, Move Silently, and Fortitude saves
Capstone: +2 Dex; +4d6 Sneak Attack Damage

I couldn't come up with as much for Assassin, only 69 points, but then Assassins needed less help, and daggers/kukris are inherently better than staves. You could still get away with taking less than half of the enhancements, and still reach the capstone, or take all of them, with a few points left over for the DPS enhancements in the general tab. No dagger or poison enhancements required to meet the capstone, just barely.

edit: Grabbed the mechanic enhancements back into this poste from here (http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p=4278417&postcount=3127) in order to consolidate for linking back to this post.

Mechanic
Enhancement Name Cost Progression Class Level Requirement Benefit
Engineering 1/1/1/1 3/6/9/12 +1 to Disable Device, Open Lock, Search, Spot
->Reverse Engineering 1/1/1 6/10/14 +1 to Use Magic Device, +1 crafting level, +2 trap DC
Combat Engineer 1/1/1/1/1/1/1 1/3/5/7/9/11/13 1 use per tier of "Combat Engineer"**
->Demolitionist 1/1/1 9/11/13 While Combat Engineer is active, your traps are emplaced instantly; traps and grenades have a 4% chance per tier to crit for double damage
->->Big Ba-da-boom 3 15 Consume a use of "Combat Engineer" to increase all trap, grenade, and crossbow damage by 50% for 8 seconds
->->->Mass Destruction 1 18 When your score a kill with a grenade, reclaim one use of "Combat Engineer"
Bolt-Ridden 1/1/1/1/1 2/6/10/14/18 Repeater criticals reduce enemy fortification by 2% and fortitude saves by 1 for 10 seconds, 1 stack per tier
Mechanical Aptitude 1/1/1/1/1 4/7/10/13/16 Increase the enhancement bonus of your repeating crossbow by 1 per tier
->Repeater Specialization 1/1/1 8/12/16 +2 damage per tier with your equipped repeater
->->Repeating Repeater 1/1/1/1/1 6/9/12/15/18 Your repeater has a 1% chance per tier to fire a second volley immediately
->->->Repeater Mastery 2/2 15/18 Reduce repeater reload time by 25% per tier (multiplicative stacking with rapid reload)
->->->->Sabot Shots 2 18 +1 to Critical multiplier on vorpal strikes with all crossbows/repeaters
Manual Dexterity 1/1/1/1/1 3/6/9/12/15 Reduces time to open lock or disarm by 20% per tier
->Nimble Mind 3 12 Add your dex bonus to your disable device total
Practiced Eye 1/1/1/1/1 1/3/5/7/9 +1 spot and -20% search time per tier
Monkeywrencher 1/1/1/1 3/8/13/18 +1d6 per tier bane damage to constructs
->Wrack Construct 1/1/1 5/10/15 Wrack Construct I/II/III (as current)
->->Ruin Construct 2 12 Wrack construct stuns on crits; red/purple named lose additional 15% fort instead
Repair Construct 1/1/1/1 1/4/7/10 repair 1d3+3 per second, per tier - 15 second duration
Trap Resistance 1/1/1 2/8/14 +2 to saves vs. traps and +3 to all elemental resistances per tier

**Combat Engineer: Traps take 50% less time to place and enemies who successfully save still have their defenses compromised, reducing fortification by 10% for 10 seconds (does not stack with itself)
Granted Benefits
Tier .5 Light Repeating Crossbow Proficiency; Critical fail while disarming trap dazes you, but does not explode the box
Tier 1 Add your Int bonus to crossbow/repeater damage; your trap DCs are increased; all of your traps and grenades deal 10% more damage
Tier 1.5 Heavy Repeating Crossbow Proficiency; +3 to Disable Device, Open Locks, and Search
Tier 2 Add half your dex bonus to sneak attack damage; your trap DCs are increased; +3% crit chance with traps and grenades (+0.5 multiplier)
Tier 2.5 Smite constructs/living constructs; +3 to elemental resistances, 10% damage reduction vs physical traps
Tier 3 Great Crossbow Proficientcy; your trap DCs are increased; traps and grenades deal addional 15% damage
Capstone: +2 Int; All light/heavy/great crossbows you wield fire volleys of 3 bolts, instead of 1; Trap DCs increased

There still aren't enough crossbow bonuses to reach the capstone without taking anything else. I'm not sure if I'm ok with that. You could still get the capstone without taking any trap enhancements, or without taking any crossbow enhancements, although I can't imagine why you'd want to. 74 total points in the tab.

[Failedlegend]

Sandal: Enchantment?
: pause :
Sandal: ENCHANTMENT!!

Heh heh BEST Dragon Age Character


Good Stuff

Lots of Good stuff there Artos..I especially love that you have it so Assassin can specialize in Daggers/Kukris it just makes sense, Also that they have an actual backstab ability. I appreciate the attempt to make Mech but if you look back at a bunch of Mech suggestion threads I would swear aside from the spells they built artificer from them so I'm really looking forward to what the devs are doing with them. I also can't wait to see Wild Mage...I really hope they make alot of their abilities completely random (ie. Wild Stance: 50% chance of doubling damage/buff time[stack with metas], 10% turning party members purple, 10% of summoning a horde of useless monkeys, 1% Chance of becoming a barrel,etc.)

Anyways when someone first suggested general/class enhancements I wasn't really sure but honestly it just makes sense now...core stuff like Monk Stances, Ranger Favored Enemies, Most Action Boosts, Spell Damage Lines, etc. really don't belong in PrE lines and honestly if they can come up with as much stuff as you they won't need that stuff to fill in the gaps (which was my original worry when someone first suggested it) and the PrE lines would feel much more unique as a result.

The MAIN thing I like about your proposed Trees is not everyone's tree will look the same since there's SO much available. I still think the 3-Tree limit should be removed than have the "Choose 3 PrEs" system implemented instead.

Oh and removing level gating would be a nightmare (unrelated to your post artos I've just seen a few suggestions to do it)

[daydrmrzzz]

After reading through the posts in this thread, there are a number of valid concerns, which I think I may have an answer for.
1) There is a concern that limiting the character to 3 Pre trees, would have the result in penalizing multiclass characters, since they would be getting locked out of the higher level enhancements of their Pres. Balancing pure/splash/deep multi class tree access could be accomplished by the following:
Have both a class level gate and a character level gate applied in each PRE as follows, to unlock each tier:

Tier .5 abilities in a Pre: Char lvl 3+, and Class lvl 1+, and 5 AP spent in Pre
Tier 1 abilities in a Pre: Char lvl 6+, and Class lvl 2+, and 10 AP spent in Pre
Tier 1.5 abilities in a Pre: Char lvl 9+ and class lvl 3+, and 15 AP spent in Pre
Tier 2 abilities in a Pre: Char lvl 12+, and class lvl 4+, and 20 AP spent in Pre
Tier 2.5 abilities in a Pre: Char lvl 15+, and Class lvl 5+, and 25 AP spent in Pre
Tier 3 abilities in a Pre: Char lvl 18+, and Class lvl 6+, and 30 AP spent in Pre
Tier capstone ability in a Pre: Char lvl 20, and Class lvl 7+, and 41 AP spent in Pre

Enhancements determined to be powerful enough to require a level requirement would be based on character level instead of class level. Combine this with the three Pre limit, where a multi class can swap out any of his 3 Pre's for a Pre in one of his other classes.

Comparing pure/splash/deep multis we have the following: a Pure class can go all the way up to capstone in any one of his Pre's and can spend his AP in any of the other 2 Pre's. A splash or deep multi could go all the way up to capstone in any Pre of a class in which he has at least 7 levels, up to tier 3 of a 6 lvl class, tier 2.5 of a 5 lvl class etc. He loses nothing compared to a pure class (in fact he could always elect not to swap any Pres and have the exact same choices as a pure class). He doesn't have a major stacking advantage over a pure class, since he can only put points in 3 Pres, total (he can't select toughness from 6 Pre's, for example which an unlimited number of Pre's would allow), but still has an advantage in that he can reset and swap out enhancement trees, which means a multiclass would have greater flexibility in enhancements than a pure class, but not significantly more power, and the flexibility would be offset by the reduced class abilities, spell levels, etc.

There will be some current builds which cannot be duplicated under this system, since they would require abilities spread out in more than 3 Pres. However, with the reduced stacking requirements, more enhancements available, and judicious tree and enhancement choices, you'll probably be able to come up with some build that can accomplish pretty much the same things, though maybe not in the same way. This is a tradeoff for the fact that unlimited tree usage would most likely lead to a MUCH greater problem with stacking enhancements from different trees (if you have the choice of taking enhancements from 9 trees at once instead of only 3).

2) There is a concern that the duplication of Racial Pres and class Pres would reduce the viability of favored Pre's. For example a Halfling with the racial assassin Pre would supposedly lose out on a Pre tree compared to a pure rogue of another race. The idea is that a Halfling pure rogue would only be able to choose between assassin, mechanic, and acrobat, but a Drow pure rogue (for example) would have the choice of tempest as well as the three rogue Pres.

This could be prevented with the simplification of the stacking limits. While it's true a pure Drow rogue tempest/assassin would have many abilities a pure halfling rogue wouldn't, the Halfling could be much better at being an ASSASSIN due to the relaxed stacking limits. The Halfling could put AP into BOTH assassin Pre trees, gaining double the abilities. For example if the assassin tree allowed 5 ranks of sneak attack training and 5 ranks of sneak attack damage, the Halfling could put 5 ranks in each, on BOTH trees, gaining a +10 to hit and +30 damage with their sneak attacks compared to the Drow's max of +5 to hit, +15 damage.

The same would be true for all the other enhancements in the tree. A Pure Drow ranger could double up on the tempest tree, getting double the effects of a tempest from another race, etc. True, some of the abilities gained may not stack (the +20 % offhand proc, with GTWF already gives 100% chance, and wouldn't benefit from doubling), but other effects could (like the shield bonus). With this option, there would still be a reason to go Drow ranger or Halfling rogue, etc.

3) A different concern with having racial Pre's duplicate class pres is the fact that many of the racial Pres just don't really fit with many race/class variants, or would be so overwhelmingly advantageous as to make them virtually required for that role. To fix this, I propose the following: Each race would have 3 Pre's that are about 90% the same between races, with just enough of a difference to make them unique. The 3 Pre's would be divided as follows:

A) A mundane Pre with no prerequisite, no unlock needed, containing things like racial skills, weapon choices, dragonmarks, etc.
B) A caster Pre with a prerequisite of being able to cast spells or mental toughness, containing enhancements involving the casting of spells, using wands, UMD, spells points, arcane fluidity, etc.
C) A pet Pre, with the prerequisite of the feat Augment summoning, containing enhancements replacing the iron defender line that grants the use of a racially specific pet.

They could either design some new creatures for the racial pets (like a Halfling dinosaur) or use existing ones, like dogs for humans, fey cats for elves, lions for half orcs, wolves for halflings, scorpions for Drow, rats for for Dwarves, iron defenders for warforged, and either fey cat or dog for half elves. These pets would have some similarities to the artificer pets in that they'd have a character sheet and can be named, can equip armor, and increase in level as the character levels, but would be less useful in that they don't get AP of their own (the character must spend his own AP to improve them), they take the place of a standard hireling (but not a gold seal hireling), and can only be summoned near a dungeon entrance, can't be summoned in public areas (to reduce lag), and don't get to equip a weapon module (limited to their own natural attacks).

Enhancements in these Pre trees would be arranged in tiers like the class Pres, but the AP required for each tier would be 2/4/6/8/10/12/15, and if there are any abilities granted for each tier, they would be smaller than the abilities granted from a class Pre tier.

Aquiring the various tiers in 2 or more of the racial Pres would be the equivalent of getting a level in a racial paragon prestige class (introduced in Unearthed Arcana). Ie: tier 1 in 2 racial pre's = paragon lvl 1, tier 2 in 2 racial pre's = paragon lvl 2, tier 3 in 2 racial Pres = paragon lvl 3, capstone in 2 racial pre's = paragon lvl 4. The paragon levels would be different for each race, building on the strengths of that race, but typically fairly minor. I think this would be a better idea than having racial Pre's duplicating class Pre's, would allow the racial Pre's to actually grant benefits to a character of any race or class, offer enough racial diversity to make each race different, without making any race the "must be" race for a particular build.

Overall, I think we could go with option 1 and 2 or option 1 and 3 (my preference), If they decided to go with all 3 options (the generic racial Pre's AND a race specific class Pre), they should make the unlock cost of the racial class Pre significant. Anyway, those are my ideas, let me know what you all think.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ABUXVq0NSVY/TUXB1VibN_I/AAAAAAAAB18/xr6R2DU7ShE/s400/Holy+Wall+of+Text.jpg

[daydrmrzzz]

With update 13 cosmetic pets, the Druid class, and possibly the Ranger animal companion coming out, they are making a big investment in pets anyway, so maybe the racial pets idea in my last post can be easily incorporated. I suggest the following: the Artificer homunculus should become a humanoid like in the PnP version (picture a short, squat warforged mini-me), the Druids should get a tiger, Rangers a wolf, Paladins a horse, all as class pets. For racial pets (that count as a hireling), Humans should get dogs, Elves should get Fen cats, Dwarves should get lizards, Halflings should get a velociraptor, Warforged should get the iron defender, Drow should get scorpions, Half orcs should get bears, Half elves should get either a Fen cat or a dog (their choice). In my original post i said they shouldn't get attack gear, but after thinking it over, decided they probably should. Let's have the homunculus and iron defenders getting docents and pet modules, and all the other animals getting barding and amulets of natural attack. They should make the pet modules, the barding and the amulets craftable with Cannith crafting (the docents already are) instead of using trapmaking so that any class has access to making gear for their pets. Perhaps we could get an "Animal trainer" NPC in the market that sells non magical barding and pet modules to deconstruct, and use necklaces and docents that are already available to deconstruct for crafting.

[Failedlegend]

Wall o'Text

The Enter Button is your friend

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QKQgYdd1MVo/TVoaGeDEJgI/AAAAAAAAAPQ/ChqzxMm6U-g/s1600/EnterKey.png

In response to your idea...no they are already releasing cosmetic pets (likely in the DDO store - possibly rare drops) the only reason a charcater should have a combat pet/mount is if its part of their Class or Prestige (ie. Rangers,Paladins, Druids, Arties, Wizards & Talentia Halflings) and not a made up Prestige...personally I think they should either have Racially oriented PrEs (preferably specific to Ebberon) or none (AA being the exception of course)

[orakio]

That said, here's an example of what I want to see for Rogue enhancements:


Snipped...Post is huge in a good way!

Wow, nice breakdown and suggestion of ideas for rogues and everything really does seem to stay within the lore and role of the suggested PrE's without rogue losing too many of its key features.

Just want to confirm that your general tree doesn't have a points spent requirements for the seperate enhancements right, just class level gating? It seems like a pretty ideal breakdown and I would love to see a developer response on it.

[Failedlegend]

Wow, nice breakdown and suggestion of ideas for rogues and everything really does seem to stay within the lore and role of the suggested PrE's without rogue losing too many of its key features.

Just want to confirm that your general tree doesn't have a points spent requirements for the seperate enhancements right, just class level gating? It seems like a pretty ideal breakdown and I would love to see a developer response on it.

I'd love ANY new info actually ANYTHING...please :( lol

Some opinions (subject to change) on some of our suggestions would be nice too

[boomer70]

I don't mean to be offensive but your proposal is pretty ridiculous and just adds to the overall complication and bloat found in the current enhancement system. Your proposal does little other than increasing the relative cost of a PrE to 5x what it currently does, although it does add a ton of new enhancements.

Well saying you don't mean to be offensive and then being offensive anyway is pretty ridiculous but whatever.

Actually what it attempts to do is actually elevate prestige enhancements to the level that they are in PnP. They are supposed to (though they don't always succeed) represent a significant investment in one role by giving up other aspects of a characters development. In the current system you are sacrificing next to nothing to grab a prestige "class" (8 AP for Tier 3). In the new system they wont exist as separate entities at all.


Btw, there are a TON of restrictions in the enhancements you suggested. Every single one has PrE rank requirements, some have feat requirements that have nothing to do with the enhancement. "Improved Defense I-III, requires: dodge" +1 bonus to ac, why does it require dodge? I am struggling to think of anything in the current system with a feat requirement that isn't a PrE or that the enhancement isn't directly related to (i.e. improved power attack). As a matter of fact, you can't even pick a single one of those enhancements without picking a PrE first, that seems a bit odd if you don't necessarily want the PrE.

Why should you prevent people from being able to rage while entering the defender stances? Why are you adding an pointless 100% spellpoint cost increase to the defender stance like it is combat expertise all of a sudden? All you did was make a FUBAR'd version of stalwart defender because you think PrE's should take up more of a character investment. That isn't to say that some of the enhancements wouldn't be awesome for the proposed tree system but you totally neutered PrE's themselves. Might as well do away with PrE's altogether with what you suggested and just build it all into enhancements...and ignore what 90% of players have asked for over the last few years.


Either I rolled a 1 on my explaining check or you did on your comprehension check. Every single enhancement in the Stalwart Defender tab requires you to actually be a Stalwart Defender. There is still a tab for each class you have. As I noted in the introduction this is an alternative to the proposed system.

If it makes things easier you can think of each tier of the prestige as exactly the same as the "tier unlock" in the proposed new system. In fact if it makes things easier there is no reason why those couldn't just be granted when you spend the correct number of points.

The rational for adding requirements is balance. Since I am not requiring a specific class to enter the prestige there are potential game balance issues. One of those issues might be your PM (Palemaster)-SD (Stalwart Defender). I think most people would agree the casters are generally more powerful than melee in the current game. In order to not make grabbing SD on a PM I used the existing mechanic for Combat Expertise. I think a fair number of people would agree that SD is a little more powerful than +5 AC on a caster and Turbine felt the need to have that balance in so it hardly seems like a ridiculous idea to me. The "unlock" cost for each level was set to try and require a decent number of actual character levels to advance in the tree without gating by character level. There are two choices for doing that. Either you use AP as I have done and make some estimates as to how many you want to have spent (i.e. what % of the 4 AP per level) or you use character levels (or a mixture of both). The problem with character levels is it makes the tree display wider or taller depending on which axis you put them on. The current mock up provided by the devs ignores any character level gating and simply stacks 3 copies of the enhancemnt on top of each other. I don't think that will continue to remain that way once their proposal gets further fleshed out. For that reason I went with an AP spent requirement. I was sort of shooting for 10 character levels to get to the highest tier which is how I came up with the numbers. Obviously as with anything this is a proposal only and would need fine tuning with testing.

It is a similar reason for not allowing a raging defender although one can make an even stronger argument for this from a thematic point of view. A defender is supposed to train to be a bastion of defense and protector of the weak. It seems rather incongruous to have a foaming at the mouth raging barbarian also be in the right mindset to enter a defensive stance. Also if you actually look at the stances they are very similar (defensive stance is stronger). You could of course just make sure the bonuses were typed the same and allow you to rage while in stance or vice versa but I think that would be a mistake.

The example you used for Improved Defense requiring dodge was a combination of balance and the way the entry requirements worked out. The way the requirements are set up (which is similar to how they are in the existing system) there are multiple feats that allow entry to the prestige. It hardly seems ridiculous (or "have nothing to do with") to require a feat that grants +1 AC as a requirement for an enhancement that grants +1 AC. If people don't like requirements for enhancements many of them could be removed and game balance done in other ways.

I haven't talked to 90% of the players so I don't know exactly what they are asking for. What I was trying to provide was a system that:
* Doesn't add a lot of new game mechanics (to keep coding/bugs down)
* Retains (or enhances) a PnP feel (the current proposal completely lacks this)
* Allows more ways to qualify than just class
* Is balanced (not a huge power creep, doesn't favor one type of build over another, etc)
* Is flexible
* Has a smooth power curve (really just a specific instance of balancing)
* Is easy to visualize growth paths
* Is not any more inherently complicated than the existing system

I haven't neutered PrE at all. I have actually made them more interesting as you even have choices as to how you want your prestige to look. I have increased the overall cost (compared to the original system). It is not clear if it would be more or less expensive than the proposed system since we don't have enough info to tell. As I said the actual numbers could be tweaked once a full system was designed.


I don't think you understand how the PrE roots are designed to work under the dev's proposed system. You don't put points into those root abilities to unlock things, they are unlocked as you invest in the tree. They are also staggered now for levels 3/6/9/12/15/18/20 creating less distinct breakpoints than you see with the current 6/12/18 splits of PrE's. That being said the game itself currently see's pretty large increases in monster progression and dungeon difficulties around those 6/12/18 breakpoints, it all evens out.

I understand perfectly well how the proposed system will work. It is entirely irrelevant to my proposal however. I am aware I am in the minority of posters in that I don't like the proposed system. A large number have problems with parts of it though. Regardless, its a feedback thread so I get to provide my feedback whether you agree with it or not. With 3000+ posts already I will continue to post alternatives to the proposal so that they are not lost in the sea of other stuff.

I don't know that I would agree that there is a large increase in dungeon difficult around those specific breakpoints (or even to define how you measure that) but that really wasn't what I was trying to avoid. As a side note if you are correct that would be a pretty silly way to balance the game (around huge spikes in character power at certain points).


It is ok to reduce the baseline effectiveness of some PrE's when entering the new system so that you have more enhancements and distinction for people with deeper investment but your suggestion goes so far beyond that, it just wrecks PrE's.

Under the current system there is absolutely no reason to not take a PrE. The cost-benefit analysis is so one sided. Under the new proposed system it won't even be possible to not get a PrE because all enhancements are in one of 3 PrE trees. Under my proposed system there is a trade off. You either invest your AP in a PrE and get better in that area or in the general/race/feat tabs and get better in a different area. Having a trade off increases build diversity as there will be many more viable options for builds. Under my proposal even 2 Stalwart Defender tier V characters would likely look fairly different. This IMO is a good thing.

[boomer70]

Having a lot of trouble coming up with anything for mechanic that isn't a carbon copy of artificer. Here's what I got so far:

Mechanic
Enhancement Name Cost Progression Class Level Requirement Benefit
Engineering 1/1/1/1 3/6/9/12 +1 to Disable Device, Open Lock, Search, Spot
->Reverse Engineering 1/1/1 6/10/14 +1 to Use Magic Device, +1 crafting level
Combat Engineer 1/1/1/1/1/1/1 1/3/5/7/9/11/13 1 use per tier of "Combat Engineer"**
->Demolitionist 1/1/1 9/11/13 Your traps are emplaced instantly; traps and grenades have a 4% chance per tier to crit for double damage
->->Big Ba-da-boom 3 15 Consume a use of "Combat Engineer" to increase all trap, grenade, and crossbow damage by 50% for 8 seconds
->->->Mass Destruction 1 18 When your score a kill with a grenade, reclaim one use of "Combat Engineer"
Bolt-Ridden 1/1/1/1/1 2/6/10/14/18 Repeater criticals reduce enemy fortification by 2% and fortitude saves by 1 for 10 seconds, 1 stack per tier
Mechanical Aptitude 1/1/1/1/1 6/8/10/12/14 Increase the enhancement bonus of your repeating crossbow by 1 per tier
->Repeater Specialization 1/1/1 8/12/16 +2 damage per tier with your equipped repeater
->->Repeating Repeater 1/1/1/1/1 6/9/12/15/18 Your repeater has a 1% chance per tier to fire a second volley immediately

Here are some suggestions:
Trap Mastery - You can no longer critically fail when disarming traps
Improved Trap Evasion - You gain the Improved Evasion ability when saving against traps even if you do not have the improved evasion feat.
Steady Trapper - You cannot be interrupted while disarming a trap.
Faster Disarming I-IV - You reduce the time it takes to disarm a trap by 25% per tier.
Faster Opening I-IV - You reduce the time it takes to open a lock by 25% per tier.
Lock Mastery - When opening a lock you have a chance to recover mechanical parts (similar to disabling a trap).
Improved Trap Building I-IV - The DC of your traps is increased by 1 per tier
Deadly Trap Building I-IV - The damage of your traps that deal damage is increased by 10% tier.
Master Looter - Treasure Finding (as greater dragonmark of finding)
Sneaky Trapper I-V - You can apply up to 2 sneak attack dice per tier to the damage your traps do.
Flattening Traps - Traps you set gain the Trip ability when they go off (in addition to any other effects). The DC is 10 + 1/2 rogue level + Intelligence. Any enhancements that improve your Trip DC apply but item effects do not.
Stunning Traps - Traps you set gain the Stunning Blow ability when they go off (in addition to any other effects). The DC is 10 + 1/2 rogue level + Intelligence. Any enhancements that improve your Stunning DC apply but item effects (e.g. Stunning) do not.
Repair Construct - Not sure if you meant to remove this ability.

