Let's Talk: Enhancements!

[kingfisher]

Eladrin stated he was currently thinking that fighter toughness and barb toughness would stack. Hence all the stacking fears. Toughness alone - racial +3 lines would mean 1 toughness feat would result in...182 hp for 1 feat. 80 more than now.

Most people are arguing that no same type bonuses should be changed to start stacking under the new system. Some are not and think it is all good - not understanding what stacking will do to the game.

The only fair and meaningful way to balance it is to not limit things to three arbitrary trees - AND same type enhancements do not stack. You can access multiple lines - but you dont get to add four types of stat bonuses, four types of toughness bonuses, four types of whatever else will be in there.

Take str in the kensai line? great - you still get to take stuff to put into the SD line - just something other than strength. Nothing locked out, but nothing stacking.

Many ways to get somewhere is good, many ways to stack things is not, and locking stuff out means only a few ways to get anywhere. Also bad.

10 trees? So you need a scroll bar on the UI - so what. Vastly limiting options to make the UI fit on one page is not a good idea at all. You cannot get tier 3 in 10 lines unless suddenly we get 160 more AP to play with.

Seven tier 1 lines? As long as same type bonuses do not stack - AND tier 3 is offering a extra boost over lower lines - a pure class should still be powerful, a wide multiclass will be useful in many ways - but the points should be valuable and roughly equal whether they are focused or spread out.

Balancing and making all enhancements useful is the challenge for Turbine - not limiting the UI. Balanced enhancements means all the fears people have about uber multis running around go away.

this is my point. and why the heck would they even think about hamstringing multi's as a method to avoid stacking? thats dumb and completely against the 'more choices' statement from MF.

you have it right: trees should only be limited by the classes you take and defend against silly stacking by limiting any build to one line of the same 'type'

[Aashrym]

I think he's looking at total costs. There are clearly 160+pts worth of enhancements on a 4tab system. You only get 80 pts.

The pure guy needs "points in tab" to get the bonuses (and maybe even access to the upper tiers of enhancements). I'm not going to be able to get full benefit from all 3 tabs even if I ditch racial stuff (unlikely).

He's arguing that the "APs in tab" restriction will result in a situation where the pure classes are not getting a significant advantage in "depth".

Those upper rows might be things like "Supreme cleave", which you need cleave feat and 30pts in tab to get. So you aren't getting that if you are primarily spending points on ravager instead of FB. There wouldn't be the points.

If that's true (don't know until we see more), then swapping tabs is not the degree of disadvantage that you envision.

This is a nice summary. I base that on the (tier lvl - 1)*5 formula for spend requirements to unlock the higher tiers.

[Chai]

I am always suspicious when the devs post something like this thread because it usually means that this is already basically set in stone and the best we can hope to do is get altered some of the details. I really like all the prestige enhancement that will be put out in game and that the UI will be more clear, but coming at a potential cost of character flexibility really dampers things.

We have seen that many times before. Cough U5 cough....


All bards will basically have to be pure or with perhaps 2 rogue level splash unless they just are song and melee bards which will also weaken the class. As others have pointed out this will weaken alot of builds for e.g. tank build options will probalby be hurt because they will have to forgo an offensive tree if they splash to heavily into multiple trees. I have a 13 rogue 6 paladin 1 monk halfling ac tank which I anticipate will be a mess and quite possibly unworkable. Just taking the 1 level of fighter or barb or whatever for haste boost will be weakened..

Yeap. If I have an 18/2 bard and want the to-hit and damage songs from warchanter, then also want the scroll mastery from spellsinger, then want fighter toughness 1, strength 1, and haste boost 1, I just gobbled up three trees. Getting song of the dead would be impossible at that point, simply due to some arbitrary UI limitation.

This is a simple 2 level splash in one other class I am referring to. Your 13/6/1 is screwed if this is the case, as is the 12/6/2 helves angels, and blizt builds. All they need now is a soundbyte that says "not enough rage" each time we try to use an ability thats on cooldown, to top it off. :p

Arbitrary game mechanic is arbitrary.

[Artos_Fabril]

I can only see a small gain for the losses on pure builds with additional PrE benefits while potentially losing higher enhancements on my existing pure classes.
What higher enhancements do you anticipate losing on your pure builds? The only significant one that i can see is losing the Deadly Shadows capstone on non-assassins, but are there any pure rogues currently who are not assassins? If so, the ability to be a 41 point assassin with 3 tiers of their currently tier 2 PrE is a strict increase in power.

[Aashrym]

We do not know what will be in those lines, we do not know if there will be duplicates, we do not know if str 1/2/3/4 in each line locks them out, or you can take all 3 lines, or you can apply str to be in any of the 3 lines.

Other than a couple Tempest teasings we have no idea what any of the enhancements will be yet or function like yet. A mockup is not a live release.

And that doesn't change the how the mechanic of it works. We do know that there is a minimum cost on each tier in a tree to be spent in that tree for the unlock. Regardless of what those enhancements are we know they are going to be locked out.

What I've been saying is there is no effective difference between locking out the tiers by AP restrictions spent or the character level on the tree. It's locked out either way.

That leaves pure classes and multi classes in a similar situation.

I want to know what is on those trees but the mechanics of it ends up the same.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

this is my point. and why the heck would they even think about hamstringing multi's as a method to avoid stacking? thats dumb and completely against the 'more choices' statement from MF.

you have it right: trees should only be limited by the classes you take and defend against silly stacking by limiting any build to one line of the same 'type'

You and Riggs assume way too much. They might allow greater access to another tree based on what you choose in another tree. That would in many cases invalidate your assumptions that having 3 trees are not enough. I see this new plan as being quite modular, much more (potentially) then the one we have now.

I am a purist. I love pure builds but believe they have been too weak for too long. They ARE supposed to be the undisputed masters of their class. Period. We've had too many ways to make mixed class builds way more powerful then the pures. That severely limited options because everyone wanted to build "a monster" "an exploiter" etc etc. What true variety is there in that?