EDIT: Thought of some more
Explain Traps I-IV - Consume a use of Skill Boost to grant an ally a +2 bonus to saves against traps for 20 seconds. (Useful to help allies across undisarmable trap areas).
Scavenger I-x - Increase the chance and number of trap parts recovered.

[daydrmrzzz]

Sorry about the "wall of text", but nobody has a reaction to the ideas I presented, except for Failedlegend, who only responded to the racial pet portion (1 small part of my original post)?

To Failedlegend: You mean nobody else can train a guard dog or other animal? Don't all races have the option of the iron defender enhancements today? This is what the racial pet portion of my idea was meant to replace.

They are also a pet option that lies between the pure fluff of the cosmetic pet, and the class ability of the artificer/druid/wizard/ranger/paladin. And those classes could have both the class pet and the racial pet.

It would be less advantageous in some aspects than a hireling: costs AP, melee only, takes up the hireling slot, so you can't have a cleric/sorceror hireling with you unless you go Gold seal, or don't summon the pet.

It would be more advantageous than a hireling in some other ways: part of your character, so you could take it to raids, can rename/equip it, doesn't cost money.

[Artos_Fabril]

Here are some suggestions:
snip
Some good ideas here. I stole some and was inspired by others. Repair construct gets a buff, in case anyone uses it.

Mechanic
Enhancement Name Cost Progression Class Level Requirement Benefit
Engineering 1/1/1/1 3/6/9/12 +1 to Disable Device, Open Lock, Search, Spot
->Reverse Engineering 1/1/1 6/10/14 +1 to Use Magic Device, +1 crafting level, +2 trap DC
Combat Engineer 1/1/1/1/1/1/1 1/3/5/7/9/11/13 1 use per tier of "Combat Engineer"**
->Demolitionist 1/1/1 9/11/13 While Combat Engineer is active, your traps are emplaced instantly; traps and grenades have a 4% chance per tier to crit for double damage
->->Big Ba-da-boom 3 15 Consume a use of "Combat Engineer" to increase all trap, grenade, and crossbow damage by 50% for 8 seconds
->->->Mass Destruction 1 18 When your score a kill with a grenade, reclaim one use of "Combat Engineer"
Bolt-Ridden 1/1/1/1/1 2/6/10/14/18 Repeater criticals reduce enemy fortification by 2% and fortitude saves by 1 for 10 seconds, 1 stack per tier
Mechanical Aptitude 1/1/1/1/1 4/7/10/13/16 Increase the enhancement bonus of your repeating crossbow by 1 per tier
->Repeater Specialization 1/1/1 8/12/16 +2 damage per tier with your equipped repeater
->->Repeating Repeater 1/1/1/1/1 6/9/12/15/18 Your repeater has a 1% chance per tier to fire a second volley immediately
->->->Repeater Mastery 2/2 15/18 Reduce repeater reload time by 25% per tier (multiplicative stacking with rapid reload)
->->->->Sabot Shots 2 18 +1 to Critical multiplier on vorpal strikes with all crossbows/repeaters
Manual Dexterity 1/1/1/1/1 3/6/9/12/15 Reduces time to open lock or disarm by 20% per tier
->Nimble Mind 3 12 Add your dex bonus to your disable device total
Practiced Eye 1/1/1/1/1 1/3/5/7/9 +1 spot and -20% search time per tier
Monkeywrencher 1/1/1/1 3/8/13/18 +1d6 per tier bane damage to constructs
->Wrack Construct 1/1/1 5/10/15 Wrack Construct I/II/III (as current)
->->Ruin Construct 2 12 Wrack construct stuns on crits; red/purple named lose additional 15% fort instead
Repair Construct 1/1/1/1 1/4/7/10 repair 1d3+3 per second, per tier - 15 second duration
Trap Resistance 1/1/1 2/8/14 +2 to saves vs. traps and +3 to all elemental resistances per tier

**Combat Engineer: Traps take 50% less time to place and enemies who successfully save still have their defenses compromised, reducing fortification by 10% for 10 seconds (does not stack with itself)
Granted Benefits
Tier .5 Light Repeating Crossbow Proficiency; Critical fail while disarming trap dazes you, but does not explode the box
Tier 1 Add your Int bonus to crossbow/repeater damage; your trap DCs are increased; all of your traps and grenades deal 10% more damage
Tier 1.5 Heavy Repeating Crossbow Proficiency; +3 to Disable Device, Open Locks, and Search
Tier 2 Add half your dex bonus to sneak attack damage; your trap DCs are increased; +3% crit chance with traps and grenades (+0.5 multiplier)
Tier 2.5 Smite constructs/living constructs; +3 to elemental resistances, 10% damage reduction vs physical traps
Tier 3 Great Crossbow Proficientcy; your trap DCs are increased; traps and grenades deal addional 15% damage
Capstone: +2 Int; All light/heavy/great crossbows you wield fire volleys of 3 bolts, instead of 1; Trap DCs increased

There still aren't enough crossbow bonuses to reach the capstone without taking anything else. I'm not sure if I'm ok with that. You could still get the capstone without taking any trap enhancements, or without taking any crossbow enhancements, although I can't imagine why you'd want to. 74 total points in the tab.

[Aelonwy]

Here are some suggestions:
Trap Mastery - You can no longer critically fail when disarming traps
Improved Trap Evasion - You gain the Improved Evasion ability when saving against traps even if you do not have the improved evasion feat.
Steady Trapper - You cannot be interrupted while disarming a trap.
Faster Disarming I-IV - You reduce the time it takes to disarm a trap by 25% per tier.
Faster Opening I-IV - You reduce the time it takes to open a lock by 25% per tier.
Lock Mastery - When opening a lock you have a chance to recover mechanical parts (similar to disabling a trap).
Improved Trap Building I-IV - The DC of your traps is increased by 1 per tier
Deadly Trap Building I-IV - The damage of your traps that deal damage is increased by 10% tier.
Master Looter - Treasure Finding (as greater dragonmark of finding)
Sneaky Trapper I-V - You can apply up to 2 sneak attack dice per tier to the damage your traps do.
Flattening Traps - Traps you set gain the Trip ability when they go off (in addition to any other effects). The DC is 10 + 1/2 rogue level + Intelligence. Any enhancements that improve your Trip DC apply but item effects do not.
Stunning Traps - Traps you set gain the Stunning Blow ability when they go off (in addition to any other effects). The DC is 10 + 1/2 rogue level + Intelligence. Any enhancements that improve your Stunning DC apply but item effects (e.g. Stunning) do not.
Repair Construct - Not sure if you meant to remove this ability.

EDIT: Thought of some more
Explain Traps I-IV - Consume a use of Skill Boost to grant an ally a +2 bonus to saves against traps for 20 seconds. (Useful to help allies across undisarmable trap areas).
Scavenger I-x - Increase the chance and number of trap parts recovered.

These are really some good suggestions for Mechanic. Master Looter.... makes me think of Dungeon Delver, perhaps something else could be borrowed from that PrC.

[Failedlegend]

These are really some good suggestions for Mechanic. Master Looter.... makes me think of Dungeon Delver, perhaps something else could be borrowed from that PrC.

http://square-headed.com/images/bios_locke.png

"I'm not a Thief, I'm a Treasure Hunter"

[Ukenburger]

So... Artificer dogs... what are their 3 Prestige Enhancements? :)

[thandros]

I just hope they don't shore horn everyone in Wow Style cookie cutter trees of course that looks like what they are doing. So you want to be Kensai okay you get your improved combat Dc Opps sorry all of the Toughness and +con abilities are all deep Another tree Sorry.

[Failedlegend]

So... Artificer dogs... what are their 3 Prestige Enhancements? :)

- Box Bane

- Ninja Dog

- Reinforced Quadruped

[TiranBlade]

- Scooby

- Dooby

- Doo

Fixed that for ya!

[Arovin]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7161/6771001709_389daa6d71_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/75377286@N08/6771001709/)
EnhancementMockup2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/75377286@N08/6771001709/) by Arovin (http://www.flickr.com/people/75377286@N08/), on Flickr

This is what I came up with. Added 3 tabs on the side for multi class builds. Put Racial Pre and Pet tabs across the top. Removed the drop downs in the the trees allowing for more then 3 Pre trees total.

[daydrmrzzz]

OK, looks like this thread is winding down. This is what I believe the optimum choices are from what I 've seen posted:

1) Max of 3 class Pre trees with action points in them, with a 3 gate system to determine max tier level. These gates are

a) Number of action points in the Pre (5/10/15/20/25/30/41)
b) Character level (3/6/9/12/15/18/20)
c) Class level (1/2/3/4/5/6/7)

So to be allowed to receive the capstone in a Pre, you must be level 20, at least level 7 in that class, and have at least 41 AP spent in that Pre.

Everyone will always have a choice of at least 3, and a max of 6 class Pres that could reach capstone (with 2 classes with 7+ levels), but only 3 out of the 9 possible could actually have AP in them. This cuts down on the problem of too much stacking of desirable low level enhancements that could occur with being able to put AP into all 9 class Pre trees available to a tri class splash).

2) If the racial Pre is a copy of a class Pre (tempest, stawart defender, assassin, etc) then the AP you spend in the racial Pre and the points you spend in the same class Pre should allow you to stack abilities. So a halfling rogue could become an UBER assassin, a drow ranger could become an UBER tempest, etc. If you don't allow them to stack then there is a penalty (a loss of their racial Pre tree) to anyone who makes a supposedly "preferred" racial build.

3) A preferred way to handle the racial Pre (although it would involve more coding) is to have the racial Pre completely different from the class Pres to avoid cookie cutter builds based on the UBER builds I mentioned in point 2, or the penalty of losing the racial Pre for a "preferred" race/class combo.

Rather than going with the multitude of racial Prestige classes in PnP, the racial Pre should be more generic (to prevent one race being much more powerful in a role than another). But, there should be enough of a difference between them to make your choice of race have some "flavor" impact.

Racial Pre's should benefit any build, whether it's a caster, a melee, a ranged specialist, or a skills specialist, otherwise there will be too many builds where the racial Pre offers no, or very litttle benefit.

You could possibly split the racial Pre into smaller "bushes" instead of 1 tree (a caster bush, a melee bush, etc). If you use the bush idea, have smaller AP spent requirements (like 2/4/6/8/10/12/15) spent in the bush grants minor tier/capstone abilities.

But, there should NOT be any racial Pre that grants a specific major advantage that isn't available to other races (such as the halfling dino rider, that would give pets to halflings, but no other races).

Well, there you have my final opinion, take it for what it's worth (about 2 cp).

[Failedlegend]

3 Tree limit yes

No..you've obviously not read enough of this to understand why yet..the two best option would be

1) Full Access to all tree available to you but you can only choose 3 Tree you can get the free bonuses in

2) Keep the 3 Tree limit and move core abilities (Monk Stances, Spell Damage Lines, Ranger Favored enemies, Stat Boosts,Most Action Boosts,etc.) to a General Enhancements area than have the PrEs only have stuff unique to that PrE...its works much better both lore wise and practicality wise

I personally prefer #2 but #1 isn't far off


Generic Racial PrEs

OK this again no..I'd rather have NO Racial Prestiges than generic ones there's PLENTY of Racially Specific PrEs even if your talking Ebberon specifically

Warforged: Reforged and Juggernaut (Allow a player to choose to embrace or shun their construct nature)

Elf: Bladesinger and Elemental Archer

Dwarf: Dwarven Defender (Different than stalwart)

Halfing: Talentia Rider (A Dino rider)

Human: Steelsky Liberator (Specializes in combat with larger enemies especially dragons)

Drow: Scorpion Wraith

Half-Orc: Kal'thaan Marcher (probably got this ones name wrong)

Half-Elf: Any Class PrE based on Dilly and Elemental Archer

[TiranBlade]

!-Snip Picture-!
EnhancementMockup2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/75377286@N08/6771001709/) by Arovin (http://www.flickr.com/people/75377286@N08/), on Flickr

This is what I came up with. Added 3 tabs on the side for multi class builds. Put Racial Pre and Pet tabs across the top. Removed the drop downs in the the trees allowing for more then 3 Pre trees total.

The racial Pre Yes maybe, but the Pet Enhancement do not belong on the character as the AP spent for pet enhancements do not come from the character's AP pool but the pets own.

I originally put the tabs on top as to not cause the over expanditure of the window as some monitor sizes are a bit small for something like this IE mine resolution. Also I have come up with a few condenced forms that pretty much serve this same purpose aside from having a racial pre tree which like what you did wouldn't be too hard to integrate into they way you did as they are done on mine.

Otherwise not far off from anything I've already done. Good job though, I do like open discussion on these.

TiranBlade, Time Killer


Original

http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o539/TiranBlade/DDO%20Concept%20Suggestion/EnhancementMockupSuggestionRevision2.jpg





Here's a condenced version.

http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o539/TiranBlade/DDO%20Concept%20Suggestion/EnhancementMockupSuggestionCondenced.jpg




Condenced 2

http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o539/TiranBlade/DDO%20Concept%20Suggestion/EnhancementMockupSuggestionCondenced2.jpg

I meant it to have a check mark just below the AP on the tab to show which had been selected as a Prestige Line. Also ment to remove the pet cause it's on a different system than race and class.

[Arovin]

I like the 2nd one you have there. It would be easy to add a racial tab on the top like in mine and not make it any bigger.

Yours are pretty sleek and the condensed format would work out better at lower resolutions which I did not consider.

[zex95966]

looks exactly like the w.o.w format...

[thandros]

Yes that is the Wow Setup Please Do not turn this game into WoW. I love the fact that characters are so customizable in this game. It almost sounds like they want to Force everyone into the Pre made paths. I kind of wish the new system would be optional but i sadly doubt that though.

[JasonJi72]

Holy smoke this is a long thread. I scanned every 10 pages, then every 2 as I got towards the end. I feel like I just read "Gone With the Wind" in one sitting. *rubs his eyes*

OK, my turn...

Keep it simple, but ensure maximum customization.

I understand the reasons for having 3 trees for your prestiges. Adding all of this will be insanely difficult to balance, and there has to be some sort of limiting factor, at least in the beginning.

In order for this to work properly, all three prestiges for each class need to be completed, since it looks like the enhancements will be partially split up into these trees. I will not even pretend to get my hopes up that this will happen. The Avenging Angel Prestige was promised to be released when they introduced fvs prestiges, but was delayed; a year later... still not here, and no longer promised. Do not even get me started on Deepwoods Sniper.

The 'Emerald' build has been referred to frequently about how it will be affected, and I find this rather comical. That build is actually a version 2 that was made after and specifically for the changes in the last update. I am sure Droken is chomping at the bit to see what he can do with this new change.

Many builds will have to be re-done, and certain enhancements will no longer be grandfathered in. Life happens. Life is change. Stagnation is death.

I believe that the devs said that epic levels will not be based on experience, but will be handled differently and seperately. Who knows what that means, but I would not start planning your 18wiz/12cleric Radiant/Palemaster just yet. This was in response to the huge outcry from the multi-TR's when epic levels were first anounced.

It does look like race will play a much bigger role than it already does. This could be a good thing. The only thing I ask is that we get options when choosing them. Dragonmarked should be a viable race option for any race that can use them.

I don't think I belong in the optimist or pessimist camp. It is coming, and I will not be quitting because of it. I am very scared, and very excited, perhaps I should be considered extremely anxious.

Please put LR Hearts on sale for 50% for a month after this rather large change to the way characters are built is incorporated.

Oh, and just in case it hasn't been done yet (I didn't see it when I was reading)...

DOOOOOOMMMMM!!!!!! :)

Cya around the playground!

[Failedlegend]

http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o539/TiranBlade/DDO%20Concept%20Suggestion/EnhancementMockupSuggestionCondenced2.jpg


I like this one the best (minus the Pet Tab and adding in the checkmarks of course)...it has the most information with one glance without being too cramped and it has room for expansion should the devs require it


looks exactly like the w.o.w format...


Yes that is the Wow Setup Please Do not turn this game into WoW. I love the fact that characters are so customizable in this game. It almost sounds like they want to Force everyone into the Pre made paths. I kind of wish the new system would be optional but i sadly doubt that though.

Judging by these statements you only read the first post than responded...please read at least the last 5-10ish pages so you can get a general idea of how the community wants it to be and I assure it's very un-WoW-like and no a "Tree System" does not automatically = WoW considering the fact our enhancements are already a tree system just not visually so. Depending on how the devs use our feedback we'll take said Tree system and make it amazing and WoW, Rift,etc. can shove it we can still make whatever we want.

Also note Asheron's call was released in 1999 while WoW wasn't released until 2004.....if anything Blizzard is copying Turbine and this is should just be better version of Asheron's Calls system



OK, my turn...

Keep it simple, but ensure maximum customization.

I understand the reasons for having 3 trees for your prestiges. Adding all of this will be insanely difficult to balance, and there has to be some sort of limiting factor, at least in the beginning.

Two simple solutions (and an optional)

1) Keep the 3 Tree limit and add a general enhancements tab for enhancements related to core class features (ie. monk stances,spell damage lines, stat boosts, most action boosts, ranger favored enemies,etc.) and than anything in the trees would directly relate to that PrE

2) Remove the limit altogether but make so you have to choose 3 PrEs the ones you choose allow you to receive the "Free PrE Bonuses"

Optionally: Do both remove the limit and add a general enhancement tab but with the limiting factor of the "Choose 3"



In order for this to work properly, all three prestiges for each class need to be completed

Agreed



The 'Emerald' build has been referred to frequently about how it will be affected, and I find this rather comical. That build is actually a version 2 that was made after and specifically for the changes in the last update. I am sure Droken is chomping at the bit to see what he can do with this new change.

Common Misconception...I can't really speak for others but I'm sure most feel the same...we EXPECT to have to change our characters around a bit maybe even have to LR some of the...what were fighting against is making Multi-classes irrelevant. I'm pretty sure both Multi-classes and Single-classes will get buffed from this BUT with the current proposed system Multi-Classing will lose alot of their ability to mix abilities from each of their classes while being limited how high they can go up tree by level gating making multclassing FAR less attractive while Single-Classes only gain.




Many builds will have to be re-done, and certain enhancements will no longer be grandfathered in. Life happens. Life is change. Stagnation is death.


This I'm actually happy about...frankly I viewed the ability to hold on to any removed or changed enhancements by not respeccing as nothing less than an exploit.



I believe that the devs said that epic levels will not be based on experience, but will be handled differently and seperately.

We haven't been told much but we DO know its an entirely different system so you won't see any Fighter20/Rogue5s...your more seeing Fighter20/EpicFighter5 or Wizard12/Fighter6/Rogue2/EpicWiz2/EpicFighter1/EpicRogue2....or possibly Fighter20/GenericEpicLevel5



It does look like race will play a much bigger role than it already does. This could be a good thing.

Most people are actually fighting against this both having racial PrEs being part part of the racial PrE and having their PrE be actual well RACIAL ones. Like this:



Warforged: Reforged and Juggernaut (Allow a player to choose to embrace or shun their construct nature)

Elf: Bladesinger and AA

Dwarf: Dwarven Defender (Different than stalwart)

Halfing: Talentia Rider (A Dino rider)

Human: Steelsky Liberator (Specializes in combat with larger enemies especially dragons)

Drow: Scorpion Wraith

Half-Orc: Kal'thaan Marcher (probably got this ones name wrong)

Half-Elf: Any Class PrE based on Dilly (Free access to AA)



The only thing I ask is that we get options when choosing them. Dragonmarked should be a viable race option for any race that can use them.


Eladrin has actually said this is being worked into the racial tree w/ the possibility of if being reduced to one feat instead of three




I don't think I belong in the optimist or pessimist camp. It is coming, and I will not be quitting because of it. I am very scared, and very excited, perhaps I should be considered extremely anxious.

My thoughts exactly...although I'd add I'm also not in the "Let's do nothing and let the devs figure it out" camp.

[Aesop]

Hey not be too off topic but Fail you keep listing Eldritch Knight as an Elf PrE. Its really not an elf specific one. There is one that would be Elf/Half-Elf only that is "similar" in effect but EK isn't it.

You're thinking of Bladesinger. It can be found in the Complete Warrior pg 18.

EK is a hybrid PrC open to any race and I'd hate for it to be limited like that.

Aesop

[Failedlegend]

Hey not be too off topic but Fail you keep listing Eldritch Knight as an Elf PrE. Its really not an elf specific one. There is one that would be Elf/Half-Elf only that is "similar" in effect but EK isn't it.

You're thinking of Bladesinger. It can be found in the Complete Warrior pg 18.

EK is a hybrid PrC open to any race and I'd hate for it to be limited like that.

Aesop

Right sorry Bladesinger is probably was what I was thinking of...sorry I mix up the names sometimes I'm going off memory...ill fix it.

Someone will likely correct me about Steelsky Liberator and Kal'THoon Marcher as well as I have a feeling their wrong.

Also yeah I would also LOVE if they introduced Multi-class (aka Hybrid) PrEs

[Marcus-Hawkeye]

Yes that is the Wow Setup Please Do not turn this game into WoW. I love the fact that characters are so customizable in this game. It almost sounds like they want to Force everyone into the Pre made paths. I kind of wish the new system would be optional but i sadly doubt that though.


Actually this is almost identical to the format they had in Asherons Call 2, a game released by Turbine before WoW.

[Vargouille]

In order for this to work properly, all three prestiges for each class need to be completed, since it looks like the enhancements will be partially split up into these trees. I will not even pretend to get my hopes up that this will happen.

Our intended goal is to finish three prestige enhancement lines for each class and release them with these enhancement changes.

[smatt]

Our intended goal is to finish three prestige enhancement lines for each class and release them with these enhancement changes.


Is this panned goal POSSIBLY coming before the expansion, or is it slated for the exapnsion? :)

[Scraap]

Our intended goal is to finish three prestige enhancement lines for each class and release them with these enhancement changes.

Been a couple weeks, so hopefully you've got a general notion on this one:

Are you going for front-loading, back-loading, or linear progression of enhancement power at this point, or are you looking to make that aspect a balancing factor for specific classes?

[Aesop]

Our intended goal is to finish three prestige enhancement lines for each class and release them with these enhancement changes.

That would be lovely

[lppmor]

Just want to say I play RPGs for many many years and I'm a big fan of character build creation. Usually I spend as much time on Excel trying to find out good builds for my characters as actually playing them. So, all I can say is the direction you guys are taking the game is amazing in that sense.

The first release of talent trees in WoW was supposed to bring huge amounts of character customization, and the idea was great but with time they were obligated to decrease customization year after year thanks to all the complaints regarding balance. But DDO is very different. It's not a pvp oriented game and players are mostly more mature here, so the idea of implementing trees and lots of strategic choices can only be a winner, IMO.

I think the issue that seems more complex is probably related to enhancements that are pretty basic for each class, such as spell amplification for arcanes, or Dex bonuses for rogue. But the truth is that by spending 41 ap into a tree for the capstone still gives you 39 ap to spend in other trees, so I believe they can feel free to distribute basic enhancements among the trees, or put all of them in the same tree. For example, Pale Master could have frost amplification, while Archmage could have fire. Or they can simply put all four element amplification into Wild Mage, leaving Archmage with only Force/Repair, and Pale Master with, say, Int bonuses.

[Silverleafeon]

Our intended goal is to finish three prestige enhancement lines for each class and release them with these enhancement changes.

Woot!

[daydrmrzzz]

Just wanted to float a new idea idea (with some elements of other ideas posted earlier in the thread). This combines the absolute maximum in flexibility, without too great a stacking problem. Hope I can explain it clearly enough.

It starts with a general pool on the left side of the screen, which contains all the enhancements that will be available to your race and classes, arranged in layers by character level, and stacked up to the max bonus the Devs want to allow at that level. The layers would be lvl 1-2/3-5/6-8/9-11/12-14/15-17/18-19/20 (capstone).

Enhancements in layers higher than your current level would be grayed out and unavailable, but you could still mouse over them to see what they are, and prerequisite arrows would show the links between enhancements.

Stacking would be controlled by the number of enhancements in each stack. For example, you may have Improved stealth 1 in the level 1-2 layer with 3 enhancements stacked in it, Improved stealth 2 in the 3-5 layer with 3 enhancements, etc.

On the right side of the screen is the Pre page with 1-3 tabs on the bottom for your 1-3 classes. Clicking on the class tab brings up the top Pre in that class, clicking again cycles through the Pres for the class. Only 1 Pre is displayed at a time.

The Pre page consists of empty slots at each tier, and on the left side of the layer is an icon displaying the granted ability for completing that tier with a number below it showing the number of AP spent in the Pre and the number needed to complete the tier. Ie: 0/5, 0/10, 0/15, 0/20, 0/25, 0/30, 0/41 (capstone).

As you spend AP, you drag abilities from the general tab to one of the Pre pages. The only limitation is that a lvl 1-2 ability can only go in a tier .5 slot, a lvl 3-5 ability in a tier 1 slot, etc. and you must complete a tier before slots open in the next tier. You must have 5 AP spent in tier .5 of the Pre before tier 1 opens, 10 AP total in the Pre before tier 1.5 opens etc. You could complete the tier 1 tier by spending 5 additional AP in any combination of tier .5 and tier 1 abilities.

Using my example of the stealth enhancements, you could spend 2 AP dragging stealth 1 to the assassin Pre tier .5 layer, along with 3 other lvl 1-2 enahancements to open tier 1. Then you could spend an additional 4 AP to take the 3rd lvl 1-2 stealth enhancement and (If you are at least 3rd level) the 3 lvl 3-5 stealth enhancements to the same Pre, and take any 2 more AP from the lvl 1-2 or lvl 3-5 pool to complete tier 1.

Your total character level, race, and class determine which enhancements you can draw from. The number of AP spent in a Pre determine what tier slots are available to drop the enhancements into. The number of enhancements available in the stack at each level in the pool controls the maximum bonus you can have. Completing a tier in any Pre grants you the tier completion bonus for that tier.

You can concentrate your AP into 1 or 2 Pre's, gaining the more powerful granted abilities, or spread them out to get many lower level granted abilities. You can drag any lvl 1-2 enhancement to any tier .5 slot of any of your Pres. So a 19 wizard/1 ranger could select spell manipulation enhancements and fill his arcane archer and deepwood sniper Pre's, or he could concentrate on ranger abilities and fill his arch mage and pale master Pre's. You can pull any enhancement out of the general pool you've unlocked and drag it to any Pre tier of the same level you've unlocked.

If you want to include racial Pres, then you can have a race tab, with multiple Pres available in it, next to the class tab. The same rules would apply to filling the race Pres as to filling the class Pres.

If the Devs want to add additional class, race, or multiclass Pre's it is simply a matter of adding them to the cycle of the race or class tabs, and adding the abilities to the general pool.

To change enhancements, you could have a Reset button to clear an entire Pre, or allow a SHIFT_CLICK on an enhancement in a Pre to send it back to the general pool (for less cost than clearing the whole tree).

This system would allow for the ultimate in flexibility, while still controlling power level. Do you want your 19 bard/1 rogue to have the mechanic capstone and assassin 3 abilities? You can do that. Want your 19 monk/1 wizard to have Pale master capstone and Ninja spy 3? You can do that, too. No cookie cutter builds.

One thing I'd like to see, though is the elimination of boosts. With the relaxed stacking rules in the new system, boosts are no longer needed (I've never liked em much anyway). You'll probably have higher static bonuses with the new system than you could get via boosts with the old one. Eliminating boosts would reduce the power creep on the dungeon side needed to balance out the new player abilities.

The only drawback I see to this system are A) The sheer number of options could overwhelm new players, and B) you have the opportunity to really gimp yourself by spreading your enhancements so thin that you run out of lvl 1-2 enhancements in your pool before you've unlocked tier 1 in a pre (but if you did, you could always move some of the enhancements around, at a slight cost).

[kingfisher]

Our intended goal is to finish three prestige enhancement lines for each class and release them with these enhancement changes.

does that include the racial pre's? any further thought on whether the racial pre's will be unique or cloned class pre's?

[Phemt81]

Our intended goal is to finish three prestige enhancement lines for each class and release them with these enhancement changes.

Nice, this means we'll keep the current enhancement' system until 2015 at least :D

[Vazok1]

Our intended goal is to finish three prestige enhancement lines for each class and release them with these enhancement changes.

while it would be awesome to get all those I personally am most interested on what you guys decided on the 3 max trees subject. I'm all for 3 max prestiges personally but 3 max trees would destroy a lot of multi class builds through limitations I think.

Have you reached a decision on this yet? if your allowed to tell us yet that is :)

[lppmor]

while it would be awesome to get all those I personally am most interested on what you guys decided on the 3 max trees subject. I'm all for 3 max prestiges personally but 3 max trees would destroy a lot of multi class builds through limitations I think.

Have you reached a decision on this yet? if your allowed to tell us yet that is :)

Don't think they have decided yet.. But I really don't see the 3 class trees limitation as an issue. Why? Because usually people only get multi class levels to get one or two perks in the other class.

For example, today Archmages like to get rogue levels just because of evasion. With the new UI, they can fill the entire Archmage tree, then get Thief-Acrobat (considering evasion will be inside this tree), and will still have another tree to select, such as Wild Mage.

Same with people who get Monk just for evasion and AC bonuses. Simply get your preferred tree in your class as your main tree, then choose the correct Monk tree (or trees) for the perks you want.

[Failedlegend]

while it would be awesome to get all those I personally am most interested on what you guys decided on the 3 max trees subject. I'm all for 3 max prestiges personally but 3 max trees would destroy a lot of multi class builds through limitations I think.

Have you reached a decision on this yet? if your allowed to tell us yet that is :)

At least an inkling of WHEN will get more info...even if its not for a month or two we'll at least know...as far as the removal of the limit

Two simple solutions (and an optional)

1) Keep the 3 Tree limit and add a general enhancements tab for enhancements related to core class features (ie. monk stances,spell damage lines, stat boosts, most action boosts, ranger favored enemies,etc.) and than anything in the trees would directly relate to that PrE

2) Remove the limit altogether but make so you have to choose 3 PrEs the ones you choose allow you to receive the "Free PrE Bonuses" you can still spend points in the others but can't get the free bonus

Optionally: Do both remove the limit and add a general enhancement tab but with the limiting factor of the "Choose 3" this would remove any limitation on creatvity in builds and make the PrEs feel alot more unique.

Here's a good example of Mechanic


Some good ideas here. I stole some and was inspired by others. Repair construct gets a buff, in case anyone uses it.

Mechanic
Enhancement Name Cost Progression Class Level Requirement Benefit
Engineering 1/1/1/1 3/6/9/12 +1 to Disable Device, Open Lock, Search, Spot
->Reverse Engineering 1/1/1 6/10/14 +1 to Use Magic Device, +1 crafting level, +2 trap DC
Combat Engineer 1/1/1/1/1/1/1 1/3/5/7/9/11/13 1 use per tier of "Combat Engineer"**
->Demolitionist 1/1/1 9/11/13 While Combat Engineer is active, your traps are emplaced instantly; traps and grenades have a 4% chance per tier to crit for double damage
->->Big Ba-da-boom 3 15 Consume a use of "Combat Engineer" to increase all trap, grenade, and crossbow damage by 50% for 8 seconds
->->->Mass Destruction 1 18 When your score a kill with a grenade, reclaim one use of "Combat Engineer"
Bolt-Ridden 1/1/1/1/1 2/6/10/14/18 Repeater criticals reduce enemy fortification by 2% and fortitude saves by 1 for 10 seconds, 1 stack per tier
Mechanical Aptitude 1/1/1/1/1 4/7/10/13/16 Increase the enhancement bonus of your repeating crossbow by 1 per tier
->Repeater Specialization 1/1/1 8/12/16 +2 damage per tier with your equipped repeater
->->Repeating Repeater 1/1/1/1/1 6/9/12/15/18 Your repeater has a 1% chance per tier to fire a second volley immediately
->->->Repeater Mastery 2/2 15/18 Reduce repeater reload time by 25% per tier (multiplicative stacking with rapid reload)
->->->->Sabot Shots 2 18 +1 to Critical multiplier on vorpal strikes with all crossbows/repeaters
Manual Dexterity 1/1/1/1/1 3/6/9/12/15 Reduces time to open lock or disarm by 20% per tier
->Nimble Mind 3 12 Add your dex bonus to your disable device total
Practiced Eye 1/1/1/1/1 1/3/5/7/9 +1 spot and -20% search time per tier
Monkeywrencher 1/1/1/1 3/8/13/18 +1d6 per tier bane damage to constructs
->Wrack Construct 1/1/1 5/10/15 Wrack Construct I/II/III (as current)
->->Ruin Construct 2 12 Wrack construct stuns on crits; red/purple named lose additional 15% fort instead
Repair Construct 1/1/1/1 1/4/7/10 repair 1d3+3 per second, per tier - 15 second duration
Trap Resistance 1/1/1 2/8/14 +2 to saves vs. traps and +3 to all elemental resistances per tier

**Combat Engineer: Traps take 50% less time to place and enemies who successfully save still have their defenses compromised, reducing fortification by 10% for 10 seconds (does not stack with itself)
Granted Benefits
Tier .5 Light Repeating Crossbow Proficiency; Critical fail while disarming trap dazes you, but does not explode the box
Tier 1 Add your Int bonus to crossbow/repeater damage; your trap DCs are increased; all of your traps and grenades deal 10% more damage
Tier 1.5 Heavy Repeating Crossbow Proficiency; +3 to Disable Device, Open Locks, and Search
Tier 2 Add half your dex bonus to sneak attack damage; your trap DCs are increased; +3% crit chance with traps and grenades (+0.5 multiplier)
Tier 2.5 Smite constructs/living constructs; +3 to elemental resistances, 10% damage reduction vs physical traps
Tier 3 Great Crossbow Proficientcy; your trap DCs are increased; traps and grenades deal addional 15% damage
Capstone: +2 Int; All light/heavy/great crossbows you wield fire volleys of 3 bolts, instead of 1; Trap DCs increased

There still aren't enough crossbow bonuses to reach the capstone without taking anything else. I'm not sure if I'm ok with that. You could still get the capstone without taking any trap enhancements, or without taking any crossbow enhancements, although I can't imagine why you'd want to. 74 total points in the tab.

Also here's an mock-up of what I mean. (Slight edit from Tiran's)

http://i365.photobucket.com/albums/oo93/Failedlegend/Tiranbladesmock-upedit.png

General would have a Tab on the side for each class you have so 1-3 Tabs and of course would be level gated....the great thing about this mock-up is its easy to expand should you wish to add more *cough*multi-class PrEs *cough* at a later date. It will of course look alot prettier after your Art team gets ahold of it and after seeing this picture I know it will look amazing (actually I wish our entire UI looked like this)

http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j377/MadFloyd/EnhancementMockup2.jpg


Don't think they have decided yet.. But I really don't see the 3 class trees limitation as an issue. Why? Because usually people only get multi class levels to get one or two perks in the other class.

For example, today Archmages like to get rogue levels just because of evasion. With the new UI, they can fill the entire Archmage tree, then get Thief-Acrobat (considering evasion will be inside this tree), and will still have another tree to select, such as Wild Mage.

Same with people who get Monk just for evasion and AC bonuses. Simply get your preferred tree in your class as your main tree, then choose the correct Monk tree (or trees) for the perks you want.

I'm not going to re-explain it here...but heres a link to a post where I broke down a few builds that will be severely handicapped by the new system...if you want the whole conversation your going to actual have to read the thread lest I take up 30 more pages explaining it. Long story short the 3 Tree limit WILL cripple multi-classing in general and limits the amount of creativity we can put in our builds. There's little to no downside to removing the 3 Tree limit as long as its controlled by level gating and the limit of 80AP the only ones who disagree are the ones who think Multi-classing needs to be nerfed.

http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p=4274705&postcount=2983

[lppmor]

There's little to no downside to removing the 3 Tree limit as long as its controlled by level gating and the limit of 80AP the only ones who disagree are the ones who think Multi-classing needs to be nerfed.


I understand your point. But in this case, yes, I'm one of those who think multi-classing has to be limited :)

Multi-classing is amazing in most cases, because it allows players to come with many new builds and strategies. But IMO there are some point where it becomes plain system manipulation. And some limitation in that sense is good for the game (again, IMO).

[lppmor]

1) Keep the 3 Tree limit and add a general enhancements tab for enhancements related to core class features (ie. monk stances,spell damage lines, stat boosts, most action boosts, ranger favored enemies,etc.) and than anything in the trees would directly relate to that PrE


I like your idea of a General tab. Players expending ap in this tab would be able to access important core perks, but at the same time would not count toward a prestige, so this can add another layer of strategic choices.

For example: One thing I think it's weird is that by spending 41 ap in a tree to reach the capstone for that prestige line, you still have 39 ap which can be easily spent in a secondary tree up to the level 18 perk. In this case, for instance, a top level Kensei (which is an offensive warrior) can also have almost all perks from the Stalwart Defender line, only missing the capstone. Not a big deal, sure, but weird. But by having a General tab with very nice core enhancements that do not count toward a prestige would motivate players to follow a single path, which IMO is pretty great.

[Failedlegend]

I understand your point. But in this case, yes, I'm one of those who think multi-classing has to be limited :)

Multi-classing is amazing in most cases, because it allows players to come with many new builds and strategies. But IMO there are some point where it becomes plain system manipulation. And some limitation in that sense is good for the game (again, IMO).

Multiclassing is already limited..there will be level gating in the new system for both the enhancement tiers (The Level Reqs for these have not been revealed but it has been said a light splash will only have access to the first two tiers of enhancements) and the "Free bonuses"...3/6/9/12/15/18/20 IIRC so while say a Lvl 20 Ranger will have free access to all the enhancements related to that class a Ranger12/Fighter7/Monk1 will only have access up to Lvl 12 of ranger enhancements and either has to live with that or sacrifice one of the PrEs for up to lvl 6 enhancements in fighter and lvl 1 enhancements in monk but the character has already sacrificed 8 levels of ranger to gain access to those abilities there's not reason to put a arbitrary limitation of 3 Tree on there.




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

The Ranger12/Fighter7/Monk1 would only have access to Tempest2, Kensai 1 and some early enhancements from monk while Ranger 20 would access all the way to the capstone (which if the tempest capstone -Dervish- is anything to go on it's going to be pretty compelling) but with both only having access to 3 Trees the Single-Class has the clear advantage.

Removing that limitation puts them on equal ground...assuming the "Pick 3" system is followed (Short version...You can still spend your APs anywhere but will only get the "Free Bonuses" in your 3 chosen Trees)

Outside of the enhancement system multiclassing is also limited to 3 classes (which I approve of...I hated those 6/2/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1 builds) and of course the limit of 20 levels that in itself is balanced.


I like your idea of a General tab. Players expending ap in this tab would be able to access important core perks, but at the same time would not count toward a prestige, so this can add another layer of strategic choices.


Well it's not my idea really its the general consensus...I just think it will make the Prestiges themselves alot more unique feeling by having enhancements strictly related to them (Artos_Fabril demonstrates this perfectly with his rogue PrE examples) and the core class enhancements shouldn't be tied into PrEs anyway


-=
For example: One thing I think it's weird is that by spending 41 ap in a tree to reach the capstone for that prestige line, you still have 39 ap which can be easily spent in a secondary tree up to the level 18 perk.

I'm pretty sure that was the idea...but remember if you do that you don't have ANY abilities from any of your other trees including any racial abilities. Personally I would love it if each PrE tree had 60-80+ AP worth of enhancements so even people with the exact same PrE focus could be entirely different and you CAN specialize in one line entirely if you so desire or spread about if you wish.

[Vazok1]

Don't think they have decided yet.. But I really don't see the 3 class trees limitation as an issue. Why? Because usually people only get multi class levels to get one or two perks in the other class.

For example, today Archmages like to get rogue levels just because of evasion. With the new UI, they can fill the entire Archmage tree, then get Thief-Acrobat (considering evasion will be inside this tree), and will still have another tree to select, such as Wild Mage.

Same with people who get Monk just for evasion and AC bonuses. Simply get your preferred tree in your class as your main tree, then choose the correct Monk tree (or trees) for the perks you want.

Yes I agree, for a 18/2 split or pure class, however if you take a build I will probably be using at the time this comes out for example. 12monk, 6ranger, 2rogue. I have the 2 rogue for trap skills and umd so i'd take wand and scroll mastery, i'd also like to take the first tier of sneak training for 3 more damage a swing on sneaks. there are more out there but for simplicity and sake of argument we can say I only take those two and they are in the same tree. assassin.
then I'll want to take tempest as I'm not aiming for arcane archer for this char, its within possibility that sprint boost, favoured damage, skill boost and ranger dexterity are in that tree.
however now my problems start, all the monk class abilities I will want are not going to fit in my last tree, so do i lose my wand n scroll for 30% less self healing? in exchange for something else? this is the problem i see with max 3 tree system. all those little 'extras' really define your character's ability's and losing those limits us no end.

most of the time I don't splash for the tier 1 prestiges, they just are not good enough for that, I splash for class feats and enhancements. I don't want to lose those enhancements

[Vargouille]

while it would be awesome to get all those I personally am most interested on what you guys decided on the 3 max trees subject. I'm all for 3 max prestiges personally but 3 max trees would destroy a lot of multi class builds through limitations I think.

Have you reached a decision on this yet? if your allowed to tell us yet that is :)

We are still actively discussing many possible enhancement designs. We want the right balance between pure and multiclass characters, design freedom and simplicity, etc.

Discussions have included:

Number of trees.
How many new enhancements are required to make sure there's meaningful choice within a tree.
How many PREs/Tiers of PREs we think it's reasonable for a player to get, and what should be "given up" to get the maximum amount.
How many AP a player may want to spend in racial trees. This affects how "much" a player would end up giving up to take multiple PREs to the maximum tier or capstone, if it's even mathematically possible. Perhaps taking two PREs to Tier 3 makes it impossible to get a capstone or racial ability enhancements.
Is two PREs at tier 3 inherently too powerful? (Would characters who don't take multiple PREs to high tiers end up underpowered in relation?)
Power balance between selected class enhancement and automatically granted PRE bonuses (based on AP spent in the tree).
How deep (or shallow!) you need to go to get various tiers of enhancements, in terms of:
AP spent within the tree
Class level requirements
Character level requirements
Greater separation between requirements for selected enhancements vs. the automatically granted enhancements (for spending AP in the tree), etc.
If we relax class level requirements, is the end result good for balancing multi-class, pure class, and overall power?


Any of these may potentially change, and that's just an off-the-top of my head list. We want to get this right, which takes time.

[Captain_Wizbang]

Is two PREs at tier 3 inherently too powerful? (Would characters who don't take multiple PREs to high tiers end up underpowered in relation?)
If we relax class level requirements, is the end result good for balancing multi-class, pure class, and overall power?




Good points to be considering for sure.

2 Pre's at cap would definitely throw a wrench in certain mechanics. Doable, but difficult to implement .
I like where you're all going with though. Already has a better gaming "feel" to it.

[Meat-Head]

We are still actively discussing many possible enhancement designs. We want the right balance between pure and multiclass characters, design freedom and simplicity, etc.

Discussions have included:

Number of trees
How many new enhancements are required to make sure there's meaningful choice within a tree
How many PREs/Tiers of PREs we think it's reasonable for a player to get, and what should be "given up" to get the maximum amount.
How many AP a player may want to spend in racial trees. This affects how "much" a player would end up giving up to take multiple PREs to the maximum tier or capstone, if it's even mathematically possible. Perhaps taking two PREs to Tier 3 makes it impossible to get a capstone or racial ability enhancements.
Is two PREs at tier 3 inherently too powerful? (Would characters who don't take multiple PREs to high tiers end up underpowered in relation?)
Power balance between selected class enhancement and automatically granted PRE bonuses (based on AP spent in the tree).
How deep (or shallow!) you need to go to get various tiers of enhancements, in terms of:
AP spent within the tree
Class level requirements
Character level requirements
Greater separation between requirements for selected enhancements vs. the automatically granted enhancements (for spending AP in the tree), etc.
If we relax class level requirements, is the end result good for balancing multi-class, pure class, and overall power?
Which cleric domains will be available in the cleric enhancements


Any of these may potentially change, and that's just an off-the-top of my head list. We want to get this right, which takes time.



Fixed. :)

[lppmor]

Any of these may potentially change, and that's just an off-the-top of my head list. We want to get this right, which takes time.

Indeed. The amount of factors to consider seems pretty big. And I bet some will seem nice in theory, but will only become clearer with practical tests. So, one thing I would suggest is eventually releasing some kind of enhancement calculator in the website, so that players can virtually build their preferred characters and bring feedback regarding possiblities and balance.

[Kabaon]

Ok, I just have to ask, why are Cleric domains so important to people. you have 6 spell slots already (5 +1 for the spontaneous casting). Can't you already cast all the spells that the domains would provide for you?

[Missing_Minds]

Is two PREs at tier 3 inherently too powerful? (Would characters who don't take multiple PREs to high tiers end up underpowered in relation?)


Just some pondering off the top of my head without deep meaning, I'd say yes it is.

If only because you are stuck to race and class for the PrEs. Unless you remove class restrictions utterly, but kept race ones such that it became more true to PnP PrCs.

Granted you just slaughtered a lot of AAs then by doing that because ranger is not enough to qualify for AA as it is a racial only PrC. So you guys have the not so much fun of thinking things through.

The advantages offered by having a 2 T3s way out does any current capstone. Capstones are great icing on the cake, but they are not cake itself no matter how useful they are compared to a PrE.

Could the turn about be a pure build with a singular PrE be offered a 4th tier of the PrE instead to make up for lack of a second PrE and not multi classing? To truly making that darn good at what they do to make up for the lack of power gained by multi PrE'ing/multi classing? May be. You'd have to play and see what you could do.