By opening up many options, and sedating the extremes of the multi-class builds, there will simply be advantages to going pure and advantages to going multi. Not as many will be ridiculously overpowered. MANY more builds that can fill more roles will spread throughout the game...

I see this as being much more fair to the largest majority. I know I can live within those means, and build a HELL of a fun and kick ass multi-class toon in the process.

[Aashrym]

limiting all characters to 3 trees is not 'more choices'. period. this is not a vitrue. what virtue's of the 3 tree deal are you talking about? all i see are flaws.

i cant tell you what page, sry, but i know a dev was talking about enhancements being grayed out of the trees under the new system. the mechanic will still be used.

It's the same number of choice left to the pure class. 3 Trees to develop with the points available and the option for a full one. Having more trees to select from picking those 3 trees is where the advantage is. We just don't know yet if that will be a big advantage or a small advantage or unrealistic as an advantage without filling out the trees to see what is available.

[kingfisher]

Ummm, everyone gets 80 points, 3 trees, and capstone, and an equal number of choices. Everyone locks things out based on those choices.

How is that not fair?

A pure class gets no benefit that a multiclass does not unless we look at the 2 tier III PrE concept and assume that it is going to be better than a tier III/tierII/tierI without even knowing what is in those tiers or that it will be better.

Looking at the number of points and trees and knowing that multiclasses get more choices in their trees from which to choose and end up with the same number of trees and same ability to focus on one tree while fleshing it out with advantages from the others. With more options on deciding what advantages will be available to flesh it out compared to a pure class ability to use only the trees provided.

The process itself looks completely fair. The concern is what existing builds will lose access to that the players want to keep and that hits pure classes and multiclasses.

I can see why that concern would be present (it's an obvious concern for affected players and easy to acknowledge) but I think the potential gain could be more than the loss in some multiclass builds. I can only see a small gain for the losses on pure builds with additional PrE benefits while potentially losing higher enhancements on my existing pure classes.

no not everyone gets an equal number of choices. a pure gets 3 choices yes. a multi has bought and paid for more choice by taking levels in those classes. they already gave up the upper LEVELS of their primary class, why should they have to give up the lower tier ENHANCEMENTS as well? you say a pure gets no benefit a multi does not? they ONLY have 3 trees to choose from so the 3 tree system benefits them where as the multi has more trees to choose from and is LIMITED to 3 trees, which is not a benefit.

the 80 ap's should limit what you do, not some lame ass wowified arbitrary 3 tree limit.

[Aashrym]

The point dkyle is making is being missed.

Now: you voluntarily limit yourself from higher level tiers/enhancements by the levels of class you take. You get 12 levels of something, you can access 12 levels of abilities, ALL abilities, including ALL enhancements.

Projected: IF taking one line locks out other lines, then 12 levels of something not only limits you to 12 levels of enhancements, it will ALSO limit you to ONE line of enhancements out of THREE.

One way you get everything up to level 12, the other you get 33% of everything up to level 12, 33% of whatever class you took to level 6, and 33% of whatever level 2 splash you have.

One is significantly more limiting than the other - if people all jump on board the 'three trees only' bandwagon and 'every enhancement is ONLY in one of 3 trees.

No comparisons can be made to current prestige lines - because while you can only take 1 per class - they are a set cost only for 1 tier - all the enhancements leading up to it are open, and stay open regardless of what line you take. Warchanter could still take Virtuoso prereq enhancements if they want NOW, they WONT under the new system as people are outlining it.

The point isn't being missed. There is a trade in for that where the lower level options are going to be replaces with access to higher level options including a capstone.

Once a person takes that capstone the AP cost per tier in each tree limits depth up the trees anyway. I have no trouble seeing Dkyle's point. I don't think think the loss is as concerning looking at the potential gain.

[kingfisher]

You keep pushing this out there, in the initial stage (if not before the initial stage.. its just a 1st draft mockup), without having a CLUE whats contained in those trees.

Its not an argument you can substantiate at this point.

We need more info... and that may take a while.

I DO believe Turbine is learning just as much from our assumptions than they are from some of the great ideas I've read about in here thus far! ;)

you have been here too long to be this foolish. if turbine is putting it out here its almost done or already done. they are about to completely bork 9/10 multi's. people are concerned about this, and you should be too. do you use fighter haste boost or enjoy an extra rage on yout mulit bard? well going forwardf you will ahve to give up an entire bard tree, no make that 2 entire bard trees just to do so.

[kingfisher]

It's the same number of choice left to the pure class. 3 Trees to develop with the points available and the option for a full one. Having more trees to select from picking those 3 trees is where the advantage is. We just don't know yet if that will be a big advantage or a small advantage or unrealistic as an advantage without filling out the trees to see what is available.

unless all of the basic class enhancements are in every PRE tree this will hurt mulit's. period.

[kingfisher]

I am a purist. I love pure builds but believe they have been too weak for too long. They ARE supposed to be the undisputed masters of their class. Period. We've had too many ways to make mixed class builds way more powerful then the pures. That severely limited options because everyone wanted to build "a monster" "an exploiter" etc etc. What true variety is there in that?

By opening up many options, and sedating the extremes of the multi-class builds, there will simply be advantages to going pure and advantages to going multi. Not as many will be ridiculously overpowered. MANY more builds that can fill more roles will spread throughout the game...


if this is intended to be a nerf to multi-class builds, then they need to say so. this is what you are describing.

[maddmatt70]

This is a simple 2 level splash in one other class I am referring to. Your 13/6/1 is screwed if this is the case, as is the 12/6/2 helves angels, and blizt builds. All they need now is a soundbyte that says "not enough rage" each time we try to use an ability thats on cooldown, to top it off. :p

Arbitrary game mechanic is arbitrary.