[Meat-Head]

Ok, I just have to ask, why are Cleric domains so important to people. you have 6 spell slots already (5 +1 for the spontaneous casting). Can't you already cast all the spells that the domains would provide for you?


It's kinda like asking why rage is important to barbarians.. Kinda.


No, there are MANY MANY spells and abilties that Clerics SHOULD have access to, but currently don't.

[Missing_Minds]

Ok, I just have to ask, why are Cleric domains so important to people. you have 6 spell slots already (5 +1 for the spontaneous casting). Can't you already cast all the spells that the domains would provide for you?

ehehe... no. Domains actually allow you access to certain spells that may actually NOT be part of a divine's standard list.
Let alone Domain's also added to the cleric's "class" skill list.


http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm

"Domains and Class Skills

A cleric who chooses the Animal or Plant domain adds Knowledge (nature) (Int) to the cleric class skills listed above. A cleric who chooses the Knowledge domain adds all Knowledge (Int) skills to the list. A cleric who chooses the Travel domain adds Survival (Wis) to the list. A cleric who chooses the Trickery domain adds Bluff (Cha), Disguise (Cha), and Hide (Dex) to the list. See Deity, Domains, and Domain Spells, for more information. "

"Deity, Domains, and Domain Spells

A cleric’s deity influences his alignment, what magic he can perform, his values, and how others see him. A cleric chooses two domains from among those belonging to his deity. A cleric can select an alignment domain (Chaos, Evil, Good, or Law) only if his alignment matches that domain.

If a cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, he still selects two domains to represent his spiritual inclinations and abilities. The restriction on alignment domains still applies.

Each domain gives the cleric access to a domain spell at each spell level he can cast, from 1st on up, as well as a granted power. The cleric gets the granted powers of both the domains selected.

With access to two domain spells at a given spell level, a cleric prepares one or the other each day in his domain spell slot. If a domain spell is not on the cleric spell list, a cleric can prepare it only in his domain spell slot. "


Domain spell list.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spellLists/clericDomains.htm

[dkyle]

We are still actively discussing many possible enhancement designs. We want the right balance between pure and multiclass characters, design freedom and simplicity, etc.

Discussions have included:
TY for the update. It's good to hear that discussions are still ongoing.

I figured I'd sum up what I'd like to see, on the issues you listed:

Number of trees
As many as are unlocked by class levels, or Racial PrEs (preferably bona-fide Racial PrEs, not clones of class PrEs).

How many new enhancements are required to make sure there's meaningful choice within a tree
With 41 AP for Capstone, I'd say 60 APs-worth feels about right.

How many PREs/Tiers of PREs we think it's reasonable for a player to get, and what should be "given up" to get the maximum amount.
Assuming a fairly even distribution of benefits from low to high level, a direct tradeoff (TierIII/TierI vs TierII/TierII) would seem reasonable.

How many AP a player may want to spend in racial trees. This affects how "much" a player would end up giving up to take multiple PREs to the maximum tier or capstone, if it's even mathematically possible. Perhaps taking two PREs to Tier 3 makes it impossible to get a capstone or racial ability enhancements.
My concern with Racial trees is what their "bonus enhancements" will be. Will they truly rival class PrEs? Otherwise, there's a big disincentive to spend anything in the Racial tree.

I wonder if it might be better to separate Racial AP (say, 1 per level) from Class AP (1 per Rank, as currently). That would mean 20 AP for Racial stuff, and 80 for Class stuff. It does mean losing potentially tough choices between Racial enhancements and Class enhancements, but it means Racial enhancements don't need to compete directly with class PrEs. Maybe allow a 2 for 1 trade between the two?

Is two PREs at tier 3 inherently too powerful? (Would characters who don't take multiple PREs to high tiers end up underpowered in relation?)
I think overpowered dual-TierIIIs is mostly a problem thanks to Racial PrEs, as currently designed. Being able to combine two TierIIIs within a single class is likely to produce versatility, but not superiority at one specific thing. The ability to essentially cherry-pick two TierIIIs, and stack them together, without even multiclassing, is the real problem. I'd like to see my Favored PrE design instead (ability to buy up to 6 stacking virtual levels of a class to apply towards enhancements only). Under that system, cross-class double-TierIIIs are impossible.

Power balance between selected class enhancement and automatically granted PRE bonuses (based on AP spent in the tree).
One thing to keep in mind: as currently planned, all but the capstone is strictly cheaper than enhancements of an equivalent row, since the same "APs-spent" prerequisite applies to both, say, the second bonus PrE (10 APs spent), and an enhancement in the third row (also requiring 10 APs spent), but the bonus tier is free. This suggests that purchased enhancements should actually be stronger than bonus enhancements, of the corresponding row.

I think what I'd like to see is for the Row-based prereq to be a global APs spent, while the bonus tiers would be APs-in-tree. This would allow for more flexibility in picking and chosing the enhancements you want. A melee FvS might just take the Healing Spell percent boost all the way up, which wouldn't be enough to get more than the very lowest PrE tier, whereas a more healing-dedicated FvS might buy up the healing PrE. Under the current system, there's no real choice between going for a full line of enhancements, and going for PrE tiers.

How deep (or shallow!) you need to go to get various tiers of enhancements, in terms of:
I think if we go with unlimited trees, then strict class level restrictions are reasonable.

If we go with a three tree limit, or similar, then class level restrictions need to be relaxed, to ensure multiclass viability.

And as I said earlier, I'd like to see APs spent within tree relegated to bonus tiers, not integral to all enhancements.

If we relax class level requirements, is the end result good for balancing multi-class, pure class, and overall power?
Devil's in the details on this one. It feels harder to balance, to me, than allowing unlimited trees, with strict class levels. We're already used to trading high level stuff for low level stuff when we multiclass. It's a less radical change.

[kingfisher]

Any of these may potentially change, and that's just an off-the-top of my head list. We want to get this right, which takes time.

take your time, please ;) but updates are good, txs. are the racial pre's decided yet or are they still up in the air too?

[Missing_Minds]

WHEN cleric's get domains, I'd like to see favored souls get sorcerer speed spell casting please.

[grodon9999]

We are still actively discussing many possible enhancement designs. We want the right balance between pure and multiclass characters, design freedom and simplicity, etc.

Discussions have included:

Number of trees.
How many new enhancements are required to make sure there's meaningful choice within a tree.
How many PREs/Tiers of PREs we think it's reasonable for a player to get, and what should be "given up" to get the maximum amount.
How many AP a player may want to spend in racial trees. This affects how "much" a player would end up giving up to take multiple PREs to the maximum tier or capstone, if it's even mathematically possible. Perhaps taking two PREs to Tier 3 makes it impossible to get a capstone or racial ability enhancements.
Is two PREs at tier 3 inherently too powerful? (Would characters who don't take multiple PREs to high tiers end up underpowered in relation?)
Power balance between selected class enhancement and automatically granted PRE bonuses (based on AP spent in the tree).
How deep (or shallow!) you need to go to get various tiers of enhancements, in terms of:
AP spent within the tree
Class level requirements
Character level requirements
Greater separation between requirements for selected enhancements vs. the automatically granted enhancements (for spending AP in the tree), etc.
If we relax class level requirements, is the end result good for balancing multi-class, pure class, and overall power?


Any of these may potentially change, and that's just an off-the-top of my head list. We want to get this right, which takes time.

Give us a chance to break it. Once the U13 preview in lamania is done go live with whater you have their OR give us an official planner and let's see what kind of OP combos we can come up with.

[Cyr]

We are still actively discussing many possible enhancement designs. We want the right balance between pure and multiclass characters, design freedom and simplicity, etc.


Discussions have included:

Number of trees. I prefer the unlimited trees with lockouts applying to duplicating skills like toughness in three trees when purchased tier one in one tree it gets locked out of the other two for tier one (although any additional tiers could be purchased from those other trees). This prevents the crazy stacking issues from individual enhancments while allowing lots of flexibility for deep splashes.
How many new enhancements are required to make sure there's meaningful choice within a tree. My feeling is lots of new enhancements...like 3-5 times the amount we have currently. Otherwise those trees are going to feel pretty bare.
How many PREs/Tiers of PREs we think it's reasonable for a player to get, and what should be "given up" to get the maximum amount. My feeling is that this should be a factor of the character level where the formula is X tiers of PrE's for class Y = effective class level / 6. Effective character level would be modified by race, feats, and other things like favor for lots of flexibility in future design.
How many AP a player may want to spend in racial trees. This affects how "much" a player would end up giving up to take multiple PREs to the maximum tier or capstone, if it's even mathematically possible. Perhaps taking two PREs to Tier 3 makes it impossible to get a capstone or racial ability enhancements. Depends on how good those racials are...for horcs probably alot...for drow not so much based upon the current enhancements which are clearly subject to change.
Is two PREs at tier 3 inherently too powerful? (Would characters who don't take multiple PREs to high tiers end up underpowered in relation?) No, but two of your choice is pretty dang powerful. The key here is that some PrE tiers are weaker then others or have poor synergy. That is why the effective character level thing I was talking about above makes sense. It allows the developers to give certain PrE's more stacking options then others through higher effective class level (or effective PrE Level in this case which would be more narrow bonus then an effective class level bump) options being easily obtained in game...like AA effective levels under house D favor.
Power balance between selected class enhancement and automatically granted PRE bonuses (based on AP spent in the tree).
How deep (or shallow!) you need to go to get various tiers of enhancements, in terms of:

AP spent within the tree
Class level requirements
Character level requirements
Greater separation between requirements for selected enhancements vs. the automatically granted enhancements (for spending AP in the tree), etc.

If we relax class level requirements, is the end result good for balancing multi-class, pure class, and overall power? Depends on how you do it clearly. Just plain eliminating all class level requirements for everything except PrE's and capstones? Well that is either a pure class or small splash power bump (assuming no class levels at all required for the tree) or a small splash/multi bump (otherwise). Considering pure classes are the no brainer almost impossible to screw up the build option I continue to fail to see the overriding reason to worry overmuch about their power level.

Any of these may potentially change, and that's just an off-the-top of my head list. We want to get this right, which takes time.

My thoughts in Red

[dkyle]

Some things bother me about having Arcane Archer be a standard Ranger PrE. For one, it means two archery PrEs, vs one melee PrE, when Rangers are supposed to be more balanced between archery and melee. For another, Rangers aren't really supposed to be Arcane. They're Divine spellcasters. And lastly, I don't like Racial PrEs being clones of Class PrEs, and I'd prefer Arcane Archer not become an exception, if my preferred system were implemented.

As an alternative, I'd suggest the following:

* Arcane Archer is redesigned as a Racial PrE. I'd suggest that all Racial PrEs be smaller than class PrEs, with 5 tiers at 3/6/9/12/15 AP spent. This would be in an unlimited trees design. With a three tree limit, this doesn't work so well. Perhaps allow the small Racial PrE to be an additional tree, instead of a swap-in?

* Instead of Arcane Archer, Rangers get another PrE that is focused on "woodsy" magic stuff. Deepwood Sniper becomes the Archery PrE. This new PrE would get the Favored Enemy, healing spell enhancements, possibly some new enhancements to make Ranger casting more viable, and enhancements to support an animal companion.

* However, Rangers would be able to gain access to the Arcane Archer PrE, without being Elven or Half-Elven. Basically, any character with at least 6 levels of Ranger, and the Mental Toughness feat, would gain access to the Arcane Archer PrE, but subject to the normal class-level limits instead of character level limits. This should enable existing Ranger builds to continue functioning.

[Failedlegend]

We are still actively discussing many possible enhancement designs. We want the right balance between pure and multiclass characters, design freedom and simplicity, etc.

Discussions have included:

Number of trees.
How many new enhancements are required to make sure there's meaningful choice within a tree.
How many PREs/Tiers of PREs we think it's reasonable for a player to get, and what should be "given up" to get the maximum amount.
How many AP a player may want to spend in racial trees. This affects how "much" a player would end up giving up to take multiple PREs to the maximum tier or capstone, if it's even mathematically possible. Perhaps taking two PREs to Tier 3 makes it impossible to get a capstone or racial ability enhancements.
Is two PREs at tier 3 inherently too powerful? (Would characters who don't take multiple PREs to high tiers end up underpowered in relation?)
Power balance between selected class enhancement and automatically granted PRE bonuses (based on AP spent in the tree).
How deep (or shallow!) you need to go to get various tiers of enhancements, in terms of:
AP spent within the tree
Class level requirements
Character level requirements
Greater separation between requirements for selected enhancements vs. the automatically granted enhancements (for spending AP in the tree), etc.
If we relax class level requirements, is the end result good for balancing multi-class, pure class, and overall power?
Which cleric domains will be available in the cleric enhancements
What Multi-class PrEs we should include
What Racial PrEs we should use


Any of these may potentially change, and that's just an off-the-top of my head list. We want to get this right, which takes time.


Fixed. :)

Double Fixed

[QuantumFX]

We are still actively discussing many possible enhancement designs. We want the right balance between pure and multiclass characters, design freedom and simplicity, etc.

Discussions have included:

Number of trees.
How many new enhancements are required to make sure there's meaningful choice within a tree.
How many PREs/Tiers of PREs we think it's reasonable for a player to get, and what should be "given up" to get the maximum amount.
How many AP a player may want to spend in racial trees. This affects how "much" a player would end up giving up to take multiple PREs to the maximum tier or capstone, if it's even mathematically possible. Perhaps taking two PREs to Tier 3 makes it impossible to get a capstone or racial ability enhancements.
Is two PREs at tier 3 inherently too powerful? (Would characters who don't take multiple PREs to high tiers end up underpowered in relation?)
Power balance between selected class enhancement and automatically granted PRE bonuses (based on AP spent in the tree).
How deep (or shallow!) you need to go to get various tiers of enhancements, in terms of:
AP spent within the tree
Class level requirements
Character level requirements
Greater separation between requirements for selected enhancements vs. the automatically granted enhancements (for spending AP in the tree), etc.
If we relax class level requirements, is the end result good for balancing multi-class, pure class, and overall power?


Any of these may potentially change, and that's just an off-the-top of my head list. We want to get this right, which takes time.

You’re forgetting: Will this new system make certain races even more desirable/undesirable.

[dunklezhan]

ehehe... no. Domains actually allow you access to certain spells that may actually NOT be part of a divine's standard list.
Let alone Domain's also added to the cleric's "class" skill list.


http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/cleric.htm

"Domains and Class Skills

A cleric who chooses the Animal or Plant domain adds Knowledge (nature) (Int) to the cleric class skills listed above. A cleric who chooses the Knowledge domain adds all Knowledge (Int) skills to the list. A cleric who chooses the Travel domain adds Survival (Wis) to the list. A cleric who chooses the Trickery domain adds Bluff (Cha), Disguise (Cha), and Hide (Dex) to the list. See Deity, Domains, and Domain Spells, for more information. "

"Deity, Domains, and Domain Spells

A cleric’s deity influences his alignment, what magic he can perform, his values, and how others see him. A cleric chooses two domains from among those belonging to his deity. A cleric can select an alignment domain (Chaos, Evil, Good, or Law) only if his alignment matches that domain.

If a cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, he still selects two domains to represent his spiritual inclinations and abilities. The restriction on alignment domains still applies.

Each domain gives the cleric access to a domain spell at each spell level he can cast, from 1st on up, as well as a granted power. The cleric gets the granted powers of both the domains selected.

With access to two domain spells at a given spell level, a cleric prepares one or the other each day in his domain spell slot. If a domain spell is not on the cleric spell list, a cleric can prepare it only in his domain spell slot. "


Domain spell list.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spellLists/clericDomains.htm

at the risk of continuing a thread derail, while I'm not personally bothered by domains I have wondered why, when the monk has the light/dark choice thing which can't be changed without a LR, they couldn't do the same for clerics, but at character gen. Pick your domain(s), from then on the character is created with the relevant added class skills or available enhancement lines.

It might even work better in this proposed new system because the domain could form one of your allowed 'trees', or replace the cleric class 'core' tree if they go the route of a 'general' tree (please say they'll go that route...).

I think - balance issues and design time aside, as I realise it would add a big level of complexity which would have to be thought about carefully - that tech wise it might well be doable now.

[Meat-Head]

that tech wise it might well be doable now.

That's what I'm trying to say! (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=359808)

[lppmor]

Know what?
I hate when the devs come with these kinds of threads showing amazing changes they are planning for the game, but will be released only in several months. I simply can't play the game anymore as it is, and instead always feel addicted to coming back to the thread for more info.
Thanks for that devs. Now I'll be able to play again only in several months when those changes hit lama :(

[Vormaerin]

Personally, I am on the fewer trees but less class level gating side of the argument. No Prestige Class has level restrictions or limits on how many you can have. Reducing the class level limits would loosen the overly strict tie between class and PrE that currently exists.

Character level, a small amount of the class, and a sufficient dedication of APs should be enough of a restriction.

[Failedlegend]

Responses in orange...also props to Dkyle...well worded


We are still actively discussing many possible enhancement designs. We want the right balance between pure and multiclass characters, design freedom and simplicity, etc.

Discussions have included:

Number of trees.
No limit no reason to as long as there's pretty tight Level restrictions...having ten levels in something should get you about half way up the tree
How many new enhancements are required to make sure there's meaningful choice within a tree.
As much as I'd LOVE to see every tree have over 80ap worth of choices I don't think that's practical...at least in how much work that would take....I'd be satisfied with 60 but feel free to do more
How many PREs/Tiers of PREs we think it's reasonable for a player to get, and what should be "given up" to get the maximum amount.
How many AP a player may want to spend in racial trees. This affects how "much" a player would end up giving up to take multiple PREs to the maximum tier or capstone, if it's even mathematically possible. Perhaps taking two PREs to Tier 3 makes it impossible to get a capstone or racial ability enhancements.
Is two PREs at tier 3 inherently too powerful? (Would characters who don't take multiple PREs to high tiers end up underpowered in relation?)
Personally I think you should only be able to get one PrE to Tier 3 and level gating should reflect that. Now Racial PrEs SHOULD be the exception but said Racial PrEs shouldn't be carbon copies of class PrEs...if you don't think you'll have time to do this than save it for later I'd rather that than the copies...here's a few for example


Warforged: Reforged and Juggernaut (Allow a player to choose to embrace or shun their construct nature)
Elf: Bladesinger and AA
Dwarf: Dwarven Defender (Different than stalwart)
Halfing: Talentia Rider (A Dino rider)
Human: Steelsky Liberator (Specializes in combat with larger enemies especially dragons)
Drow: Scorpion Wraith
Half-Orc: Kal'thaan Marcher (probably got this ones name wrong)
Half-Elf: Any Class PrE based on Dilly and AA
Power balance between selected class enhancement and automatically granted PRE bonuses (based on AP spent in the tree).
This I honestly can't comment on until we see some actual examples...possibly give us a few PrEs in a builder to play with..hell give Ron the info make him sign a NDA he'll probably code it for you
How deep (or shallow!) you need to go to get various tiers of enhancements, in terms of:
AP spent within the tree
Class level requirements
Character level requirements
Greater separation between requirements for selected enhancements vs. the automatically granted enhancements (for spending AP in the tree), etc.
If we relax class level requirements, is the end result good for balancing multi-class, pure class, and overall power?
I think there should be a good mixture of Grass (No Pre-reqs) bushes (Short Lines) and Trees (Long Lines)...but again this is another question we can't really as since we don't have much info.


Any of these may potentially change, and that's just an off-the-top of my head list. We want to get this right, which takes time.


WHEN cleric's get domains, I'd like to see favored souls get sorcerer speed spell casting please.

Actually I'd like to see Favored Souls get the monk treatment...give us the option to go Cursed Soul the byproduct of the creation of a Favored Soul....not against the Sorc casting speed though some more racially specific diety weapons would be nice.


Some things bother me about having Arcane Archer be a standard Ranger PrE. For one, it means two archery PrEs, vs one melee PrE, when Rangers are supposed to be more balanced between archery and melee. For another, Rangers aren't really supposed to be Arcane. They're Divine spellcasters. And lastly, I don't like Racial PrEs being clones of Class PrEs, and I'd prefer Arcane Archer not become an exception, if my preferred system were implemented.

As an alternative, I'd suggest the following:

* Arcane Archer is redesigned as a Racial PrE. I'd suggest that all Racial PrEs be smaller than class PrEs, with 5 tiers at 3/6/9/12/15 AP spent. This would be in an unlimited trees design. With a three tree limit, this doesn't work so well. Perhaps allow the small Racial PrE to be an additional tree, instead of a swap-in?

* Instead of Arcane Archer, Rangers get another PrE that is focused on "woodsy" magic stuff. Deepwood Sniper becomes the Archery PrE. This new PrE would get the Favored Enemy, healing spell enhancements, possibly some new enhancements to make Ranger casting more viable, and enhancements to support an animal companion.

* However, Rangers would be able to gain access to the Arcane Archer PrE, without being Elven or Half-Elven. Basically, any character with at least 6 levels of Ranger, and the Mental Toughness feat, would gain access to the Arcane Archer PrE, but subject to the normal class-level limits instead of character level limits. This should enable existing Ranger builds to continue functioning.

Good stuff I was trying to say something like this but you worded it much better. I'd say the best bet is give Elf Arcane Archer (should add some Elemental Archer abilities to it) along with bladesinger and than Half-Elf Soulbow or something alongside his dilly racials of course. As for ranger I like the "woodsy" one..this one would probably be the one that gets the animal companion...a cool ability in this one would be that they can see enemy positions on the mini-map as a good way to translate their ability to track...and enhancement spot & listen...just make the effects FAR more obvious. IMHO opinion each Class should have thus the utility PrE, the powerhouse and the other one.

Powerhouse: This one is just your straight up kill things PrE ie.Assassin, Kensai
Utility: This one has all your extra gadgets and gizmos that may or may not make you a killer ie.Mechanic, Purple Dragon Knight
Other: This ones the Wild Card it doesn't really fit in the other two categories but still holds its own ie. Acrobat, Stalwart Defender


Give us a chance to break it. Once the U13 preview in lamania is done go live with whatever you have their OR give us an official planner and let's see what kind of OP combos we can come up with.

Let us break it.....no truer words have been spoken...no amount of focus groups and playtesting will match what this community could do with it...you give us the tools and we WILL break it...than you can fix it lol

[Vordax]

Warforged: Reforged and Juggernaut (Allow a player to choose to embrace or shun their construct nature)
Elf: Bladesinger and AA
Dwarf: Dwarven Defender (Different than stalwart)
Halfing: Talentia Rider (A Dino rider)
Human: Steelsky Liberator (Specializes in combat with larger enemies especially dragons)
Drow: Scorpion Wraith
Half-Orc: Kal'thaan Marcher (probably got this ones name wrong)
Half-Elf: Any Class PrE based on Dilly and AA

I don't think this list is anywhere near reasonable in the time period allotted. Maybe eventually. Your asking them to add a whole lot of new PRE's, like the Juggernaut (a PRE no one will ever take), and then asking them to add mounts and mounted combat. I say go with the list they currently have and upgrade it later.

Vordax

[Chai]

Let us break it.....no truer words have been spoken...no amount of focus groups and playtesting will match what this community could do with it...you give us the tools and we WILL break it...than you can fix it lol

Some of us already have office pool like predictions on what race / class combinations will be nerfed first. Of course this will change once we know the breakdowns.

This will be the year of pun pun. Druids, and an entire enhancement revamp. :p

Year of the dragon indeed, heh.

[irivan]

We are still actively discussing many possible enhancement designs. We want the right balance between pure and multiclass characters, design freedom and simplicity, etc.

Discussions have included:

Number of trees.
How many new enhancements are required to make sure there's meaningful choice within a tree.
How many PREs/Tiers of PREs we think it's reasonable for a player to get, and what should be "given up" to get the maximum amount.
How many AP a player may want to spend in racial trees. This affects how "much" a player would end up giving up to take multiple PREs to the maximum tier or capstone, if it's even mathematically possible. Perhaps taking two PREs to Tier 3 makes it impossible to get a capstone or racial ability enhancements.
Is two PREs at tier 3 inherently too powerful? (Would characters who don't take multiple PREs to high tiers end up underpowered in relation?)
Power balance between selected class enhancement and automatically granted PRE bonuses (based on AP spent in the tree).
How deep (or shallow!) you need to go to get various tiers of enhancements, in terms of:
AP spent within the tree
Class level requirements
Character level requirements
Greater separation between requirements for selected enhancements vs. the automatically granted enhancements (for spending AP in the tree), etc.
If we relax class level requirements, is the end result good for balancing multi-class, pure class, and overall power?


Any of these may potentially change, and that's just an off-the-top of my head list. We want to get this right, which takes time.

Just hoping that when you are referring to balance here, that you are referring to balance vs content, and not balance toward other classes, races, and PRC's. I just dont think that has any place in this game and limits your creative arc.

I can completely understand balance vs content however, as something to powerful might make the game a little bland for some, or to weak might make some one frustrated.

Just my 2 cents.

[Monkey_Archer]

How many PREs/Tiers of PREs we think it's reasonable for a player to get, and what should be "given up" to get the maximum amount.

Well currently the limit is 4 PREs and 4 tiers of PREs (elf 6 kensai/6 warchanter/6 assassin +arcane archer 1 for example) and you give up basically nothing other then a capstone. I think it would be reasonable in the new system to keep that PRE limit at 4 (1 racial +3 class trees) and the capstone limit at 1, but increase the maximum number of tiers to 6.


How many AP a player may want to spend in racial trees. This affects how "much" a player would end up giving up to take multiple PREs to the maximum tier or capstone, if it's even mathematically possible. Perhaps taking two PREs to Tier 3 makes it impossible to get a capstone or racial ability enhancements.

Each PRE should cost a bit under 1/6th of your total AP (10-12 AP per tier), and the capstone should cost just over half (41 AP). For example a pure fighter could get kensai 3/ stalwart 3, + 1 capstone but should have to give up all of their racial enhancements for it (which is a pretty huge sacrifice for most characters, especially human/helf/horc).



Is two PREs at tier 3 inherently too powerful? (Would characters who don't take multiple PREs to high tiers end up underpowered in relation?)


There would definitely be some balance concerns in some specific cases, namely for classes that have 2 similarly focused PREs. For example if ravager adds a lot of DPS, a tier 3 ravager/tier 3 frenzied berserker could theoretically be way too far ahead of any other class. The same would apply to casters such as a tier 3 palemaster/tier 3 necro archmage :eek:.
But in most cases the drawbacks would be the balancing factor. Using the kensai 3/ stalwart 3 example, sure it sounds powerful, but you would be giving up all your racial enhancements to qualify for both (in addition to any enhancements in the purpledragon knight? tree) So yes it would be a highly survivable,high dps tanking character, but would not be nearly as survivable as a dwarf stalwart with dwarf racial bonuses or as high dps as a helf/horc kensai with their respective racial bonuses.



If we relax class level requirements, is the end result good for balancing multi-class, pure class, and overall power?

I really like this idea, and IMO it could go a long way to balance multiclasses, many of which are loosing options with limited tree system, while pure classes are getting nothing but benefits. It would also open up many more viable multiclass level splits instead of the current system in which people are essentially stuck to a small number (18/2, 12/6/2 or pure).

Using my own biased position as an example of why this change would be amazing:

My main is a 17wizard/2rogue/1barb (formerly 13/2/1 at 16 cap) Intelligence based and DC focused, but with melee capability and trapskills. This was always the character I enjoyed playing the most and was always viable if not great for all content until the introduction of tier 3 PRE/capstone (and the balancing of epic content for tier 3 capstoned casters). To be clear, I'm completely decked out in epic gear + pastlives and have everything possible to increase my casting capabilities, but yet its not even close to viable compared to a first life, moderately geared caster simply because I don't have access to a tier 3 PRE and capstone. And, as a result I dont really play this character much...
With access to a tier 3 PRE + possible capstone I'd still have SP and spell pen issues for sure, but at least I'd be in a position to be viable in endgame content.

[Failedlegend]

I don't think this list is anywhere near reasonable in the time period allotted. Maybe eventually. Your asking them to add a whole lot of new PRE's, like the Juggernaut (a PRE no one will ever take), and then asking them to add mounts and mounted combat. I say go with the list they currently have and upgrade it later.

Vordax

Actually If you read just slighty above that part I stated if they don't have time to fit it in than leave it for another time instead of just copying Class PrEs. Also not being racially specific is NOT the main reason for not making racial pres copies of class PrEs...the main reason is this presents some serious balance issues.

As far as Juggernaut (the one you said no one would take) and Talentia Rider (the one i'm assuming your referring to the mount stuff) there was large conversations earlier about this...Long story short the Dino would be a Companion.

As for Juggernaut it's already been well discussed that this PrE would need to be modified...Ormsbygore came up with a good design. (Do have some comments in orange though)


I've edited this post in response to the new discussion about the upcomming changes to the Enhancement System.
Here: http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=357100

My New and Improved Idea on the Warforged Juggernaut



Using Eladrin's example of Tempest in it's new form as a guide, here is my idea for Warforged Juggernaut:

5 Points Spent: +2% stacking DR/- Bonus
10 Points Spent: Juggernaut I, +10% Repair Amp, -5% Healing Amp, Charge
15 Points Spent: +2% stacking DR/- Bonus(total 4%)
20 Points Spent: Juggernaut II, +10% Repair Amp, -5% Healing Amp, ***
15 Points Spent: +2% stacking DR/- Bonus(total 6%)
30 Points Spent: Juggernaut III, +10% Repair Amp, -5% Healing Amp, Powerful Charge
41 Points Spent: Titanic Transformation - (Stance)

Charge
Usage: Active
Charges: 3/rest
Cooldown: 5 Seconds
Activate this ability to charge forward knocking down any opponent in your path. You charge 3 feet forward.(Strength Save DC = Character Level + Strength Modifier + Increases to Tactical DC's)(like a minotaur's charge)

Powerful Charge
Usage: Active
Charges: 3/rest
Cooldown: 10 Seconds(same cooldown timer as Charge)
Activate this ability to charge forward knocking down any opponent in your path. You charge 8 feet forward. When you charge, you can now deal damage equal to your spike damage plus your strength modifier to those that are hit by your charge. (Strength Save DC = Character Level + Strength Modifier + Increases to Tactical DC's)

Titanic Transformation
Useage: Active(Stance)
Cooldown: 30 Seconds
You augment your body with extra parts and gain the traits of a Warforged Titan. This transformation lasts until you rest or you deactivate it. You grow in size and become Large, gaining a +6 size bonus to Strength, +4 size bonus to Constitution, +2 Size bonus to Natural Armor, +20% maximum hit points, and an additional 4% DR/-(total 10%). Durring this transformation you are an immobile force and become immune to overrun effects(of any kind). This comes at a cost of -2 Dexterity, -2 Wisdom, -2 Charisma, and you become immune to divine healing effects. While in this form, you move 20% slower and suffer from -15% Arcane Spell Failure. This ability costs 50 hit points and consumes a +5 Repair Kit to activate.

I wanted to note, that while gaining tiers in this PrE the character should start to be augmented by bits of metal(similar to the earth savant PrE's arm growth). And while in "Titan Form", the character should grow in size, as well have extra parts added. (Once again making Warforged the largest race in the game....darn half-orcs being too oversized.)

I think a +5% Repair Amp enhancement that could possably stack up to 5x would be a great compliment to this PrE, as an optional Warforged Enhancement, that could be utilized by any build(including ones not seeking the Juggernaut PrE).

***Armor Spikes
I was unsure of what to add for the Tier II extra ability. While a static 1d6 or 1d8 guard would be nifty, I was thinking that Armored Spikes could be an optional enhancement that could grow over time(1d2, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8). This IS probably best as an enhancement line within the tree

***Repair System
If that was the case I thought a self healing clickie would be neat. Basically, the ability consumes a repair kit and gives a heal over time buff. I'd leave the math up to you, but was thinking that it would be modified by character level and the bonus provided by the repair kit. Maybe add an aditional "ability component," for example...Granite and Diamond Dust, the expensive spell component for Stone Skin. As well as either limiting it to 1 use per rest, or adding a hefty cool down...so that it can't be spammed, unless it's a super long battle or possibly have it work similar to a Paladin's Lay on Hands ( 10 + Paladin level ) x Charisma modifier except with Char Level and Con Mod ( 10 + Character level ) x Constitution modifier

~Nim

[Spiffyspiffy]

Is two PREs at tier 3 inherently too powerful? (Would characters who don't take multiple PREs to high tiers end up underpowered in relation?)

Some, obviously yes. Wizard AM+PM is going to be so powerful, that it'll be pretty much expected.

The problem comes, if you don't allow two *full* PrEs, that some PrEs have most of their benefit preloaded at the start. To take the above example, most of what people want AM for - a couple of the SLAs - are available by level 9. Yet almost all the PM benefit is at 18, so "The Build" will become tier3 PM, tier 2(of 5) AM - *even if you don't allow two full PrEs*

[waterboytkd]

We are still actively discussing many possible enhancement designs. We want the right balance between pure and multiclass characters, design freedom and simplicity, etc.

Discussions have included:

Number of trees.
I think this is entirely dependent on other choices, many of which are described below.


How many new enhancements are required to make sure there's meaningful choice within a tree.
It's going to be a lot. I actually specced out a possible 3-tree setup for Sorcs, and the only tree that needed a bunch of new stuff was Acolyte of the Skin. But that meant that the massive number of enhancements sorcs have due to all their enhancements being cloned for each energy type was enough for 2 trees. So yeah, better get cracking on developing new enhancements. :D


How many PREs/Tiers of PREs we think it's reasonable for a player to get, and what should be "given up" to get the maximum amount.
Going with dkyle on this one: it all depends on what the trees are. Being t3 in two trees from the same class is just going to make you more versatile, which is fantastic. Having t3 in two trees from separate classes that are both focused on the same thing could be over the top (for example, Kensai3/Tempest3 might be just too much dps to allow), and it's the racial PrEs cloning existing class PrEs that's going to make this a problem. I think if you make up new, unique trees for unique racial PrEs (Dwarven Defender, Warforged Juggernaut, Drow Scorpion Wraith, Elf Revenant Blade, etc), and balance those so they're not OP or UP when teamed up with any class/archetype (WF juggernaut should not be OP with casters and UP with melees, nor vice versa), I think many problems with this can be averted. As much as I'd like tempest on my monks, or watch my wife turn her big stick TA from 13 rog/7 monk into 20 monk with TA 3 due to racial PrEs, I think it's a bad way to go.

But, as for how many, I don't think the number matters. As that's a ground-work decision, the actual PrE benefits will reflect that decision. If you decide only up to 4 tiers of PrEs, then that's what you decide, and the PrE benefits will have to be quite powerful. If you decide that it's cool for a player to get one capstone and one tier 3 (but not much else), that'll also dictate how powerful the PrE benefits are.


How many AP a player may want to spend in racial trees. This affects how "much" a player would end up giving up to take multiple PREs to the maximum tier or capstone, if it's even mathematically possible. Perhaps taking two PREs to Tier 3 makes it impossible to get a capstone or racial ability enhancements.
If the racial PrEs are part of the racial tree, this could also solve some problems. That way, putting a ton of AP in race actually gets you PrE benefits (again, go with unique racial PrEs here), so it won't feel like wasted AP. As for their being tough choices, like 2 tier 3 class PrEs meaning less racial AP spent, well, that's just a fact of the game, right? You have to make choices on what you want/can't get everything you want.


Is two PREs at tier 3 inherently too powerful? (Would characters who don't take multiple PREs to high tiers end up underpowered in relation?)
See above. Again, with dkyle: if the two tier 3s are from the same class, I see it most of the time just adding versatility, which I think is fantastic (it makes forming groups easier, and versatility can often lead to more self-sufficiency, which melees need horribly). If two tier 3s are from separate classes and are both focused on the same thing (like DoS and SD, or Kensai and Tempest), stuff could get a little out of control.


Power balance between selected class enhancement and automatically granted PRE bonuses (based on AP spent in the tree).
This has a lot to do with other options. For example, if class level requirements are relaxed, then PrE bonus enhancements need to be more powerful so that splashing and multis aren't just leagues beyond pures. But if class restrictions are kept, then PrE bonus enhancements should probably start looking on par with the tree tier with which they share AP spent prerequisites.


How deep (or shallow!) you need to go to get various tiers of enhancements, in terms of:
[list] AP spent within the tree
Class level requirements
Character level requirements
Greater separation between requirements for selected enhancements vs. the automatically granted enhancements (for spending AP in the tree), etc.
I liked the idea that tree tiers unlock with total AP spent, rather than AP spent in tree, as that opens up more enhancements easier and can allow more flexibility in builds (as well as allow more flexibility in designing trees), and then PrE bonus enhancements look at AP spent in trees. The only downside here is that enhancements would have to be designed with this intention in mind to prevent OP choices from just dominating all enhancement choices. Also, I think this teams up best with no class level requirements, but limited trees. With unlimited trees, even with class level requirements (unless they were very steep), I could see using total AP spent rather than AP in tree spent leading to a lot of cherry picking of best enhancements. Of course, it could also lead to easier customization of builds, and if there were no "best enhancements", it wouldn't really be a problem.


If we relax class level requirements, is the end result good for balancing multi-class, pure class, and overall power?
I think it can be, yes. BUT, I firmly believe this is a decision that needs to be made early, as this one decision will have a cascading effect on ALL enhancements. Everything will need to be designed with this in mind. Whether or not to use tree limits, I think, largely depends on this. What power levels are present in tree tiers and even enhancement tiers depends on this. How powerful PrE bonus enhancements (which, I believe, should always keep class level requirements) end up being depends on this, because they have to be compared against enhancements at equivalent AP spent levels. All of this would depend on whether or not class level requirements exist or not.

Without class level requirements, multi's get an interesting boost over pures in that one could go Kensai/Tempest/Assassin and get a lot of dps-focused enhancements. This could lead to a LOT of power. BUT, if enhancements, especially PrE bonus enhancements were designed with this in mind, it could easily be done so that a pure-dps multi wouldn't be too far ahead of a regular pure build in terms of offensive power. Ahead, yes, but not so far ahead that going pure is automatically a gimped choice. There's gotta be a best, and there's no reason multi's can't be the best at full-****** dps/tanking/whatever, as long as they sacrifice other functions for that position. That would actually make it so newer players, if they follow the easy path, would end up with viable and versatile characters (allowing them to get into PUGs easier--at least, PUGs for near-end-game content, if not eLoB), while experienced players would have the ability to make informed trade-offs for versatility or power, giving them MANY more build options.


Any of these may potentially change, and that's just an off-the-top of my head list. We want to get this right, which takes time.
Just keep talking to us, and whenever you come up with anything, even if it's a rough list of trees, throw it our way. Even if it's just on paper, let us give feedback, let us try and break the system. Though it'll reduce the "ooh-aah" new factor--the surprise and hype of unveiling--it'll allow you to make a much more polished system that's more in tune with what the players want.

My only suggestion there: whatever you decide, go for it all the way. Don't try to please everyone on this, as no matter what specifics people clamor for, what everyone actually wants is a clean, useful system that works. No camels, please.

[Monkey_Archer]

One idea to address power creep by combining similar tier 3 PREs would be to code significant bonuses as a non stacking prestige-typed bonus, and/or make certain benefits stances (which could not be active while another stance is active)

A couple examples:

Archmage3/PM3 - the DC bonus for both archmage spell mastery and lich/vampire forms could be a prestige bonus and therefore not stack with each other
Kensai/Stalwart - change power surge to be a stance that would not stack with defender stances
Ravager/Berzerker - (speculation) make the FB crit multiplier a stance and not stack with ravager crit range stance (and also not stack with kensai/stalwart stances in the case of racial PREs)

[Failedlegend]

One idea to address power creep by combining similar tier 3 PREs would be to code significant bonuses as a non stacking prestige-typed bonus, and/or make certain benefits stances (which could not be active while another stance is active)

A couple examples:

Archmage3/PM3 - the DC bonus for both archmage spell mastery and lich/vampire forms could be a prestige bonus and therefore not stack with each other
Kensai/Stalwart - change power surge to be a stance that would not stack with defender stances
Ravager/Berzerker - (speculation) make the FB crit multiplier a stance and not stack with ravager crit range stance (and also not stack with kensai/stalwart stances in the case of racial PREs)


Makes Sense :D

[Aesop]

One idea to address power creep by combining similar tier 3 PREs would be to code significant bonuses as a non stacking prestige-typed bonus, and/or make certain benefits stances (which could not be active while another stance is active)

A couple examples:

Archmage3/PM3 - the DC bonus for both archmage spell mastery and lich/vampire forms could be a prestige bonus and therefore not stack with each other
Kensai/Stalwart - change power surge to be a stance that would not stack with defender stances
Ravager/Berzerker - (speculation) make the FB crit multiplier a stance and not stack with ravager crit range stance (and also not stack with kensai/stalwart stances in the case of racial PREs)


I like the idea there of certain bonuses being a Prestige Bonus that doesn't stack with other Prestige Bonuses.

I could see Power Surge and Defensive Stance not Stacking in the Strength Bonus but would stack on bonuses that Power Surge lacked. Yeah its +4 more strength but you are spending more resources to get it.

I don't think there needs to be many restriction on Enhancements overall some class level restrictions but overall we will still have Prerequisite Restrictions and Limited AP to curb most stacking problems.

Aesop

[MadFloyd]

I think what I'd like to see is for the Row-based prereq to be a global APs spent, while the bonus tiers would be APs-in-tree. This would allow for more flexibility in picking and chosing the enhancements you want.

Interesting idea.

[MadFloyd]

Just hoping that when you are referring to balance here, that you are referring to balance vs content, and not balance toward other classes, races, and PRC's. I just dont think that has any place in this game and limits your creative arc.

I can completely understand balance vs content however, as something to powerful might make the game a little bland for some, or to weak might make some one frustrated.

Just my 2 cents.

Is it not 6 of one, half a dozen of the other? If you balance one class to the content but don't balance the other classes to the first, then in theory the other classes aren't balanced to the content.

[Aeolwind]

Is it not 6 of one, half a dozen of the other? If you balance one class to the content but don't balance the other classes to the first, then in theory the other classes aren't balanced to the content.

I think what he is saying is don't buy into the hype that players put on what is over powered and what isn't. Stick to class vs. content.

[voodoogroves]

Is it not 6 of one, half a dozen of the other? If you balance one class to the content but don't balance the other classes to the first, then in theory the other classes aren't balanced to the content.

Kinda sorta.

It's ok for specialists to be massively super great at their specialty.

It's ok to balance the air savant so it's DPS is somewhat relative to the earth savant.


But ... instead of just making everyone have the same DPS, it is also ok to produce content where air spells are useless, and other content where earth spells are less useful. Or if earth is a bit weaker on the spike DPS, maybe it's generically useful in more content.


We're a bunch of metagamers. There are very few fire sorcs at cap, for isntance, but plenty leveling ... this is the content creating the leveling.

One thing that is nice is that the axe to the head, generally speaking, is universally applicable.

The trick is to make sure there is enough variety so that the super-specialized types need to either (a) generalize and thus be more applicable ... and more in the same scale as (for instance) other classes or (b) they will "own" some content, but be somewhat excluded from others.

This isn't just a savant thing - this is melee/caster ... rogue/vs/etc. ... multiple bards ... etc.



What will a basic X character do in this particular content? (pale master, WF archmage, non-WF archmage, FVS AoV, Cleric RS, etc. etc.)

[Riggs]

One idea to address power creep by combining similar tier 3 PREs would be to code significant bonuses as a non stacking prestige-typed bonus, and/or make certain benefits stances (which could not be active while another stance is active)

A couple examples:

Archmage3/PM3 - the DC bonus for both archmage spell mastery and lich/vampire forms could be a prestige bonus and therefore not stack with each other
Kensai/Stalwart - change power surge to be a stance that would not stack with defender stances
Ravager/Berzerker - (speculation) make the FB crit multiplier a stance and not stack with ravager crit range stance (and also not stack with kensai/stalwart stances in the case of racial PREs)


Exactly.

[Chai]

Is it not 6 of one, half a dozen of the other? If you balance one class to the content but don't balance the other classes to the first, then in theory the other classes aren't balanced to the content.

Naaaa.

Balancing classes to eachother is like some MMOs where the ranger shoots arrows for 500 DPS average, the mage shoots fireballs and lightning bolts for 500 DPS average, and the warrior swings a weapon for 500 DPS average. It doesnt matter what class you play as you are only really selecting a skin to represent your character, as their capabilities are all balanced against eachother rather than the content.

Balancing against content is taking everything into account. Rangers have cure spells and buffs, so making them less DPS than pure melee makes sense. They sacrifice damage for utility. They way a ranger beats a quest is not the same way a fighter beats the same quest. Its not a matter of "sammiching up" and mashing your cookie cutter 500 DPS abilities. A ranger or paladin would outlast content that a fighter would want to chew through quickly due to more utility and less overall offense.

One thing that keeps alot of players here is their ability to roll a different toon that plays through the same content we have all run elevendy twelve times now completely differently than the character they played right before this one. The content doesnt change, but the play experience certainly does, so the replay-ability of this game has more to do with having more class option combinations that are not all cookie cutter representations of the same capabilities with different skins on them.

[irivan]

Is it not 6 of one, half a dozen of the other? If you balance one class to the content but don't balance the other classes to the first, then in theory the other classes aren't balanced to the content.

To some degree I agree with your analogy, but the two are not exactly the same. But I would say that if you are balancing against the content, on a class by class basis, then to some degree the other classes are balanced against each other. It will all depend on what perspective you are using I guess.

Such as will the quests be solo friendly? If so, then what does that mean for a melee as opposed to a caster? If not in what ways are casters limited compared to a melee?

lets not forget the roles of some these classes as originally intended in DnD. Such as the rugged individualism of Rangers, druids, Wizards and Psions. Where other classes were generally more dependent on each other, Warrior, Priest, Rogue would be a good example of that. Not saying in the older table top that those classes did not get along well on their own, just generally not as well as the others.

All of that is why I think the lens should be focused on the content, and not looking at it from the perspective of Well a Wizard can do this, so the Barbarian must also have a power that does the same thing. So essentially what happens in those scenarios is that you start placing caps on things that spells can do based on what the Barbarian cant do. And personally, that drives me crazy. The cap should be based on the written description of the ability, and it capabilities should based on what mission calls for. Now what does that mean for the Barbarian, well it means that maybe he has a different more versatile way around things through say cunning and ambush, hard core survive-ability, and outright raw smashing power when he needs it to be there.

All of that is actually a lot different than balancing classes against each other when you get right down to it, so i would not say they are 6 of one, half a dozen of the other because that would imply that the same journey to the end result is achieved, and i don't think they are.

[lppmor]

I think what he is saying is don't buy into the hype that players put on what is over powered and what isn't. Stick to class vs. content.