This will vary from build to build when it comes to offensive builds. A helves angel might be o.k. although certainly will be squishier because it will probably not have any toughness enhancements among other things. The blitz on the other could be in trouble because of the barbarian rage length enhancements although perhaps you could go with H-Orc Ravager Tree, Frenzied Berserker Tree, Kensai Tree, etc. Its builds that are defensive in nature and want to still do some dps that multi-class which will be hit hardest that and classes like bard and artificers that often are best if they are capable of providing several different functions in a party.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

you have been here too long to be this foolish. if turbine is putting it out here its almost done or already done. they are about to completely bork 9/10 multi's. people are concerned about this, and you should be too. do you use fighter haste boost or enjoy an extra rage on yout mulit bard? well going forwardf you will ahve to give up an entire bard tree, no make that 2 entire bard trees just to do so.

No, in fact Im not anywhere NEAR being concerned. I plan my builds very carefully. I will be able to build effectively in the new system. Game mechanics arent changing as much as the names of the walls. At the end of the day, this will improve game balance and provide more options.

Do I think this will bork 90% of mixed class builds? LOL Now I know you are chasing ghosts! :) To repeat, no it simply will not break 90% of mixed class builds. Why? Because whatever they change will be universal. You gonna get a heart attack before they finish this update man!! ;)

[Aashrym]

Another example.

you have a 12/6/2.

You decide you DO want to take multiple lines from the 12 fighter. Weapon focus, AND some kind of shield thingy, AND something from whatever the 3rd line will be.

NOW because of the 3 tree lockout thing - you can take NOTHING from any of the 6 ranger or 2 rogue enhancement lines.

Not ONE thing.

Anyone that doesnt think that is more limiting than now is utterly missing what they are arguing for.

You have the class benefits from 6 ranger and 2 rogue still, and made a choice for the 3 fighter lines because you thought they were better. Taking 3 tier II fighter lines and filling out the enhancements plus race doesn't leave a lot for ranger points or rogue points anyway.

You would have taken those fighter enhancement because you thought they were better.

But under the new system you could take tempest III line from drow on the build, kensei II, and still have room to select one more ranger, fighter, or rogue tree to flesh out your build with any left over points.

Under the old system you could take kensei II and tempest I. That is jump from Tempest I to Tempest III in your design options. You could take tempest capstone, kensei II, and have a paltry number of enhancements left over as well. That looks better.

[Riggs]

With all the enhancements out there, and whatever new ones get added - it seems too much for a 'tree' to hold.

Ideally;

one side, or bottom whatever - is what you have, at the top of that list also lists whatever prestige tiers you have, with a mouse over showing what the bonus is and requirements.

other side - you have 'the pool'. Every possible enhancement broken down by class, and sure maybe broken further into 'trees'.

In the middle is the 'crafting altar'. A place for you to drag and put enhancements into. this spot would function like a crafting altar - you put an enhancement into it - it shows what prestige lines, if any, it qualifies for - then you click on what prestige line - from among the 3-10 possible based on race/classes you have - and pop it goes in.

At the top where it lists your prestige lines (or the other side whatever), the points in whatever you picked goes up. once you hit a benchmark, whether its 3/5/10 or whatever - the bonus shows beside it once you reach it.

Next - you pick another enhancement, maybe its the +2 version of what you just picked - again plop it into the altar - you can choose to have it apply to the same prestige line, or a different one.

And so on.

it is a bit messier than a tree - but the focus should be on what is good for the game, and gives the most flexibility - not what fits onto a 1 page tree.

[kingfisher]

Because whatever they change will be universal.

universal except that now you cant take all the enhancements your class selection entitles you too. which is unfair.

also not saying that multi-class builds will not work, but they will be LESS than what they are today. which is a nerf. if that is their intention so be it. just say so.

no doom here man, just hate it when they dont call it like it is. like how the nerf to twf was to fix lag. lol

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

if this is intended to be a nerf to multi-class builds, then they need to say so. this is what you are describing.

No this might be a nerf to the EXTREME multi class builds, and bring more of the game into balance. Everyone will still be able to build dominating and/or diverse builds.

At the end of the day, good player skill will rule supreme, not the math of the builders who tried to "exploit" the UI of the past. What I see is more people be able to compete at higher levels of the game. I dont see this as really affecting the "great player" at all (and he/she will always be able to lead and conquer).

[kingfisher]

You have the class benefits from 6 ranger and 2 rogue still, and made a choice for the 3 fighter lines because you thought they were better. Taking 3 tier II fighter lines and filling out the enhancements plus race doesn't leave a lot for ranger points or rogue points anyway.

You would have taken those fighter enhancement because you thought they were better.

But under the new system you could take tempest III line from drow on the build, kensei II, and still have room to select one more ranger, fighter, or rogue tree to flesh out your build with any left over points.

Under the old system you could take kensei II and tempest I. That is jump from Tempest I to Tempest III in your design options. You could take tempest capstone, kensei II, and have a paltry number of enhancements left over as well. That looks better.

only if your a drow lol, what if your a dwarf?

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

universal except that now you cant take all the enhancements your class selection entitles you too. which is unfair.

also not saying that multi-class builds will not work, but they will be LESS than what they are today. which is a nerf. if that is their intention so be it. just say so.

no doom here man, just hate it when they dont call it like it is. like how the nerf to twf was to fix lag. lol

It is NOT a nerf to multi class builds! It may put some of the unintended perks that the master multiclass-build engineers found with the current UI in check, that is all. Many more effective multi class builds will prosper post-fix. You watch.

[Riggs]

Every single character can have a full PrE line. How can you not see that as a glaring advantage over not having access to a full PrE line for multiclassed characters like we currently have?

Except for Eladrin saying that they might reduce that to a level bonus, so there will be no more 'racial capstone' unless you are also taking at least 12 levels in the favored class - which is as it should be.

They have already backed away from races getting automatic tier 3/capstones. So arguing that it is a benefit is not going to help.

[slimkj]

Just taking the 1 level of fighter or barb or whatever for haste boost will be weakened..
Whilst I'm with you and others on the three tree limit being unnecessary and artificial, if you think about the world of melee (let's forget casters exist and work in this subset for a minute), that splash is comparatively way too good compared to anything else. Haste Boost for 1 lvl of Fighter or Rogue is better imo than almost any other splash.