I understand this kind of worries to not turn DDO into WoW, but the fact is that the games are quite different, the player community is quite different, and above all else this is not a pvp oriented game. DDO will not become WoW. So, I agree with MadFloyd when he says that if all classes are equally balanced vs content, then they're also balanced in relation to each other in the PvE environment.

[Riggs]

....
But ... instead of just making everyone have the same DPS, it is also ok to produce content where air spells are useless, and other content where earth spells are less useful. Or if earth is a bit weaker on the spike DPS, maybe it's generically useful in more content.


...There are very few fire sorcs at cap, for instance, but plenty leveling ...

One thing that is nice is that the axe to the head, generally speaking, is universally applicable.

The trick is to make sure there is enough variety so that the super-specialized types need to either (a) generalize and thus be more applicable ... and more in the same scale as (for instance) other classes or (b) they will "own" some content, but be somewhat excluded from others.

This isn't just a savant thing - this is melee/caster ... rogue/vs/etc. ... multiple bards ... etc.



One thing that really needs to be looked at is blanket immunities.

We are long past this being a pnp game, and stuff just cant be exported as is anymore.

Unless something is an elemental - they should not be immune to an elemental damage type. Higher than normal resistance sure - but immune no.

Even golems - which would make some people howl about diverging from pnp - but just because the old rules had a max 20d6 fireball floating around - and got away with saying golems were immune to spell damage - I mean if you throw a golem into the sun will it burn? Unless it was created by a fire got it certainly should - so at some point it should be taking elemental damage - even if it is a high number like 200 points resists or whatever.

Getting off topic a bit - but the lack of fire savants say is directly tied to a old, archaic, and outdated 'blanket immunities' monster system that should also be revamped.

[Artos_Fabril]

My opinions
Number of trees: Each race should have a racial tab and racial PrE (one to start, expandable later). Each class should have a general tab, plus 3 PrEs. Each character should have access to the applicable racial tab, unlockable access to the racial PrE, access to the general tab for any class in which they have at least one level, and a choice of up to 3 class PrEs, whether pure, dual, or tri-classed. alternatively, if there is no general tab, all characters should have access to all PrE trees available to any of their classes, with access to enhancements within the trees gated by class levels.

How many new enhancements are required to make sure there's meaningful choice within a tree: Each tree should have at least twice the number of AP in enhancements that it takes to gain the highest tier of that PrE. That will allow for maximum reasonable diversity within builds of the same PrE. For example, this post contains the rogue trees that I built (http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p=4277561&postcount=3116), along with a general tab, and brief explanation of why I made certain decisions in building out the trees as I did.

How many PREs/Tiers of PREs we think it's reasonable for a player to get, and what should be "given up" to get the maximum amount: Right now, we seem to have two types of PrEs: 5-tier PrEs and 3-tier PrEs (this assumes that all unfinished PrEs will fit one of these two categories) The new system, as last described by MadFloyd/Eladrin would allow characters to purchase up to 8 tiers of PrEs or 7 tiers + capstone, at a maximum. If the benefits inherent in the PrEs are too large, that encourages building for PrE tiers rather than to enhance class abilities. Coupled with either strong racial PrEs or a restriction on the number of trees, that would have a highly detrimental effect to deep multi-classing while massively benefiting pure and 18/2 (or 18/1/1) splash builds. PrEs should grant specialization at the cost of generalization; pale-master, savants, and kensai all have this to a greater or lesser degree. General enhancements should be available outside of the PrEs to preserve this function.

Multiple PrEs would allow multiple specializations under this model, but still sacrifice more general benefits. I oppose a hard limit to the number of PrEs/tiers, but capstones would likely need to be either a stance/toggle/choose one of available, or be limited by total AP-sunk costs t one at a time. My suggestion would be to have it as a toggle tied to the enhancement screen functionality of being unable to change inside a quest/raid. Doing so would prevent on-the-fly switching, but still reward a player for sinking all/most of her points into 2 trees.

How many AP a player may want to spend in racial trees. This affects how "much" a player would end up giving up to take multiple PREs to the maximum tier or capstone, if it's even mathematically possible. Perhaps taking two PREs to Tier 3 makes it impossible to get a capstone or racial ability enhancements: This could be very build-dependent. I would say that a pure-class character should want to spend about 20 points in their racial tree, unless they are specifically building against type, or building heavily into type (BSword-wielding Halfling DoS vs. Phiarlain Dragonmarked Elven rapier/scimitar wielder) to balance that against spending points in PrEs, racial abilities would need to either more general, or more powerful, or grant tier benefits themselves. A member of a race, fully enhanced, should deal better damage with their racial weapon than the same character using a khopesh.

Is two PREs at tier 3 inherently too powerful? (Would characters who don't take multiple PREs to high tiers end up underpowered in relation?)Again, this depends on how it's implemented, and I'm disinclined to limit choice artificially. Currently, some PrEs are front-loaded, some are back-loaded, but most are either under-powered in total or unfinished. Would a necromancer/enchanter Archmage5+Palemaster3 be overpowered? Yes! Even in comparison to other casters. Would an HotD3+KotC3 be overpowered? Not so much; maybe compared to an acrobat+mechanic. I don't see 2 PrE3s as inherently too powerful, but certain combinations certainly would be if left as is. It's a matter of overlapping specializations versus parallel specializations.

Power balance between selected class enhancement and automatically granted PRE bonuses (based on AP spent in the tree).If each PrE tab contains enough options that at least two completely different sets of enhancements could be taken within the same tab, but granted PrE tiers alternate enhancing one then the other, or provide bonuses everyone taking that PrE would want, with the capstone boosting both, that seems to me like a good balance. It would reward buying a mix of options within the tab, or spending heavily into a single tab, but still offer good choices. It would also encourage certain builds to take 3/9/15 levels in a class, instead of every build wanting 6/12/18/20, which could expand viable build options.

Which makes me realize I screwed this up:
Granted Benefits:
Tier .5 +15% faster movement while sneaking; +2 to Hide, Move Silently, and Fortitude saves
Tier 1 +1d6 sneak attack damage
Tier 1.5 +1d6 sneak attack damage
Tier 2 Assassinate (dex based); +2 to Hide, Move Silently, and Fortitude saves
Tier 2.5 +1d6 sneak attack damage
Tier 3 Vorpal Assassinate; +2 to Hide, Move Silently, and Fortitude saves
Capstone: +2 Dex; +4d6 Sneak Attack Damage[/code]
Tier .5, 1.5, 2.5 should have added bonuses to-hit and/or damage with daggers/kukri, tiers 1/2/3 should have added poisons, and bonuses to assassinate DC, with the capstone being the only straight SA increase. That would also have cut down on the disparity in damage output between the PrEs.

How deep (or shallow!) you need to go to get various tiers of enhancements, in terms of:
AP spent within the tree
Class level requirements: 3/6/9/12/15/18/20 seems good to me. I would like to see more weight on the 9/12/15 tiers to add some variety to build decisions. When there's a real question of going 15/5 vs 14/6 vs 11/9 vs 12/8 vs 12/6/2 vs 9/9/2 vs 15/3/2 vs 20 or 18/2, I think we will be in a good place.
Character level requirements: Character level requirements seem to me to be more a matter of balancing characters against content than balancing build options. They should be used for racial PrEs, where class levels aren't applicable, for general enhancements, and for multi-class PrEs.
Greater separation between requirements for selected enhancements vs. the automatically granted enhancements (for spending AP in the tree), etc: I think I answered this one earlier in the post as well. Selected enhancements should be customization options and itshould be possible to build 2 characters with the same PrEs with completely different selected options. Granted options should then benefit both sub-categories, or benefit anyone who has the PrE regardless of which enhancements they take within it.

If we relax class level requirements, is the end result good for balancing multi-class, pure class, and overall power? Depending on what you mean by this, any of the three could be true. AP are a finite resource, however, and spending them to add breadth to a build inherently costs us depth. If class level requirements were removed or reduced, character level requirements would become more important. I thought I hit on a good balance with the general tabs, and dilettante and active Past-life unlocks. Removing class-level requirements completely could offer some interesting possibilities, but it could also end up with some really powerful and internally inconsistent builds, like the crit-raging Paladin throwing 10-20/x6 exalted smites, or the Evoker Archmage Sorcerer with 4000 SP and a 55+ DC

[NostalithilDarkstar]

Balancing the classes = 4e edition :(

Please let classes keep their roles.

[Failedlegend]

Balancing the classes = 4e edition :(

Please let classes keep their roles.

Thank you for that completely irrelevant and uninformed opinion

[dkyle]

Is it not 6 of one, half a dozen of the other? If you balance one class to the content but don't balance the other classes to the first, then in theory the other classes aren't balanced to the content.

Yes.

There's a tendency to think that balance between classes requires sameness, or mathematical equivalence between classes, but that just isn't true. Balance in a PvE game means giving each class a purpose, some way to contribute to success, to similar degrees. Balancing classes is meaningless without balancing to the content, and balancing to the content implies balancing classes.


Balancing the classes = 4e edition :(

Please let classes keep their roles.

Balancing classes well means precisely that classes keep their roles. That was 4E's goal. Whether it succeeded or not is debatable, but not worth derailing the thread over.

[RTN]

Is two PREs at tier 3 inherently too powerful? (Would characters who don't take multiple PREs to high tiers end up underpowered in relation?)


I realize that thinking of PrEs in the new system might be very different, but don't just think of PrE vs non-PrE, but PrE options vs PrE options. For example, if a fighter could take both Kensei and Defender while a paladin could take DoS and KotC, the fighter's would be clearly superior. It would only increase the gap between the two that already exists.

[dkyle]

I don't think this list is anywhere near reasonable in the time period allotted. Maybe eventually. Your asking them to add a whole lot of new PRE's, like the Juggernaut (a PRE no one will ever take), and then asking them to add mounts and mounted combat. I say go with the list they currently have and upgrade it later.

Vordax

I'd rather they drop Racial PrEs entirely for the initial release (besides Arcane Archer), if true Racial PrEs can't be developed in time. I think Racial PrEs that clone Class PrEs is a fundamentally bad design, and if they do release them, then they can't "upgrade" later, by replacing them with real Racial PrEs, without breaking a whole bunch of builds that will have been created.

[jortann]

I have not read all of this thread but have been popping in from time to time.

There are things in here that excite me, because I think about how much more powerful my characters could be.

Some of my ideas... A fighter that could also have Radiant Servant II. Basically a melee with a healing aura. Think about a party with several of these that are all standing in each others aura. Kensai II/Radiant ServantII seems like a pretty self sufficient character. Or even a Monk with Radiant Servant II... Throw in Monk Healing amp and you could have a reliable constant source of healing.

Is this good for the game... I don't know.

What about Frenzied Beserker III/with Kensai II? Full Rage, Power Surge and Full fighter Haste Boost. Wow! That would be incredible.

While I admit I would like to create these toons, I also feel that they might trivialize the content.

In the past having level requirements for PREs has kept this from happening, but if you take those out.... I'm not sure what would happen.

Having played both a fighter and Barabarian, I can see the advantages of both, but if as a barabarian I can get the full line of fighter haste boost, I'm not sure why I would play a fighter.

I'm just thinking out loud here... I may be totally wrong on some of this stuff.

Bottom line is I feel like to get access to enhancement lines and PREs you should have to invest levels into that class and more than just one.

[Auran82]

A suggestion I made earlier regarding trees is for a single class character to have access to the race tree +3 active class/race pre trees, each extra class allows you to have one extra active tree, chosen from any available, up to a max of 5.

Staple class features could be duplicated over all pre trees, at varying levels, so that general class trees aren't needed.

[irivan]

Thank you for that completely irrelevant and uninformed opinion

Yes i do thank him, it is not irrelevant, or uniformed.

I support his message that classes being balanced = 4E = worst, already being scrapped edition of DnD, that i have no desire to play.

Please let classes keep their roles. = /signed

[Lizardator]

I do not know if anyone talked about this because I dont feel like reading more then 100 pages of posts but are dwarven defenders planned at all? Because from what I saw and heard there wont be any of those in the new enhancement system... I for one would like to see some love for the dwarfs... They are people too you know?

[BossOfEarth]

Is it not 6 of one, half a dozen of the other? If you balance one class to the content but don't balance the other classes to the first, then in theory the other classes aren't balanced to the content. Only in theory. The important distinction is that since DDO is mostly PVE, a class is useless if it focuses on an unsupported style of gameplay -- like say a plant bane specialist.

[Failedlegend]

Kensai II/Radiant ServantII seems like a pretty self sufficient character. Or even a Monk with Radiant Servant II... Throw in Monk Healing amp and you could have a reliable constant source of healing.


How are you making this character?


Yes.

There's a tendency to think that balance between classes requires sameness, or mathematical equivalence between classes, but that just isn't true. Balance in a PvE game means giving each class a purpose, some way to contribute to success, to similar degrees. Balancing classes is meaningless without balancing to the content, and balancing to the content implies balancing classes.


Which is why balancing classes based on PvP equals clone wars...hence why PvP should NEVER be introduced any more than it is now.



Balancing classes well means precisely that classes keep their roles. That was 4E's goal. Whether it succeeded or not is debatable, but not worth derailing the thread over.

Personally I think it succeeded and the hate for it is spread by the fact that a few people went into the game wanting to hate it...so they did..some claim they hate because they think their supposed to...the rest of us play the game and love it...it ain't perfect (hoping some of those issues are resolved with 4.5e) but true perfection can never be achieved since we can always make something just a little better...tis human nature...but look at me daring to support 4e in 3.5 game forum...which IMO became "Turbine" edition long ago and simple things like ignoring a 3.5 rule or adopting a rule from other edition or even D&D games is a GOOD thing.


I'd rather they drop Racial PrEs entirely for the initial release (besides Arcane Archer), if true Racial PrEs can't be developed in time. I think Racial PrEs that clone Class PrEs is a fundamentally bad design, and if they do release them, then they can't "upgrade" later, by replacing them with real Racial PrEs, without breaking a whole bunch of builds that will have been created.

Wholly agreed...although if & when they do give us Racial PrEs I think Elf & H-Elf should get different Ranged PrEs...still magically oriented but different. Actually Ranger should get something more Guardian of the forest or "Tracker like" instead of Arcane Archer and have DWS be their definitive ranged PrE...being that their not an Arcane Class. So:
Elf = AA (and Bladesinger)
Half-Elf = Soulbow? (and Class PrEs based on Dilly)
Ranger = Forest Master? (Tracking PrE which gets animal companion, uses bludgeoning weapons and has some forest related bonueses..nat armor and such)


I do not know if anyone talked about this because I dont feel like reading more then 100 pages of posts but are dwarven defenders planned at all? Because from what I saw and heard there wont be any of those in the new enhancement system... I for one would like to see some love for the dwarfs... They are people too you know?

Were fighting for actual Racially oriented PrEs like Dwarven Defender but it hasn't been mentioned by devs yet.

[Vargouille]

But ... instead of just making everyone have the same DPS, it is also ok to produce content where air spells are useless, and other content where earth spells are less useful. Or if earth is a bit weaker on the spike DPS, maybe it's generically useful in more content.

Balancing classes to eachother is like some MMOs where the ranger shoots arrows for 500 DPS average, the mage shoots fireballs and lightning bolts for 500 DPS average, and the warrior swings a weapon for 500 DPS average. It doesnt matter what class you play as you are only really selecting a skin to represent your character, as their capabilities are all balanced against eachother rather than the content.

DPS isn't the only factor considered when balancing (or even necessarily the most important one)! On that we agree.


All of that is why I think the lens should be focused on the content, and not looking at it from the perspective of Well a Wizard can do this, so the Barbarian must also have a power that does the same thing.
Of course! The goal isn't in any way to make classes similar. The varying strengths and weaknesses between characters is one of the best parts of DDO (and D&D).


When we talk about balancing classes in general, we mean neither purely DPS balancing, and definitely not making sure that everyone can do everything equally, which would be quite boring. Part of balancing is making sure classes and PREs are different. That's part of how those things factor in, but those are not our singular goals when balancing.

DPS is important to consider at times, and matters quite a lot when balancing PREs that are intended primarily to be DPS, while at the same time their DPS against content also matters. But most builds, characters or players don't intend to be solely focused on DPS. Many build options are mixes of DPS and other benefits. Clerics have obvious value other than DPS, as do any tank builds. Rogues can do significant DPS at times, but are sometimes valued for their mad skills more than mad DPS.

There's a tendency to think that balance between classes requires sameness, or mathematical equivalence between classes, but that just isn't true. Balance in a PvE game means giving each class a purpose, some way to contribute to success, to similar degrees. Balancing classes is meaningless without balancing to the content, and balancing to the content implies balancing classes.

This gets at the idea.

Even just ensuring each class and PRE has different fun things to do is a form of balance, and a difficult one since different things are fun to different players. All the more reason to embrace differences!

[sirdanile]

In my Opinion the amount and degree of pre's should be either similar to what it is now or slightly relaxed to where you could maybe take one tier 3 and another tier 2, or two tier 2s and a tier 1 (if class/race should happen to make that viable)

Also PLEASE make sure Arcane Archer's are not given the shaft (Or rather, the wrong end of said shaft if we suddenly started referring to arrows)

[irivan]

DPS isn't the only factor considered when balancing (or even necessarily the most important one)! On that we agree.


Of course! The goal isn't in any way to make classes similar. The varying strengths and weaknesses between characters is one of the best parts of DDO (and D&D).


When we talk about balancing classes in general, we mean neither purely DPS balancing, and definitely not making sure that everyone can do everything equally, which would be quite boring. Part of balancing is making sure classes and PREs are different. That's part of how those things factor in, but those are not our singular goals when balancing.

DPS is important to consider at times, and matters quite a lot when balancing PREs that are intended primarily to be DPS, while at the same time their DPS against content also matters. But most builds, characters or players don't intend to be solely focused on DPS. Many build options are mixes of DPS and other benefits. Clerics have obvious value other than DPS, as do any tank builds. Rogues can do significant DPS at times, but are sometimes valued for their mad skills more than mad DPS.


This gets at the idea.

Even just ensuring each class and PRE has different fun things to do is a form of balance, and a difficult one since different things are fun to different players. All the more reason to embrace differences!

Thanks for taking the time to answer my concerns, and I accept your answer. Sometimes paranoia gets the best of us when considering the future, now that I understand your thinking on this issue, I think we see relatively Eye to Eye.

[joaofalcao]

DPS isn't the only factor considered when balancing (or even necessarily the most important one)! On that we agree.

Can you then say when we are getting an AC pass, mister flying head?

For this game has all been about DPS and HP for quite some time. How about a little balance in this matter?

Or are any of you dev girls dating lobotomized barbarians in secret?

[sirgog]

DPS isn't the only factor considered when balancing (or even necessarily the most important one)! On that we agree.


Of course! The goal isn't in any way to make classes similar. The varying strengths and weaknesses between characters is one of the best parts of DDO (and D&D).


When we talk about balancing classes in general, we mean neither purely DPS balancing, and definitely not making sure that everyone can do everything equally, which would be quite boring. Part of balancing is making sure classes and PREs are different. That's part of how those things factor in, but those are not our singular goals when balancing.

DPS is important to consider at times, and matters quite a lot when balancing PREs that are intended primarily to be DPS, while at the same time their DPS against content also matters. But most builds, characters or players don't intend to be solely focused on DPS. Many build options are mixes of DPS and other benefits. Clerics have obvious value other than DPS, as do any tank builds. Rogues can do significant DPS at times, but are sometimes valued for their mad skills more than mad DPS.


This gets at the idea.

Even just ensuring each class and PRE has different fun things to do is a form of balance, and a difficult one since different things are fun to different players. All the more reason to embrace differences!

I do think you should work on making sure that all PrEs that specialise in DPS have DPS that is in the same ballpark.

If, say, Assassin Rogues of a certain gear level are doing 390* DPS to a boss like Turigulon (67 AC, 0% Fort), and Barbarians are doing 365 DPS in the same situation, that is IMO acceptable (especially if the Barbarian is better in some different scenarios). But if Tempest Rangers or (non-Defender) Paladins in similar gear are doing 270 DPS to the same target, that poses a problem.

*These numbers are totally made up.

[DrakHar]

I do think you should work on making sure that all PrEs that specialise in DPS have DPS that is in the same ballpark.

If, say, Assassin Rogues of a certain gear level are doing 390* DPS to a boss like Turigulon (67 AC, 0% Fort), and Barbarians are doing 365 DPS in the same situation, that is IMO acceptable (especially if the Barbarian is better in some different scenarios). But if Tempest Rangers or (non-Defender) Paladins in similar gear are doing 270 DPS to the same target, that poses a problem.

*These numbers are totally made up.

Definitely made up, since it's more like four DPS as the paladin.... unless, of course, only if he has three tiers of KOTC, a fighter splash for haste boost, human versatility damage, and is timing smites, DM, and and divine sacrifice. Then he does upwards of seven DPS. :D

[bigolbear]

so any thoughts yet on how your spliting up the 'core' class enhancements. you know the ones a class just doest function without. for example: fire damage, ice damage, healing magic etc for casters and class toughness, and damage bonus's for mele types.

Thats the biggest concern to me with this whole thing - not that multiclass characters wont be able to pick up ALL the extras, but that the core class enhancements will be split accross all 3 trees rendering the access to aditional trees pointless.

after thinking on this hot topic for a while im certainly interested by the idea of character lvl gated rather than class lvl gated enhancements, and moving to a 3 tree system. To my mind it opens up the prestiges to functioning more like they did in pen and paper, ie limited by things like BAB and skills. (character lvl gating)

For example under that system there would be nothing to stop you making a kensai3/warpreist3 on a fighter/cleric - but obviously you will have to drop fully 1/3 of your cleric enhancements.

Overall I like the direction its heading in so far, but im concerned the core enhancements will force people into just using the 3 trees from their main class.

The only suggestion i have to solve this goes back to my floating trees comment. That is a tree which contains the core functionality of a class: eiher as a general tree(as sugested by others), as part of the race tree(ie all races can select general enhancemnts that are too core to miss out on) or as a floating tree.

That is a tree that you gain access to unlock by having 1 lvl in that class (or a specified feat - such as helf dilly, mental toughness(wiz), stealthy(rogue), selfsufficient(ranger)....) This tree then contains the fundamental basics of a class. eg the 'cleric - core' tree would contain:
life magic (but not crits)
death magic (but not crits)
smiting/alignment magic (but not crits)
bonus turns
bonus wisdom
wand and scroll mastery.


my gut feeling tho is they should simply be in the racial tab (for all races). I see no reason why a cleric couldnt take fire magic for their flamestrikes or force damage for their baldebarriers. Like wise on the mele front I see no harm in a fighter who realy likes to use shocking weapons taking an enhancemnt for lightning magic. This of course opens up the posibilities for warior types who have access to some casting (dragon marks for example) to make use of the relevant enhancemnt in multiple ways - eg a helf d'lyrander figher using a lightning 2 weapon spends points in lightning magic and gains benefits with thier dragon mark and their weapon of choice.

looking forward to hearing your thoughts on how these core abilites are being handled.

[Scraap]

How many new enhancements are required to make sure there's meaningful choice within a tree.
How many PREs/Tiers of PREs we think it's reasonable for a player to get, and what should be "given up" to get the maximum amount.
Is two PREs at tier 3 inherently too powerful? (Would characters who don't take multiple PREs to high tiers end up underpowered in relation?)





This gets at the idea.

Even just ensuring each class and PRE has different fun things to do is a form of balance, and a difficult one since different things are fun to different players. All the more reason to embrace differences!

Just speaking in terms of the raw numerical advantages bit, I'd probably shoot for gain half by loosing a quarter style balancing there, if that makes any sense. (Trying to stick to overall general philosophies here, since it seems to still be in that stage, so I apologize if that comes off as overly vague.)

After all, it doesn't much matter if you're shaving off half the damage by spending twice the time to the resources spent, but it makes a world of difference in actual human hours over the course of a night.

As for auto-granted tier abilities vs meaningful choices, well, I've touched on this a bit but I really think 'meaningful choices' should be more tied to usage than raw power. An AP line that applies debilities such as stunned, pined, or stat damaged for twf at a higher proc-rate vs an aoe cleave vs a lined up IPS is far more interesting than a couple points here and there for any content that doesn't involve surround-and-pound.




If we relax class level requirements, is the end result good for balancing multi-class, pure class, and overall power?



Gonna say it really depends alot on what aspects of a given class is being balanced out, which is one of the reasons I'd suggested that soft cap approach, since its a bit more forgiving as far as balance mistakes goes, and lets face it, there will be a mistake here or there. Humans make em.

For a linear progressing class, such as a fighter getting a feat at a fixed rate, linear enhancements make sense, and allows pretty much any mix to be viable, in terms of how many class levels to invest, if we consider just the classes sans any enhancement permutations throwing the power observations out of whack.

For a monk, that's got a lot of desirable class features front-loaded, encouraging deeper splashes with more powerful enhancements higher up in class makes sense.

For a wizard, that's got an inherent boost in most class abilities the purer it remains, front-loading enhancements to encourage variable level break-points makes a great deal of sense.

More later most likely.

[Coldin]

Regarding how far a player can advance down multiple class trees, I think the limit should be at 2 tier III PREs. If you pick up two PREs at tier III, then it should also be impossible to get a capstone from one of the class trees. Of course, then you have to make that capstone valuable enough for the trade off.

I also think by advancing deep into two class trees, it should greatly hinder the ability to pick up things from the racial tree. Perhaps a few abilities here and there, but nothing significant. That would lend itself well to either specializing in a few things, or being just good at several things.

I am wondering how this will work with leveling though. Even assuming the end plan will be to allow a player to invest heavily in two class trees, wouldn't that also mean that investing heavily in one tree would allow a player access to a tier III PRE before level 18? Is that something that would be good, or should that be impossible?

[quijenoth]

Just out of curiosity, I assume the AP progression is remaining the same as it is now, 4 APs per level, 80 total at 20?

It just occured to me this might be receiving an amendment...

Would it be unwise to increase the amount of APs we get? say adding in another AP on leveling, taking the total to 100? would that make balancing easier? harder? indiffferent?

How about doubling the APs so we end up with 160?

Or perhaps changing APs to CAPs, SAPs, and/or RAPs (class APs, Skill APs, and Race APs) that can only be spent in those trees?

[Failedlegend]

Regarding how far a player can advance down multiple class trees, I think the limit should be at 2 tier III PREs. If you pick up two PREs at tier III, then it should also be impossible to get a capstone from one of the class trees. Of course, then you have to make that capstone valuable enough for the trade off.

I also think by advancing deep into two class trees, it should greatly hinder the ability to pick up things from the racial tree. Perhaps a few abilities here and there, but nothing significant. That would lend itself well to either specializing in a few things, or being just good at several things.

I am wondering how this will work with leveling though. Even assuming the end plan will be to allow a player to invest heavily in two class trees, wouldn't that also mean that investing heavily in one tree would allow a player access to a tier III PRE before level 18? Is that something that would be good, or should that be impossible?

This has already been done....to get a tier 3 30AP is required...to get a capstone 41 AP is required for a total of 71AP leaving only 8 more points for you to spend in your other class trees and in your racial tree.

It's also impossible to get 3 tiers 3s as that would cost 90AP.

I don't think this needs to be changed as from the looks of the required AP for each tier is already balanced.


Just out of curiosity, I assume the AP progression is remaining the same as it is now, 4 APs per level, 80 total at 20?

It just occurred to me this might be receiving an amendment...

Would it be unwise to increase the amount of APs we get? say adding in another AP on leveling, taking the total to 100? would that make balancing easier? harder? indiffferent?

How about doubling the APs so we end up with 160?


No the new system is already reducing costs of enhancements allowing us to take alot more and all increasing AP will do is throw off the balance of 5/10/15/20/25/30/41 and either make the system have FAR less choice or make the devs have to take more time making more enhancements for each PrE.....either way I ask WHY? what would we gain from this?



For a linear progressing class, such as a fighter getting a feat at a fixed rate, linear enhancements make sense, and allows pretty much any mix to be viable, in terms of how many class levels to invest, if we consider just the classes sans any enhancement permutations throwing the power observations out of whack.

For a monk, that's got a lot of desirable class features front-loaded, encouraging deeper splashes with more powerful enhancements higher up in class makes sense.

For a wizard, that's got an inherent boost in most class abilities the purer it remains, front-loading enhancements to encourage variable level break-points makes a great deal of sense.


Yeah It's definitely a case by case basis



after thinking on this hot topic for a while im certainly interested by the idea of character lvl gated rather than class lvl gated enhancements, and moving to a 3 tree system. To my mind it opens up the prestiges to functioning more like they did in pen and paper, ie limited by things like BAB and skills. (character lvl gating)

No my Wizard18/Rogue2 should not be able to access a Tier 3 Rogue PrE or the capstone for that matter. Instead of rewiring the entire system and possible causing a "short" just remove the 3 Tree limit...simple as that. The limit of 80 AP will take care of the rest



looking forward to hearing your thoughts on how these core abilites are being handled.

Add General Tab, Remove the 3 Tree Limit...problem solved...makes more sense Lore wise anyways having only enhancements specific to PrEs in the PrE Trees



changing APs to CAPs, SAPs, and/or RAPs (class APs, Skill APs, and Race APs) that can only be spent in those trees?

While I scoffed at the idea of arbitrarily doubling or tripling the amount AP we gain. This idea...at least its general premise might actually work. Hear me out...there's lots of people arguing that "core" enhancements do not belong in PrE Trees and should put into a general Tab (Which I agree to)...the only problem being they either won't be contributing to getting any PrE Benefits seeing as those require X amount of AP to be spent in that tree or they would need to setup so complicated way to "Siphon" those points into a chosen PrE.

This is where your idea comes in...since the hope is that each PrE will have about 60AP in each (based on community response NO dev has said this) we'll already have plenty to spend our 80AP on and I think that should stay that way BUT what if for every AP you obtain you also get a GP (General Point) which can be spent in the "General Tab" this all but eliminates the issue of "Wasting" AP in General enhancements without upsetting the balance of the 5/10/15/20/25/30/41 break points. To prevent horrific stacking these would be general enhancements (can also combine some less useful ones) like this:

Heightened Intelligence (instead of Wizard, Arty,etc. intelligence)
Haste Boost (Instead of Rogue,Fighter,etc.)
Incredible Strength (instead of Fighter,etc.)
Sneaky (Hide+MS)
Influential (Diplomacy+Bluff+Intimidate+Haggle)
Observant (Listen+Spot+Search)
Finesse (Disable Device+Open Lock)
Acrobatic (Swim+Jump+Tumble+Balance)
Steadfast (Heal+Concentration+Repair)
Talented (Perform+UMD)


An interesting thing they could do with this is say I'm a 13Rogue/6Fighter/1Ranger for Haste Boost I should be considered a Lvl 20 Character (since Rogue & Fighter have Haste Boost and apprently rangers are getting it too) but a Lvl 13Rogue/6Paladin/1Fighter would only be considered a Lvl 14 Character for the purpose of any level gating on Haste Boost...is this possible devs? I not what you'd call a programmer :P

Sidenote: Why are they called AP...Action Points? doesn't really make any sense..how about SP..Specialization Points..I dunno

[My2Cents]

It is important to note that although there is a very vocal minority of top tier players, there are a LARGE number of players who for a variety of reasons won't have easy access to top tier items or gear. This is where many, varied, and interesting enhancements (and feats) provide "real balance" and "playability" for everyone. Those games whose balance decisions devolved solely on how to continue to make things "challenging" for the "very best" seemed to leave r the rest of the player base behind and boiled down to nothing more than who has the most stats/gear. DDO has always shined here and now there's an opportunity to shine even brighter and really drive the point home.

Sure, stats and gear are important, but true "balance" and "playability" arises from the offset that enhancements (and feats) can add into the mix. Also, and I am SURE the devs are keenly aware of this, it is important to develop the enhancements in such a way that they make sense and "flow" with each other. One of the best parts of DnD way back in the horse and buggy days when I played was that DnD was not a contest of secrecy, all the options and features were well documented, the fun came in how you recombine and apply the rules and adapt them to context.

I hope when all the enhancement trees are done the release notes clearly describe what they all do and their interactions with other aspects of the game are straightforward. I'd rather have more enhancements that each did a focused thing than fewer that did multiple things.

Now that all sounds easy in concept. I leave it to smarter brains at turbine than me to figure out how to actually DO it.

[orakio]

We are still actively discussing many possible enhancement designs. We want the right balance between pure and multiclass characters, design freedom and simplicity, etc.

Discussions have included:
Number of trees.
This is all dependant on restrictions, if the enhancements are heavily class level gated then you need more than 3 trees but if enhancements are only gated by points spent and character level you might be just fine with a 3 tree system depending on how its implemented

How many new enhancements are required to make sure there's meaningful choice within a tree.
I would say around 60-80 enhancements a tree. It is enough to give actual choices in the enhancements you choose without making trees too overcrowded.

How many PREs/Tiers of PREs we think it's reasonable for a player to get, and what should be "given up" to get the maximum amount.
To be honest I like your 5/10/15/20/25/30/41 point breakdown and don't think you should directly limit the amount of PrE tier's taken. If you have good racial enhancement options and then balance around about two tier3 PrE's or an equivalent investment you should be fine.

How many AP a player may want to spend in racial trees. This affects how "much" a player would end up giving up to take multiple PREs to the maximum tier or capstone, if it's even mathematically possible. Perhaps taking two PREs to Tier 3 makes it impossible to get a capstone or racial ability enhancements.
I think that racial trees should have some real decisions on your character and allow you to really take advantage of the flavor of the races. I hope to be able to spend 10-20+ points in racial trees on enhancements that fit desired character goals. An average character should probably be looking at around 2 Tier 3's(or equivalent) with racial points leftover but going for capstone leaves you little to no real investment in your racial tree or 3rd class tree. Maybe bump capstones to 45 instead of 41 points but make them a really really potent bonus even compared to some of the PrE tiers(since it takes 3 PrE tiers of investment to reach at that point).

Is two PREs at tier 3 inherently too powerful? (Would characters who don't take multiple PREs to high tiers end up underpowered in relation?)I don't think that it is as the only people hitting two tier3's would be Pure's or very slight splashes. Either way thats 18 levels in the primary class and most classes PrE's have different enough focuses that there isn't too much overlap. A couple classes may have too much synergy (ravager/FB, AM/PM) but for the most part everyone else has different directions for their PrE's. One of the things you can do is to make earlier tiers (say 5/10/15 points spent) more general bonuses making them multi/splash/offspec friendly while later tiers may be strong but more specific in what they effect. Think like KotC bonuses that affect only specific enemies, or kensai that only work with specific weapons. This means that two tier3's probably don't overlap to create too much of a bonus. I also really liked the idea of stances that can be activated simultaneously but grant prestige bonuses so like stats don't stack(I.E. power surge + stalwart defender stance strength bonuses).

Power balance between selected class enhancement and automatically granted PRE bonuses (based on AP spent in the tree). Personally I believe that PrE's should be relatively strong, they are mimic'ing entire classes from the PnP D&D system. The dev mockup of tempest really looked to have it right where a PrE tier is probably equivalent to 2-3 points of enhancements but not every tier is necessarily moving in the same direction. I think the best way to look at it would be to pick a primary and secondary goal for each PrE that go in slightly different directions (i.e. not both dps oriented) and alternate on the PrE tiers with improving Primary and then secondary goals. This would help balance the PrE so it isn't too powerful compared to enhancements because of the split focus but does add a lot of strength to your character.

How deep (or shallow!) you need to go to get various tiers of enhancements, in terms of:
AP spent within the treeThe 5 AP per tier breakdown works for me but you could reasonably bump it to 4AP spent per tier considering that is what you get a level so it just seems to fit. Either one i think would be fine. Limit trees to 4 or 5 vertical tiers so that 60 points in a tree means ~12-15 points per tier. That should give you 3 full enhancement lines per tier really allowing the player to make the decision on how to progress in the tree.

Class level requirementsOnly have class level requirements for the PrE's and VERY rare enhancements that may be directly tied to a class ability that is gained at specific levels. If you limit the number of tree's then don't limit enhancement choices themselves, just the PrE bonuses.

Character level requirementsThese I am ok with. Having the equivalent to a Tier3 PrE or (currently)deep enhancements like Divine Might 4 at around level 7-8 is pretty insane and would require numbers changes in many quests so I think it is ok to still gate stuff around character levels.

If we relax class level requirements, is the end result good for balancing multi-class, pure class, and overall power? It all depends on where they are relaxed. Without any class level requirements even on PrE's deep multi's gain a ton of strength due to being able to pick PrE's that have more overlap on focus towards a single goal. With heavy class level requirements in enhancements and a limited tree Pure classes and splashes are probably in a better spot than deep multis. I think the balancing point comes up in very relaxed requirements in enhancement trees but continuing class level restrictions on PrE's so long as you are still talking about a 3 tree system.

[grodon9999]

DPS isn't the only factor considered when balancing (or even necessarily the most important one)! On that we agree.


Of course! The goal isn't in any way to make classes similar. The varying strengths and weaknesses between characters is one of the best parts of DDO (and D&D).


When we talk about balancing classes in general, we mean neither purely DPS balancing, and definitely not making sure that everyone can do everything equally, which would be quite boring. Part of balancing is making sure classes and PREs are different. That's part of how those things factor in, but those are not our singular goals when balancing.

DPS is important to consider at times, and matters quite a lot when balancing PREs that are intended primarily to be DPS, while at the same time their DPS against content also matters. But most builds, characters or players don't intend to be solely focused on DPS. Many build options are mixes of DPS and other benefits. Clerics have obvious value other than DPS, as do any tank builds. Rogues can do significant DPS at times, but are sometimes valued for their mad skills more than mad DPS.


This gets at the idea.

Even just ensuring each class and PRE has different fun things to do is a form of balance, and a difficult one since different things are fun to different players. All the more reason to embrace differences!

if the other "stuff" a class bring to the game is not relevant in ALL LEVELS OF CONTENT then DPS is what matters most by far.

Silver Flame pots break the game as barbs/fighters can heal as effectively as pallies/rangers and have better HP, to-hit, and much better DPS.

AC is useless in epics.

Buffs? You gotta be kidding me.

Either fix your game so epic isn't the Special Olympics of DDO or fix the classes. I'd prefer the former.

[Failedlegend]

It is important to note that although there is a very vocal minority of top tier players, there are a LARGE number of players who for a variety of reasons won't have easy access to top tier items or gear. This is where many, varied, and interesting enhancements (and feats) provide "real balance" and "playability" for everyone. Those games whose balance decisions devolved solely on how to continue to make things "challenging" for the "very best" seemed to leave r the rest of the player base behind and boiled down to nothing more than who has the most stats/gear. DDO has always shined here and now there's an opportunity to shine even brighter and really drive the point home.

Sure, stats and gear are important, but true "balance" and "playability" arises from the offset that enhancements (and feats) can add into the mix. Also, and I am SURE the devs are keenly aware of this, it is important to develop the enhancements in such a way that they make sense and "flow" with each other. One of the best parts of DnD way back in the horse and buggy days when I played was that DnD was not a contest of secrecy, all the options and features were well documented, the fun came in how you recombine and apply the rules and adapt them to context.

I hope when all the enhancement trees are done the release notes clearly describe what they all do and their interactions with other aspects of the game are straightforward. I'd rather have more enhancements that each did a focused thing than fewer that did multiple things.

Now that all sounds easy in concept. I leave it to smarter brains at turbine than me to figure out how to actually DO it.

Heh couldn't agree with you more....I'm kinda of stuck halfway between Casual and Power Gamer...when I'm soloing or playing with my guild i don't think twice about aiming for the best loot but I'm playing in my static group with my IRL friends we never do raids and all of our loot is either random drops or crafted...it will get better when we get our crafting levels high enough but we all only have an average of about 30 in each school. On top of that I tend to play my "flavour" builds with this group since their less forgiving and we can play off each others strengths.

[voodoogroves]

DPS isn't the only factor considered when balancing (or even necessarily the most important one)! On that we agree.


Of course! The goal isn't in any way to make classes similar. The varying strengths and weaknesses between characters is one of the best parts of DDO (and D&D).


When we talk about balancing classes in general, we mean neither purely DPS balancing, and definitely not making sure that everyone can do everything equally, which would be quite boring. Part of balancing is making sure classes and PREs are different. That's part of how those things factor in, but those are not our singular goals when balancing.

DPS is important to consider at times, and matters quite a lot when balancing PREs that are intended primarily to be DPS, while at the same time their DPS against content also matters. But most builds, characters or players don't intend to be solely focused on DPS. Many build options are mixes of DPS and other benefits. Clerics have obvious value other than DPS, as do any tank builds. Rogues can do significant DPS at times, but are sometimes valued for their mad skills more than mad DPS.


This gets at the idea.

Even just ensuring each class and PRE has different fun things to do is a form of balance, and a difficult one since different things are fun to different players. All the more reason to embrace differences!

I'd also request you remember the lowest common denominator approach.


I know my rogue brings more than straight DPS. I know my tactics fighter brings fun crowd control.


What I also know is that to get the final shard / etc. of an epic item or greensteel mats I'm going to have a much harder time jumping into a PUG with my rogue than one of my FVS or my wizard. We (the players) tend to lowest-common-denominator the game.


Classes need to be all "DPS-and" where the "and" isn't such a large portion that it makes the class or PRE an exclusive role ... or overshadow the DPS such that if that role isnt' required, there's no point in bringing that mix.



Anywho, I'm sure you understand all this.

[EnjoyTheJourney]

/rant on

I think it's telling that this thread is listed as being about "Enhancements", rather than "Prestige Enhancements."

I still recall my first experiences with a Kensai in the group, shortly after it was first introduced to PnP. Our Kensai in the group was a fighter who devoted his life to perfecting his sword mastery, who was very good at using it for that reason, and who gave some things up in exchange, because of his singular focus. That seems to give a little meaning to the term "prestige", with a core balancing principle being that focus leads to excellence in some things, and to giving some things up in exchange.

Contrast that with these discussions. The purpose of "enhancements" in these discussions is apparently to create as many jigsaw puzzle pieces as possible that can be assembled and reassembled in ways that lead to creating characters that all share the name of "Maxx Power!"

I'm not a fan of essentially infinite choice. I expect it to sharply limit variety, instead of increasing it, as the outlines of"Maxx Power" enhancements become more widely known and copied. It makes things overly complicated, which leads to more bugs, more exploits, more nerfs to fix unforeseen issues, more complicated UIs, a higher proportion of "bloody awful" choices to learn to avoid, more confusion for newer players, generally inferior documentation, and longer and more uncertain development timetables.

On the subject of limiting choice, I think that Prestige Enhancements should be ... Prestigious, meaning there should be tradeoffs associated with selecting one. If "prestige" implies some level of focus, then it would seem borderline inappropriate to have three "prestige" enhancements on a single character, and even two seems a bit dubious.

/rant off

[SickCat]

Is it not 6 of one, half a dozen of the other? If you balance one class to the content but don't balance the other classes to the first, then in theory the other classes aren't balanced to the content.

If A = B, and B = C, then A = C.

[dkyle]

Classes need to be all "DPS-and" where the "and" isn't such a large portion that it makes the class or PRE an exclusive role ... or overshadow the DPS such that if that role isnt' required, there's no point in bringing that mix.

As much as some might cry "cookie cutter", I agree.

DPS is really the only role that fully stacks between players. Everything else has diminishing returns. There's only so much incoming damage to heal, and a single healer can heal the entire party with a single spell. You only need one tank per boss, which means at most two for a one Raid, one for the rest. And outside Raids, tanks are very rarely worth bothering with. At some point, more CC isn't useful. There's only so much trash, and a decent caster can get most of it in a single casting of wail, web, disco, or mass hold.

But more DPS always means a faster and/or more likely completion. If you don't contribute to DPS, then you end up relegated to one or two slots of a Raid group. Which was the prime complaint from casters pre-U9. But the "solution" just made casters better at everything, instead of arriving at actual balance.

What I think would be ideal, is for everyone to be capable of significant sustained DPS (but less for casters, than for melee DPS), if they choose to do so, but choosing to DPS during a quest would be a tradeoff against whatever their other role is. So, got a Raid party with 6 clerics in it? Probably 2 will focus on healing, but the other 4 could focus on DPS. But the important thing is it should be a tradeoff, and one made at time of play, not at time of build. Those 2 that are healing shouldn't be putting out much DPS, while the 4 that are DPSing shouldn't be putting out much healing. The choice between the two is more interesting than being able to easily do both simultaneously.

[Failedlegend]

"Maxx Power!"


I wholly disagree..its not the system that creates "MAXPOWWA!!" its the players...its no different than PnP where you have people who spend 5 minutes on back sotry and 3 hours crafting an incredibly broken character.

Personally I prefer to create characters that I think will be FUN to play and honestly I'm a little fed up with people who refuse to help me when I post the builds but that's another argument for another time. A few examples

My "Bone Knight" Wiz12/Fighter6/2Rogue he's an "Arcane Tank" who uses a D-Axe & Shield (sometimes a g-axe) has to-hit problem..a little behind in the AC department and his usefulness plummets if he runs out of mana (getting better at this) but I play him far more often than My Paladin18/Fighter2 who is also a tank build and in terms of "MAXPOWWA" he's better but I'm not actually planning on keeping him

My "Monkchersai" Monk12/Fighter7/Arty1 I LOVE this guy but he doesn't have a SINGLE thing that focuses on melee in terms of "MAXPOWWA" that insane and replacing the fighter level with ranger would be "better" but I have much more fun playing my build.

Even my Pure Half-Elf Sorc Air Savant instead of taking some metamagics I took the "DMs of Storm" again not the best choice of "MAXPOWWA" but it suited my vision of the character so I like it better

Now my Human Wizard18/Rogue2 I'd probably be 1000x stronger as a Warforged but I don't "feel" like a wizard if I can't wear a robe...also weighing 5 Tons and measuring in at 7+ feet doesn't Help.

I think it all depends how you look at the game I play what I like other play what they like..whether that means they like to see bigger numbers or they like to see their character realized.

[voodoogroves]

As much as some might cry "cookie cutter", I agree.

DPS is really the only role that fully stacks between players. Everything else has diminishing returns. There's only so much incoming damage to heal, and a single healer can heal the entire party with a single spell. You only need one tank per boss, which means at most two for a one Raid, one for the rest. And outside Raids, tanks are very rarely worth bothering with. At some point, more CC isn't useful. There's only so much trash, and a decent caster can get most of it in a single casting of wail, web, disco, or mass hold.

But more DPS always means a faster and/or more likely completion. If you don't contribute to DPS, then you end up relegated to one or two slots of a Raid group. Which was the prime complaint from casters pre-U9. But the "solution" just made casters better at everything, instead of arriving at actual balance.