Back in the big picture again, melee need a boost, so perhaps other single splashes could be beefed a bit rather than this approach reduced. Hoping the tree limit doesn't stay as, as others have demonstrated clearly with examples, that kinda ruins any chance of that.

Still prefer the idea of up to three generic, class-based trees in addition, to house stuff that doesn't sit comfortably in a PrE. I think repetition of cross-PrE enhancements across all three in every class would be way too clunky and unnecessarily busy on the eye.

[kingfisher]

No this might be a nerf to the EXTREME multi class builds, and bring more of the game into balance. Everyone will still be able to build dominating and/or diverse builds.



If is NOT a nerf to multi class builds! It mayput some of the unintended perks that the master multiclass-build engineers found with the current UI in check, that is all. Many more effective multi class builds will prosper post-fix. You watch.

which is it dude?

[Riggs]

As far as worrying about what we are limited to and what enhancements you can't access with 3 trees that is a fair point to worry about, but not something you can say is definitively broken until you have seen how the enhancements are implemented. The details are absolutely critical.

Once again to anyone worried about multiclassing, if you have already posted about it your voices are almost certainly noted. There is however no reason to repeat over and over again that it isn't fair, you can't say that without details of the enhancements.

yes the details are critical - and as someone else said - usually by the time we even start getting hints about what a new thing is going to be - 95% of it is set in stone already. This has happened regularly.

People that are continuing to protest about multiclassing getting totally shafted also know that Turbine listens to the amount of what people say. If someone says something once and drops it - and the people who also keep posting over and over again saying that restricting options and gimping multiclasses is a good thing just keep posting - Turbine is going to look over the thread and see that 90% of the people support restrictions - and boom its done.

As long as people keep promoting totally unneeded restrictions - expect more posts.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

which is it dude?

Do you not really understand the difference? To me its a fair trade if I see many more people who couldn't use the current UI very effectively, running around with more effective and versatile toons.

Am I going to worry about losing 1 or 2 aspects of any of my multis, no. Why? Because my mutlitis dont have finished PrEs (nobody does) so I'm going to most likely be gaining something right back. I may find out going with a different split makes more sense. Im happier because I know no one will be able to build a bigger Superman than me.

Im simply not worried.

[Riggs]

The point isn't being missed. There is a trade in for that where the lower level options are going to be replaces with access to higher level options including a capstone.

Once a person takes that capstone the AP cost per tier in each tree limits depth up the trees anyway. I have no trouble seeing Dkyle's point. I don't think think the loss is as concerning looking at the potential gain.

Yeah - it really is.
You think 33% of a class is the same as a class. There really isnt any getting around that lack of understanding it seems.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

95% of it is set in stone already.


It does mean that when this goes live, all of you will have your enhancements reset and you will have to re-spend your action points. Some enhancements will remain the same, but many will be new. The changed enhancements will also help balance out many classes (think augmentation here, not nerfs). I appreciate that forced change can be very stressful and realize that this will be major inconvenience for those who don’t enjoy having to make a ton of decisions – especially when there are ‘new’ enhancements to digest, but have no doubt it will be worth it in the end.

That placated me from the start.

They are nowhere near completing this. Its already been said we wont get this till mid summer. Thats probably when it hits lama. They've got a loooong way to go.

[Riggs]

And that doesn't change the how the mechanic of it works. We do know that there is a minimum cost on each tier in a tree to be spent in that tree for the unlock. Regardless of what those enhancements are we know they are going to be locked out.

What I've been saying is there is no effective difference between locking out the tiers by AP restrictions spent or the character level on the tree. It's locked out either way.

That leaves pure classes and multi classes in a similar situation.

I want to know what is on those trees but the mechanics of it ends up the same.

Really? you sit down in the Turbine meetings too? You meet Eladrin for lunch and know everything on how the new system works while everyone else doesnt?

No effective difference? it is a massive difference between; I can choose to spend points on three things, but only have points for two things, vs once I choose to spend points on one thing, two other things I am never allowed to spend points on again.

The fact that you do not see how big of a difference that is doesnt change the fact that it is a massive difference. Rain falls outside whether you are looking out the window or not.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

You meet Eladrin for lunch and know everything on how the new system works while everyone else doesnt?

What is the point to a comment like this? The current UI is a dead horse. We've done EVERYTHING WE COULD TO IT already, many times over. Lets be honest, there were no new ideas coming out.

More PrEs -- More Enhancements -- mean more options to more people.

I'm anticipating the changes. Im ready for them tomorrow :)

[kingfisher]

Do you not really understand the difference? To me its a fair trade if I see many more who people couldn't use the current UI very effectively running around with more effective and versatile toons.

Im happier because I know no one will be able to build a bigger Superman than me.


yes i do, do you? its a nerf, if they limit your trees. period. like you said. lol

yeah im done arguing with you. you support the limiting what can be done in order to make it easier for those who cant figure out how to do it.

this is like saying, man that dude is waay faster than me so lets race in mud so i can keep up.

[Riggs]

You have the class benefits from 6 ranger and 2 rogue still, ...

No - you dont, and you continue to be utterly oblivious to this utterly obvious point.

Currently - enhancements are class featues - i.e, if you have the class you get the enhancements. Period. No debate. It happens - it really does look it up.

New system as described, and what you keep fighting so hard to promote the gimping of multiclassing - you dont get that access.

If you dont see that taking even a single point in a fighter line is going to lock out an entire tree of 6 levels or more of ranger enhancements - then there is absolutely no help to make you understand what 'locked out of existing class features we have access to now' means.

[Riggs]

No this might be a nerf to the EXTREME multi class builds, and bring more of the game into balance. Everyone will still be able to build dominating and/or diverse builds.

At the end of the day, good player skill will rule supreme, not the math of the builders who tried to "exploit" the UI of the past. What I see is more people be able to compete at higher levels of the game. I dont see this as really affecting the "great player" at all (and he/she will always be able to lead and conquer).