What I think would be ideal, is for everyone to be capable of significant sustained DPS (but less for casters, than for melee DPS), if they choose to do so, but choosing to DPS during a quest would be a tradeoff against whatever their other role is. So, got a Raid party with 6 clerics in it? Probably 2 will focus on healing, but the other 4 could focus on DPS. But the important thing is it should be a tradeoff, and one made at time of play, not at time of build. Those 2 that are healing shouldn't be putting out much DPS, while the 4 that are DPSing shouldn't be putting out much healing. The choice between the two is more interesting than being able to easily do both simultaneously.

This is why I'd like Kensai and SD stances to be achievable by fighters (and maybe similar with pallies), much like Fire/Earth are for Monks (and I'd love for a mix build to still be able to have both).


Are you tanking? SD or Earth (or weaker of each if you're a multi)
Are you not tanking? Kensai or Fire or Air (or again, combos if you're a multi)

You can toggle on/off threat reduction or amp from class abilities as well ... good stuff. Keep that.

Clarify which feats are "stances" and which are "toggles". Put some balance into that. Decide if things like Showtime or Power Surge remain boosts or stances.

I don't think it would hurt melees if some of those became static stances instead of boosts.


If they remain boosts, consider making the elemental amplification AP for casters boosts as well (or partially so).

[Scraap]

If they remain boosts, consider making the elemental amplification AP for casters boosts as well (or partially so).

Interesting notion. Can't say I'm in love with it, since I'm already walking around with 12 bars on average, and that'd be yet more to clickyclickyclick, but from a raw design perspective, it does have it's appeal.

[Chai]

I do think you should work on making sure that all PrEs that specialise in DPS have DPS that is in the same ballpark.

If, say, Assassin Rogues of a certain gear level are doing 390* DPS to a boss like Turigulon (67 AC, 0% Fort), and Barbarians are doing 365 DPS in the same situation, that is IMO acceptable (especially if the Barbarian is better in some different scenarios). But if Tempest Rangers or (non-Defender) Paladins in similar gear are doing 270 DPS to the same target, that poses a problem.

*These numbers are totally made up.

How much damage do you think is a good trade off for the utility gained by being a ranger or paladin over being a pure fighter or a pure barbarian?

Paladins can outlast content a fighter pretty much has to ambush and kill more quickly due to having less utility to back themselves up defensively should the fight end up being a longer one.

If a tempest ranger or non defender paladin does as much damage as a pure fighter, the only reason optimizers will stick with fighters is to tank at that point. With being able to be a racial tank as well, they might not even do that, heh. It makes sense to have the pure melee specialists be the highest melee DPS, but the question is, to what degree? Where is the good trade off point where people are satisfied that they do x% less than a pure due to the utility that hybrid class brings.

[Failedlegend]

Interesting notion. Can't say I'm in love with it, since I'm already walking around with 12 bars on average, and that'd be yet more to clickyclickyclick, but from a raw design perspective, it does have it's appeal.

I'd be more in favor of dropping boosts and replacing them with stances. First it would probably make it ALOT easier to keep insane stacking from happening.

Monk is a great example.

Fire = Raw Damage
Wind = Faster Attacks
Earth = Tougher
Water = Better Saves, AC

The only one that is really lacking is water otherwise there's plenety of reasons to go Fire Earth or Water.

If they can make it so Showtime (Acro), Haste Stance(Rogue,Fighter), Power Surge(Kensai), Frenzy(Frenzy Barb), Skillful(Mech), Defensive (Stalwart or DoS), Anti-Magic (O-Slayer),Any one of the Monk Stances,etc. all have their uses than it will be amazing.

As for stacking rules...I'd have being sitting on this edit screen way to long and Voodoo explained it much better than what I came up with




They don't all need to stack, but we could have something crazy like ...

- One elemental (monk)
- One martial (stalwart, kensai, acro, etc.)
- One mental (mech, frenzy, dance of the water spider, etc.)
- One magical (occult slayer, bladesworn, shadow fade)
- One physical form (Lich, Wraith, vampire, beast, savant)
- etc.

Plus some boosts (Manyshot, rages, other boosts) and toggles (PA, CE, etc.)

[dkyle]

I think it's telling that this thread is listed as being about "Enhancements", rather than "Prestige Enhancements."

It is. I think it's really about the death of "prestige" enhancements. PrEs are now a categorization of the core capabilities of classes, not an alternative line of advancement. But really, PrEs were that from the start. A PrE wasn't a specialization, in most cases. It was an expected part of the class.

Along those lines, I think some of the PrE names don't make sense in the new context. For example: Purple Dragon Knight. Even ignoring the Forgotten Realms origins of the name (hmm... fancy that...), Purple Dragon Knight is now being treated some core component of being a "Fighter", as opposed to being a specific specialty. I can buy that Kensai and Stalwart Defender represents certain core aspects of fighters, but Purple Dragon Knight? It doesn't really make sense. Same with Exorcist of the Silver Flame. Does that mean that Silver Flame is a part of all Clerics? Does it make sense for followers of the Sovereign Host to be taking enhancements from the Silver Flame Exorcist line?

So, I'd suggest the following:

* "Sacred Exorcist" instead of Exorcist of the Silver Flame. I also like "Invoker".

* "Cavalier" instead of Purple Dragon Knight. I also like "Warlord" or "Tactician".

* Arcane Archer becomes a Racial PrE, which can be unlocked by Rangers as an additional PrE tree (as I suggested previously). All Rangers get "Beastmaster" in its place. Favored enemy, healing, woodsy magic, and animal companion support go in here.

* Pale Master is a bit questionable to me, since the big feature of it is turning yourself undead, and that doesn't seem like something you "dabble" in, or that is somehow core to all Wizards. But I think it's too iconic in DDO to rename.


I'm not a fan of essentially infinite choice. I expect it to sharply limit variety, instead of increasing it, as the outlines of"Maxx Power" enhancements become more widely known and copied. It makes things overly complicated, which leads to more bugs, more exploits, more nerfs to fix unforeseen issues, more complicated UIs, a higher proportion of "bloody awful" choices to learn to avoid, more confusion for newer players, generally inferior documentation, and longer and more uncertain development timetables.

On the subject of limiting choice, I think that Prestige Enhancements should be ... Prestigious, meaning there should be tradeoffs associated with selecting one. If "prestige" implies some level of focus, then it would seem borderline inappropriate to have three "prestige" enhancements on a single character, and even two seems a bit dubious.

Yes, this is all true. Too few limits, and the OP combos become obvious. Too many limits, and our choices of builds is too small. Either way, the set of viable builds is small.

But my concern is that the new system, as proposed, is significantly more restrictive than the current system, while also introducing a hugely powerful build option, that seems likely to enforce obvious race/class combos. Essentially, I think it will both restrict our choice of builds, and also make certain builds excessively powerful.

[dkyle]

Monk is a great example.

Fire = Raw Damage
Wind = Faster Attacks
Earth = Tougher
Water = Better Saves, AC

Monks are a great example in theory, but in practice, the execution is a little off.

Fire is lousy for raw damage, unless you need the extra to-hit. The big feature is the Ki gen, so it's really more of a "special attacks" support stance, but one that actually reduces a lot of DCs. It's a weird one. And there's readily available gear that renders the extra ki largely pointless. I used to use Fire stance most of the time, but now there's not much point. The biggest advantage is probably the healing amp from Jidz-tet'ka.

Wind is the damage vs. high fortification stance. Also nice for soloing, with the built-in haste.

Earth is the damage vs. low fortification stance (at III or IV), plus tanking. It really shouldn't be both, but the fact is, in most important situations in the game, Earth is the best DPS stance. The biggest downside is the threat amp, which mean going to Wind if you're not tanking.

Water is pretty much what it's intended to be.

[Grailhawk]

DPS isn't the only factor considered when balancing (or even necessarily the most important one)! On that we agree.

I really wish that was true but its not.

Sadly the game like all other mmo's breaks down to Tank, DPS, and Healer as the only meaningful roles. If one person has agro (the tank), one person is keeping him alive and another is keeping the rest of the party alive (2 healers), then 2 other are doing quest specific duties (eg. dog, or orthon kitting), that leaves 7 others who's only role in the group is to do damage. If the the classes that are relegated to that role do not statistically have the same potential then you create a situation (like the one we have now) where some people are are not allowed into the groups they want to join because they choose to be a less optimal class for the role they have.

When it comes to the other things that classes bring to the table these need to be looked at separate from DPS, Tanking, and Healing potential. Basically the fact that that a Ranger can heal it self in a pinch and a Barbarian can not is should not mean that a Barbarian should do more damage than a Ranger that's not balanceing the two classes.

What it means to balance the two classes is that a Barbarian can use stunning blow (or some special Barbarian tactical move that he bought with AP much like the Ranger bought Devotion to get a meaning full self heal) and get a DC that will practically no fail and a Ranger can not.

Also to stem of the tide of people who might thing I'm trying to say that each class should be forced into a role I feel I need to say that I'm not doing that. If a Paladin can choose between being a Tank, DPS, or a Healer that's fine. What I'm saying is that after choosing his role he should be able to be as good a Tank as a fighter, or as good a DPS as a Barbarian, or as good a Healer as a Cleric.

[voodoogroves]

The only one that is really lacking is water otherwise there's plenety of reasons to go Fire Earth or Water.
WIS monks may certainly use it. I also toggle it on for my archer monk and on monk-splashes that need a bit more to hit the save targets ahead.

If they can make it so Showtime (Acro), Haste Stance(Rogue,Fighter), Power Surge(Kensai), Frenzy(Frenzy Barb), Skillful(Mech), Defensive (Stalwart or DoS), Anti-Magic (O-Slayer),Any one of the Monk Stances,etc. all have their uses than it will be amazing.
They don't all need to stack, but we could have something crazy like ...

- One elemental (monk)
- One martial (stalwart, kensai, acro, etc.)
- One mental (mech, frenzy, dance of the water spider, etc.)
- One magical (occult slayer, bladesworn, shadow fade)
- One physical form (Lich, Wraith, vampire, beast, savant)
- etc.

Plus some boosts (Manyshot, rages, other boosts) and toggles (PA, CE, etc.)

[Failedlegend]

I'd be more in favor of dropping boosts and replacing them with stances. First it would probably make it ALOT easier to keep insane stacking from happening.

If they can make it so Showtime (Acro), Haste Stance(Rogue,Fighter), Power Surge(Kensai), Frenzy(Frenzy Barb), Skillful(Mech), Defensive (Stalwart or DoS), Anti-Magic (O-Slayer),Any one of the Monk Stances,etc. all have their uses than it will be amazing.



They don't all need to stack, but we could have something crazy like ...

- One elemental (monk)
- One martial (stalwart, kensai, acro, etc.)
- One mental (mech, frenzy, dance of the water spider, etc.)
- One magical (occult slayer, bladesworn, shadow fade)
- One physical form (Lich, Wraith, vampire, beast, savant)
- etc.

Plus some boosts (Manyshot, rages, other boosts) and toggles (PA, CE, etc.)

Thanks Voodoo I was racking my brain on a way to explain that



So, I'd suggest the following:

* Arcane Archer becomes a Racial PrE, which can be unlocked by Rangers as an additional PrE tree (as I suggested previously). All Rangers get "Beastmaster" in its place. Favored enemy, healing, woodsy magic, and animal companion support go in here. I think Elf should get AA (Along with Bladesinger) and H-Elf should get a different Magically oriented Ranged PrE (Along with Class PrEs based on Dilly)...also definately in favor of "Beastmaster" than let DWS become the rangers de facto ranged PrE


IMHO opinion each Class should have thus the utility PrE, the powerhouse and Wild Card.

Powerhouse: This one is just your straight up kill things PrE ie.Assassin, Kensai, Tempest
Utility: This one has all your extra gadgets and gizmos that may or may not make you a killer ie.Mechanic, Purple Dragon Knight, Beastmaster
Wild Card: This ones is the one that doesn't really fit in the other two categories but still holds its own ie. Acrobat, Stalwart, Deepwood Sniper

* Pale Master is a bit questionable to me, since the big feature of it is turning yourself undead, and that doesn't seem like something you "dabble" in, or that is somehow core to all Wizards. But I think it's too iconic in DDO to rename. On this I really hope that with the larger selection of availible enhancements focused solely on the PrE can help reflect this better...another reason to keep "Core" enhancements in separate Tab


Couple comments in orange.

Anyways I don't think you need to go around changing the names I honestly think we just need a General Tab...it could even get a separate points system..I mentioned it earlier


changing APs to CAPs, SAPs, and/or RAPs (class APs, Skill APs, and Race APs) that can only be spent in those trees?




While I scoffed at the idea of arbitrarily doubling or tripling the amount AP we gain. This idea...at least its general premise might actually work. Hear me out...there's lots of people arguing that "core" enhancements do not belong in PrE Trees and should put into a general Tab (Which I agree to)...the only problem being they either won't be contributing to getting any PrE Benefits seeing as those require X amount of AP to be spent in that tree or they would need to setup so complicated way to "Siphon" those points into a chosen PrE.

This is where your idea comes in...since the hope is that each PrE will have about 60AP in each (based on community response NO dev has said this) we'll already have plenty to spend our 80AP on and I think that should stay that way BUT what if for every AP you obtain you also get a GP (General Point) which can be spent in the "General Tab" this all but eliminates the issue of "Wasting" AP in General enhancements without upsetting the balance of the 5/10/15/20/25/30/41 break points. To prevent horrific stacking these would be general enhancements (can also combine some less useful ones) like this:

Heightened Intelligence (instead of Wizard, Arty,etc. intelligence)
Haste Boost (Instead of Rogue,Fighter,etc.)
Incredible Strength (instead of Fighter,etc.)
Sneaky (Hide+MS)
Influential (Diplomacy+Bluff+Intimidate+Haggle)
Observant (Listen+Spot+Search)
Finesse (Disable Device+Open Lock)
Acrobatic (Swim+Jump+Tumble+Balance)
Steadfast (Heal+Concentration+Repair)
Talented (Perform+UMD)


An interesting thing they could do with this is say I'm a 13Rogue/6Fighter/1Ranger for Haste Boost I should be considered a Lvl 20 Character (since Rogue & Fighter have Haste Boost and apprently rangers are getting it too) but a Lvl 13Rogue/6Paladin/1Fighter would only be considered a Lvl 14 Character for the purpose of any level gating on Haste Boost...is this possible devs? I not what you'd call a programmer :P

Sidenote: Why are they called AP...Action Points? doesn't really make any sense..how about SP..Specialization Points..I dunno

[Cyr]

DPS isn't the only factor considered when balancing (or even necessarily the most important one)! On that we agree.


DPS is not the only factor for sure, but I would be fascinated to hear what you think is a more important one when looking at PrE tree balance.

[Desonde]

DPS isn't the only factor considered when balancing (or even necessarily the most important one)! On that we agree.


Of course! The goal isn't in any way to make classes similar. The varying strengths and weaknesses between characters is one of the best parts of DDO (and D&D).


When we talk about balancing classes in general, we mean neither purely DPS balancing, and definitely not making sure that everyone can do everything equally, which would be quite boring. Part of balancing is making sure classes and PREs are different. That's part of how those things factor in, but those are not our singular goals when balancing.

DPS is important to consider at times, and matters quite a lot when balancing PREs that are intended primarily to be DPS, while at the same time their DPS against content also matters. But most builds, characters or players don't intend to be solely focused on DPS. Many build options are mixes of DPS and other benefits. Clerics have obvious value other than DPS, as do any tank builds. Rogues can do significant DPS at times, but are sometimes valued for their mad skills more than mad DPS.


This gets at the idea.

Even just ensuring each class and PRE has different fun things to do is a form of balance, and a difficult one since different things are fun to different players. All the more reason to embrace differences!

That's a great idea and all, but unfortunately that only works if the focus isn't lost after layer after layer of rebalancing. Once that happens the mutations of the balancing create a massive imbalance within the entire system.

Players can get 1000hp? Make the monsters do 100dmg a hit instead of 20.
Players can hit for 1000dmg? Give monsters 20,000hp. 5 players can hit for 5000dmg? Give monsters 120,000hp.
Players can get 100 AC? Give monsters 120 attack bonus.

By balancing the scale for the extreme, everything just sits on the floor. Yes some players can get 1000+ hp, but if you don't actually gear/build for hp as a major focus you end up with 200-300hp, just look at your hirelings (that's 2-3 hits from a fairly strong monster, or 4-6 from an average monster).

Just like having some characters doing 100dmg a hit while the average is 25 isn't a big deal, but having the game balanced for those that can do 1200 a hit while the average is 35 (50 for none dps focused classes with dps focus) suddenly it's a big deal.

With the huge monster dps/hp it requires that players have an hp/dps focus and it requires healing classes that need to focus on healing, and it requires that players have enough hp for the healers to be able to actually have time to heal the damage.

I've seen healers able to fight in melee and keep the party up in epic quests... with Red Dragon Scale armor and Epic SoS, but those players are exceptionally talented and cannot be used to gauge the system (I couldn't do it). Just as I can run a rogue through the shroud with 120hp and not die (without piking), just because some exceptional players are able to doesn't mean the whole community can. However, once you balance it to the exceptional cases, you start tight casting things that players must have.

Sure I can disable any and every trap you place without fail, but they can be avoided, sacrificed to for passage, or just simply ignored. What can't be avoided is the long chipping away and massive slug fest (which is going to get worse as you allow monsters to bypass fort).

The game doesn't need to be 500 for class a, 500 for class b, 500 for class c, but it cannot be 5 for class a, 1470 for class b, and 25 for class c.

Also, with the comment to tanking, it is required that dps is the focus in addition to threat generation. The real challenge comes down to having a quest that requires a rogue with enough skills to clear the environment of dangers, enough encounters to be bypassed by the bardic knowledge, a cleric that could provide support and keep the team alive, a barb that can kill things, a fighter that can tank, and a caster that can provide crowd control to keep things in check so the players don't get overwhelmed. Yes that's ideal, but unfortunately you slap down someone that requires 3 barbs, 2 nukers and 1 cleric to survive, suddenly balance is all about dps/hp.

[Angelus_dead]

Rogues can do significant DPS at times, but are sometimes valued for their mad skills more than mad DPS.
I hope you don't make the mistake of thinking that a Rogue's skill list can counterbalance detectably lower DPS. Quite a few noob players think that way, but they're wrong: traps, locks, and sneaking aren't a big part of important gameplay.

A potentially valid reason for a Rogue to have lower DPS would be if they had superior defenses, such as if Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, and Defensive Roll were more important than they are. But their hp and other shortcomings mean that Rogues are on the low side of survivability throughout typical combats.

[Angelus_dead]

Just like having some characters doing 100dmg a hit while the average is 25 isn't a big deal
It's interesting that you say it might not be "a big deal" for some characters to have +300% more damage than average ones. Typical multiplayer conventional wisdom is that a +10% damage disparity is the most that can be tolerated before steps have to be taken, although that's based a lot on how most games make DPS more important than it is in DDO.

[sephiroth1084]

I hope you don't make the mistake of thinking that a Rogue's skill list can counterbalance detectably lower DPS. Quite a few noob players think that way, but they're wrong: traps, locks, and sneaking aren't a big part of important gameplay.

I feel like this is how the (old) devs attempted to balance undead-heavy content. They knew rogues were going to perform poorly in those quests, so they loaded them with traps, thinking that the pull to have a rogue along would counterbalance the rogues doing pitiful DPS in those quests.

What actually happens is:


Groups sit around waiting for a rogue for some period of time, don't find one and give up, moving onto another quest or breaking up.
Groups sit around waiting for a rogue, resenting the necessity, eventually get one and head into the quest with, likely, one rather weak contributor.
Groups go in without a rogue and just avoid the traps.
Rogues feel like they are useful because they are disabling traps, though half the time they are doing so merely for the XP bonus, as groups blow through them.
Rogues feel like they are under-performing, but go along anyway, because they want the XP/favor/loot in the particular quest, or are helping out a friend/guildy.
Rogues realize that they aren't going to really enjoy spending the majority of the quest feeling like a 5th wheel, and opt to simply skip as much of that content as they can.

Now, I actually enjoy disabling traps on my rogue, but doing so doesn't counter how miserable it can be to be a rogue in a quest where everything is immune to sneak attack, and my rogue has been pretty well-geared with Greater Undead Bane and Disruption weapons. She generally avoided almost every quest that featured undead heavily while leveling.

[lppmor]

Since the devs cared to create this thread to ask for suggestions, and I like to pretend I'm a game designer, so here comes my suggestion regarding the Wizard class. As MadFloyd said already, things are not simple and there are many factors to consider. I don't even have time to consider them all, so this is just more of less how I'm seeing the class with the new enhancement design. Hope you guys understand it. Ap spent in any tree (inside the class) is considered globally for requisites in any of the trees.

http://my.ddo.com/lppmor/wp-content/blogs.dir/77759/files/my-gallery/wizard.png


I just used the current enhancements we have today. The creation of new enhancements will probably become necessary to fit a few gaps in some trees. Also, I don't know what the devs have in mind for the Wild Mage line..

EDIT: This is an example of design considering the trees as 'class trees', not 'prestige trees'. What I mean by that is each tree do not contain only enhancements related to the associated prestige, it instead contains enhancements related to the class as a whole. And prestiges will be nothing more than the consequences of your choices in your class. Something like: "You decided to train your Wizard with cold, fire and some undead summons? Congratulations, you are now an adept Pale Master".
.

[Thrudh]

if the other "stuff" a class bring to the game is not relevant in ALL LEVELS OF CONTENT then DPS is what matters most by far.

Silver Flame pots break the game as barbs/fighters can heal as effectively as pallies/rangers and have better HP, to-hit, and much better DPS.

AC is useless in epics.

Buffs? You gotta be kidding me.

Either fix your game so epic isn't the Special Olympics of DDO or fix the classes. I'd prefer the former.

I have to agree with this...

Looking at melee

Barbarians and Kensai fighters should do more straight-up DPS than anyone...
Rogues can do even more DPS than barbarians and fighters, but only if they don't have aggro...
Rangers and paladins and monks should do less DPS, but should have self-healing, and/or evasion, and/or special attacks, and/or special buffs, etc.

In general, you guys have done a good job balancing the classes...

But one real problem is that you guys have too many magic items that replicate ranger/paladin/monk abilities...

Silver flame pots means you can do full DPS as a barbarian, AND get the self-healing of a paladin or ranger. That's a design flaw.

And AC needs to be useful in epics. If there's zero benefit to AC in epics, then full-****** DPS is the obvious path to take.

More viable choices is always better.

[Failedlegend]

Since the devs cared to create this thread to ask for suggestions, and I like to pretend I'm a game designer, so here comes my suggestion regarding the Wizard class. As MadFloyd said already, things are not simple and there are many factors to consider. I don't even have time to consider them all, so this is just more of less how I'm seeing the class with the new enhancement design. Hope you guys understand it. Ap spent in any tree (inside the class) is considered globally for requisites in any of the trees.

http://my.ddo.com/lppmor/wp-content/blogs.dir/77759/files/my-gallery/wizard.png


I just used the current enhancements we have today. The creation of new enhancements will probably become necessary to fit a few gaps in some trees. Also, I don't know what the devs have in mind for the Wild Mage line..

Thanks Ippmor thats a great demonstration of why "Core" enhancements should NOT be in the PrE Trees..it will make them feel FAR to generic and instead of being Wild Mage, PM and AM..they become Fire/Frost, Force and Acid/Storm which also bring up the how do you determine which PrE gets which element

Again I say the easiest solution is a "General" Tab which gets its own point system..than ANY enhancements in the PrE trees are directly related to them.