What is the difference between EXTREME multiclassing and ..multiclassing? You seem to have some version of 'bad' multiclasses and 'good' multiclasses in your head and are making judgements on those.

I am all for making pure class better than it is now - more options.
Many people are NOT in favor of accomplishing this by cutting 2/3 of the available enhancements AND still restricting those by level as people seem to keep pushing for.

66% less of something you had yesterday is a nurf no matter what name you call it.

[Riggs]

That placated me from the start.

They are nowhere near completing this. Its already been said we wont get this till mid summer. Thats probably when it hits lama. They've got a loooong way to go.

Not a single line in what you quoted says how far along the process it. not one.

The day of release is completely different from 'how much is done already'. They could have it totally done and just be sitting on it. I am not saying they are - but it should be very obvious the two have nothing to do with each other except whatever you are assuming in your head.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

yes i do, do you? its a nerf, if they limit your trees. period. like you said. lol

yeah im done arguing with you. you support the limiting what can be done in order to make it easier for those who cant figure out how to do it.

this is like saying, man that dude is waay faster than me so lets race in mud so i can keep up.

Would you rather see more trees, with more lockouts? No sense doing the extra work.

I would support a general tree like some have been calling for, however, it will probably be limited if they bother tho.

[kingfisher]

Im happier because I know no one will be able to build a bigger Superman than me.


still LOL'ing at this comment. have you played wow? you would like it. all the builds are basically the same, no one is better than anyone else, EXCEPT for the GEAR that they own because the you cant BUILD better or PLAY better you just have to GRIND better.

[Aashrym]

But that's just completely backwards. Pures have greater opportunity for higher tiers and capstones than multis. A pure can choose from among 4 capstones. A multi can only take one specific one (their Race), or none. A pure can choose to take 2 tier IIIs. A 12/6/2 multi absolutely cannot. How the heck is that somehow "gaining" opportunity for higher tiers and capstones by multiclassing? It just makes no sense at all...

That's not completely backward. Higher tiers would be better because they cost more AP to get there. Pure classes do not have that greater opportunity because once they've gone through 1 full line they are limited by AP in the others.

That just gets back to every single character has that options to fill out 1 tree. Maxing out 2 trees is almost completely ignoring 2 others. If that is the only advantage I have a hard time seeing it as common because of the need to ignore enhancements in the other trees.

We don't know how many capstones a multiclassed human or helf will have access to, or if there will be an actual capstone on the race tab. There might be more than one option for multiclasses already looking at that, but if a person wanted to multiclass and have a different capstone choice that is as easy as choosing a different race.

[Aashrym]

I answered that question here:



Options available to me now are not available to me in the new system? Why redo the entire system simply to end up with something that is more limited?

Its not fair to insert a far more draconian system that curbs options we CURRENTLY HAVE AVAILABLE due to no other reason because the UI only holds three trees at a time.

That's true whether we splash, multi, or go pure. Everyone is looking at that issue. Options currently unavailable to you will also become available in the new system. Lose some gain some.

The problem is we don't know which options yet.

[kingfisher]

Would you rather see more trees, with more lockouts? No sense doing the extra work.

I would support a general tree like some have been calling for, however, it will probably be limited if they bother tho.

1 enhancement tab on your character sheet

3 sub-tabs on your enhancement tab (like the adventure compendium tab ie adventures/challenges/wilderness/patrons)

1 for race (1 tree on this tab)
1 for class (up to 3 trees on this tab, depending on classes taken)
1 for pre (up to 3 trees on this tab depending on pre's qualified for)

what the big deal?

[Aashrym]

What higher enhancements do you anticipate losing on your pure builds? The only significant one that i can see is losing the Deadly Shadows capstone on non-assassins, but are there any pure rogues currently who are not assassins? If so, the ability to be a 41 point assassin with 3 tiers of their currently tier 2 PrE is a strict increase in power.

I wouldn't know what will be in the trees. I was asking for song of the heart as an additional bard capstone for a while so maybe we'll see an adaptation of that one but I can't say for sure.

For all I really know the same capstone will be applied to several PrE's. I'm thinking I'll either lose lingering song or inspired attack but that would be even more conjecture.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

Not a single line in what you quoted says how far along the process it. not one.

The day of release is completely different from 'how much is done already'. They could have it totally done and just be sitting on it. I am not saying they are - but it should be very obvious the two have nothing to do with each other except whatever you are assuming in your head.

Did you miss the quote where MaddFloyd stated that this change wont hit the test servers until at least mid-summer???

[Feithlin]

It depends on what is available in each tree. If for e.g. in bard if you can get scroll mastery I in any of the warchanter, spellsinger, and virtuoso trees and the same is true of inspire courage enhancment, but you could only get spellsinger I in the spellsinger tree i.e. then what you are saying would not be as much of an issue. Basically if the trees had alot of common enhancements with the other class trees then I see less of a problem. The real issue would occur like you said if they put in a draconic tree system which the end result was it forced everybody to pure class then that is a huge issue.

You could also view this from another point of view: why did you splash 2 or 4 non bard levels? Not mainly for haste boosts I guess (since the benefit from classes will stay: evasion, feats, skill points) but because going bard 18 or 20 was giving you absolutely nothing. Now it will. Is it really a bad thing?
When big changes come, don't expect to keep everything work the way it was. Lol I even remember ppl who were saying they wouldn't take the sorc PrEs because that would reduce their dps !

More than anything, you all seem to think that the enhancements in the trees will be a simple transposition of what we already have. But the few examples from the devs show things really new. So you'll loose haste boost, but you may well gain much better from the warchanter tree.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

still LOL'ing at this comment. have you played wow? you would like it. all the builds are basically the same, no one is better than anyone else, EXCEPT for the GEAR that they own because the you cant BUILD better or PLAY better you just have to GRIND better.

Nope cant stand it. I DO have faith that a return to the roots of D&D will offer more solutions, not less. You apparently are having a great deal of trouble understanding how these changes will be good for the game.

Thats ok, they arent easy to understand, yet. You'll just have to wait until release this summer.

[Chai]

That's true whether we splash, multi, or go pure. Everyone is looking at that issue. Options currently unavailable to you will also become available in the new system. Lose some gain some.

The problem is we don't know which options yet.

Why even multiclass then? Going pure you get to choose from three trees. Multiclassing gains you access to 6, but you only get to put points into 3 of those 6. The point I am making..caps for emphasis....is that this system will DISALLOW things that are CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.

Again I ask the obvious question: Why revamp the ENTIRE SYSTEM so it will be MORE LIMITING than the current system is?

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

all the builds are basically the same

If you truly believed that, you wouldn't have said a word in this thread. The end.

[Aashrym]

only if your a drow lol, what if your a dwarf?

Then you could take SD III, purple dragon night II (if it's the 3rd tree), with tempest I instead of just SD II and tempest I.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

this system will DISALLOW things that are CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.

We dont know that yet, or know to what extent. Some enhancements will be going away, many new added, and some will be blended together. You may be worried about something that already will be in the game.

[Aelonwy]

If you truly believed that, you wouldn't have said a word in this thread. The end.

I think he was referring to all the builds in WOW not this game.

[Aashrym]

Except for Eladrin saying that they might reduce that to a level bonus, so there will be no more 'racial capstone' unless you are also taking at least 12 levels in the favored class - which is as it should be.

They have already backed away from races getting automatic tier 3/capstones. So arguing that it is a benefit is not going to help.

That was in response to feedback. There has been more feedback since then but no confirmation on the change. I think the level bonus is a poor idea and fail to see how taking away the option for a capstone is an improvement for multiclassing over providing the opportunity for a capstone while multiclassing.

[Aashrym]

Yeah - it really is.
You think 33% of a class is the same as a class. There really isnt any getting around that lack of understanding it seems.

I think no one has 3 main classes in one build. And if someone has one main class the options or more the choice is there to keep all 3 trees or keep 2 and swap out one. What there isn't getting around is deciding someone doesn't understand something if he doesn't see it your way. ;)

[Chai]

Nope cant stand it. I DO have faith that a return to the roots of D&D will offer more solutions, not less. You apparently are having a great deal of trouble understanding how these changes will be good for the game.

Thats ok, they arent easy to understand, yet. You'll just have to wait until release this summer.

This doesnt return us to the roots of D&D - this returns us to MMO land - WOW, EQ2, and diablo. Please show me in the "roots of D&D" where there is a skill tree that limits us to taking three PRCs.

It doesnt exist.

Furthermore....

Bard is my favorite class, with a splash for many of my builds. Today, I can build a 18/2 bard fighter. I can take Song Magic, damage song, and song of the dead.

DKyle got confirmation that the abilities will not repeat in the trees for multiple PRE, and they will get put into the appropriate lines for each class.

Song Magic - spell singler is now locked in
damage song - warchanter is now locked in
song of the dead - virtuoso is now locked in

You get 3 trees, all are now locked in.

How do I take fighter haste boost, str 1 and toughness 1 at this point? I can do so today in the current system, but the new system disallows this.

Let me now remind you this is a 2 fighter splash. One of the most common splashes inthe entire game.

Your Ghengis Khan build for example, is 16 bard 2 fighter 2 barbarian. You want run speed AND haste boost? All you have left is the warchanter tree now.

The new system is MORE LIMITING then what we currently have according to DKyles confirmations he received from developers in PMs - MORE LIMITING - even to a 2 fighter splash. I dont even want to know what a 12/6/2 split is giving up.

This three tier skill tree is WOW roots, not D&D roots.

Heres the DDO mock up http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j377/MadFloyd/EnhancementMockup.jpg
Heres a screenshot of the WOW tree system. Look familiar? All they did was turn it upside down. :p
http://images.mmosite.com/feature/news/2008_11_07/aion_wow/wow_02.jpg

[kingfisher]

Nope cant stand it. I DO have faith that a return to the roots of D&D will offer more solutions, not less. You apparently are having a great deal of trouble understanding how these changes will be good for the game.

Thats ok, they arent easy to understand, yet. You'll just have to wait until release this summer.

sigh.....seriously? return to the roots of dnd? what dnd did you play? mage/fighter/cleric/thief? then yeah you will prolly like ebing pigeonholed. i wont.


If you truly believed that, you wouldn't have said a word in this thread. The end.


I think he was referring to all the builds in WOW not this game.

reading comprehension FTW

[Aashrym]

Really? you sit down in the Turbine meetings too? You meet Eladrin for lunch and know everything on how the new system works while everyone else doesnt?

No effective difference? it is a massive difference between; I can choose to spend points on three things, but only have points for two things, vs once I choose to spend points on one thing, two other things I am never allowed to spend points on again.

The fact that you do not see how big of a difference that is doesnt change the fact that it is a massive difference. Rain falls outside whether you are looking out the window or not.

The mechanics were posted. There are 16 or 17 choices with multiple selections in the mock up and a quote that states (tier level -1)*5 requirement to unlock tiers. 80-41=39 left to unlock higher tiers in all trees after paying for whatever in the race or other items in the main tree. No one can pay for all of it.

If the row is locked out because we don't have the AP or the row is locked out because we're not level 18 in that class is irrelevant. The row is still locked out and I can't spend points it any more than you can. Higher level doesn't open it up just for being pure and if you want to have access to that tree you can have it being multilcassed.

I know you are giving something up. Telling me I don't understand it because you can't convince still won't convince me that I am incorrect in believing the gain is potentially more than the loss.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

This doesnt return us to the roots of D&D - this returns us to MMO land - WOW, EQ2, and diablo. Please show me in the "roots of D&D" where there is a skill tree that limits us to taking three PRCs.

It doesnt exist.

Furthermore....

Bard is my favorite class, with a splash for many of my builds. Today, I can build a 18/2 bard fighter. I can take Song Magic, damage song, and song of the dead.

DKyle got confirmation that the abilities will not repeat in the trees for multiple PRE, and they will get put into the appropriate lines for each class.

Song Magic - spell singler is now locked in
damage song - warchanter is now locked in
song of the dead - virtuoso is now locked in

You get 3 trees, all are now locked in.

How do I take fighter haste boost, str 1 and toughness 1 at this point? I can do so today in the current system, but the new system disallows this.

Let me now remind you this is a 2 fighter splash. One of the most common splashes inthe entire game.

Your Ghengis Khan build for example, is 16 bard 2 fighter 2 barbarian. You want run speed AND haste boost? All you have left is the warchanter tree now.

The new system is MORE LIMITING then what we currently have according to DKyles confirmations he received from developers in PMs - MORE LIMITING - even to a 2 fighter splash. I dont even want to know what a 12/6/2 split is giving up.

This three tier skill tree is WOW roots, not D&D roots.

Heres the DDO mock up http://i1082.photobucket.com/albums/j377/MadFloyd/EnhancementMockup.jpg
Heres a screenshot of the WOW tree system. Look familiar? All they did was turn it upside down. :p
http://images.mmosite.com/feature/news/2008_11_07/aion_wow/wow_02.jpg

All that jazz you just posted assumes all enhancements will stay the SAME. That is not what is going to happen. Way too early to try to fit a current build within the new parameters, much of which we know far too little about.

We'll talk about my build and others come this summer, I promise you! ;)

[AylinIsAwesome]

I'd like to point out that from the sounds of it, the game will be radically different in terms of how classes work. There's no way any of us can make claims that multiclassed characters will be dead after this goes live. Not until we get more information, anyway. There's not really any point in arguing if it will or won't be balanced, since we're operating on so little information.

[Chai]

All that jazz you just posted assumes all enhancements will stay the SAME. That is not what is going to happen. Way too early to try to fit a current build within the new parameters, much of which we know far too little about.

We'll talk about my build and others come this summer, I promise you! ;)

It doesnt assume anything. We received confirmation from the devs.

Cant wait until we can start fleshing out literally what we can and cant do, because if a 2 fighter splash isnt viable in this game due to the arbitrarily limited UI disallowing options that are currently available, ima buy out all the stock in popcorm and become a billionaire overnight. :p

The U5 feedback thread will look like a warmup frame compared to this, heh.

[gloopygloop]

Nope cant stand it. I DO have faith that a return to the roots of D&D will offer more solutions, not less. You apparently are having a great deal of trouble understanding how these changes will be good for the game.

Thats ok, they arent easy to understand, yet. You'll just have to wait until release this summer.

Some things are hard to understand even though they're true. Other things are hard to understand because there is nothing there to understand.

We'll certainly be stuck with whatever is released and I'm sure that it will have some benefits compared to the current system that we have now and I'm also sure that we will lose some options that we currently have in the current system. That much is obvious from just the very small amount of information that has been previewed so far.

With the very small amount that has been made available for preview and with the very large amount of the design that hasn't even been determined yet, I think it's premature to say whether the changes will be good for the game or bad for the game. The fact that you think you can make that determination already when most of the design work hasn't even been done yet is nothing short of astonishing.

[Aashrym]

No - you dont, and you continue to be utterly oblivious to this utterly obvious point.

Currently - enhancements are class featues - i.e, if you have the class you get the enhancements. Period. No debate. It happens - it really does look it up.

New system as described, and what you keep fighting so hard to promote the gimping of multiclassing - you dont get that access.

If you dont see that taking even a single point in a fighter line is going to lock out an entire tree of 6 levels or more of ranger enhancements - then there is absolutely no help to make you understand what 'locked out of existing class features we have access to now' means.

Currently you do. No kidding. Thanks for pointing that out tips. ;)

Currently you don't have access to a capstone or higher level enhancements. If you want to believe it's more important to keep low level enhancements over higher level enhancements being potentially opened up on your individually lower level splits go ahead and keep stick with that.

In the mean time I'm going to continue to believe opening up higher level options could be worth the loss. Unless you want to assume high level enhancements are going to be subpar to low level enhancements.

[Chai]

I'd like to point out that from the sounds of it, the game will be radically different in terms of how classes work. There's no way any of us can make claims that multiclassed characters will be dead after this goes live. Not until we get more information, anyway. There's not really any point in arguing if it will or won't be balanced, since we're operating on so little information.

There is a point to do so actually. To make darn sure they know that ALOT of paying customers do NOT want them to mess up multiclassing.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

The fact that you think you can make that determination already when most of the design work hasn't even been done yet is nothing short of astonishing.

I am confident in my abilities to build dungeons and dragons toons. I dont care how they paint the duck, I dont care what they call the duck. Ya dig? My specialty is building toons around people's playstyles. So far it looks like we'll have many new options to choose from... more then we had before. However, this is not WoW, its not just any mmo. DDO is the only mmo thats built around an already established set of core rules.

That should make most builders pretty comfortable at this point. Lets see what they come up with...

[Grandesa]

As soon as I found the link to this whole new "mockup". WOW instantly popped into my head.. Next thing that I thought.. OH THE BUGS!!! wonder how many and for how long will it take for the Dev's to fix the multiple broken, not even fixed yet, and hidden and/or not working correctly problems that this will cause??

Next thing they'll drag more WoW based into the game and add in Dual spec'ing... TBH I would rather leave our enhancement line the way it is. OH. Fix the Artificer pet Enhancement line please. been over 2 months since the release of this class and I still do NOT get the popup tool info for their enhancements. (yes i have tooltips on, everything else shows/pops up except the arti pet info)

Not to mention, all the current issues with the game first.. fix those then worry bout this crazy idea of revamping the enhancements. It'll just be that more stuff you will have to fix, workaround, and/or/most likely have to add to the LOOOOONG list you already have that is wrong/broken with the game.

just an FYI.. I'm not throwing this all at the Dev's. they can only do what the marketing, CEO's or whoever tells them too, It just seems brutishly ridiculous to try to jam stuff like this into the game ASAP instead of fixing all the problems with it now as it is.

I TRULY FEEL SORRY for the Dev's sometimes because alot of DDO/LOTRO players point the finger at them.. its not always their fault, they have to do what their told for the game, not what they think is always right or best.

So I"m asking whoever is in charge above the Devs.. READ THIS and FIX what needs to be fixed B4 throwing/jamming more stuff into the game that may cause more problems/exploits/whatever that we as players already know can/does cause in game issues.

My personal opinion, I would rather play games such as these that work correctly and as intended first and foremost without all the exploits, problems, bugs, etc, etc, etc,... than nag and scream for new content, changes, etc.. what's the point of playing the game if doesn't work like it supposed too?

Please and thank you.

[Vormaerin]

That sounds completely backwards.

The only way there could be a problem is if the specialty abilities are incredibly frontloaded; but if they are that frontloaded, that's a problem anyway for characters with only 3 trees.

Most of the "General" abilities are pretty frontloaded at the moment. All the spell damage trees and most of the boosts. Many of the other tiered abilities are diminishing returns at the moment, too, because they give the same for tier 1 as they do for (the often more expensive) subsequent tiers.

They could change this and that would affect the balance of the system quite a lot. Not knowing answers like this is one reason why I think this doom crying is ridiculous.

I assume the better special abilities will be higher up. But even if the low level abilities are weaker, there's still a much greater risk of unintended synergy with 10 trees than with 3.

[Aashrym]

Why even multiclass then? Going pure you get to choose from three trees. Multiclassing gains you access to 6, but you only get to put points into 3 of those 6. The point I am making..caps for emphasis....is that this system will DISALLOW things that are CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.

Again I ask the obvious question: Why revamp the ENTIRE SYSTEM so it will be MORE LIMITING than the current system is?

Going pure you don't get to choose which 3 trees (unless you also give one up from racial unlock), you don't get bonus feats or evasion, you don't get the ability to turn undead if that powers items in a tree you want.

If I wanted to try to make a spellsinger radiant servant I can't use RS abilities without turning and would need to take cleric levels to do that, possibly as a healing / melee build going warchanter / spellsinger / radiant servant for my trees.

Some of the old builds might be shot but the new builds are still a potential gain. Until we see that breakdown of what can be done in each tree there isn't any point in getting overly concerned. I know some thing won't work but that doesn't mean the new options won't be better.

That's a time will tell moment.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

But even if the low level abilities are weaker, there's still a much greater risk of unintended synergy with 10 trees than with 3.

This is it right here. It will also confuse the ever living heck out of those folks we build for on the forums. How about the folks who dont even hit the forums, that do not have a great grasp of D&D or DDO already. Way too many choices are worse than not enough choices.

There has to be a limit to multiclassing or else you'll have ultra-uber powered multis running around. Thats what class balancing needs to address (even though it will never completely solve it).

[Aashrym]

How do I take fighter haste boost, str 1 and toughness 1 at this point? I can do so today in the current system, but the new system disallows this.

True, but how do you know the capstone you can now access that you couldn't before is not better than those options you just gave up for it?

I would be more interested in some of the opinions when we see what will be in those trees than worrying that what we lose won't be worth it without even seeing the real alternative.

[Aelonwy]

Way too many choices are worse than not enough choices.


And this right here is where I would fundamentally disagree with you. But that is my personal outlook.

[Aashrym]

It doesnt assume anything. We received confirmation from the devs.

Cant wait until we can start fleshing out literally what we can and cant do, because if a 2 fighter splash isnt viable in this game due to the arbitrarily limited UI disallowing options that are currently available, ima buy out all the stock in popcorm and become a billionaire overnight. :p

The U5 feedback thread will look like a warmup frame compared to this, heh.

Splash fighter is likely still good just for the bonus feats. Same with monk. Rogue for evasion. Maybe not for the enhancements but there are other reasons to take those classes.

[macubrae]

I am confident in my abilities to build dungeons and dragons toons. I dont care how they paint the duck, I dont care what they call the duck. Ya dig? My specialty is building toons around people's playstyles. So far it looks like we'll have many new options to choose from... more then we had before. However, this is not WoW, its not just any mmo. DDO is the only mmo thats built around an already established set of core rules.

That should make most builders pretty comfortable at this point. Lets see what they come up with...

The only "established set of core rules" left after this is implemented is going to be the dice animation and the attributes. And it IS going to turn into just any mmo. The original D&D, yes I played the one with the blue dice, was about ample choices and playing 'characters' not about the uberest builds and bestest grinders. Don't refer to D&D any more, you really have no idea what THAT game was about.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

And this right here is where I would fundamentally disagree with you. But that is my personal outlook.

Oh trust that I want many more choices, but I do not want too many. If every toon could have every perk, then essentially the only difference would BE the race. Having a few thousand toons that all made the same choices (all the cool stuff), then this game would really get boring, fast.


If you followed me, I want more choices, but I want them as choices I can make. I dont want 10 trees where I can pick out every cool thing. Alternatively, I dont want to look at 10 trees if 90% of them are going to be blocked out anyway..

The most choices in the fewest trees is the way to go imho.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

The only "established set of core rules" left after this is implemented is going to be the dice animation and the attributes. And it IS going to turn into just any mmo. The original D&D, yes I played the one with the blue dice, was about ample choices and playing 'characters' not about the uberest builds and bestest grinders. Don't refer to D&D any more, you really have no idea what THAT game was about.

I've been playing since 1977, before it was even called AD&D. When did you start playing?

I am actually in agreement with you 100% about "ample choices and playing 'characters' not about the uberest builds and bestest grinders". You might want to read a little further back in my comments.

[Chai]

True, but how do you know the capstone you can now access that you couldn't before is not better than those options you just gave up for it?

I would be more interested in some of the opinions when we see what will be in those trees than worrying that what we lose won't be worth it without even seeing the real alternative.

So you rather bank on the unknown than ask to keep the known intact? Who cares about 1 million current players builds, because the next system MIGHT be better....

We've seen how that little diddy turns out historically. :p

[kingfisher]

You are welcome to call the devs liars all you want. I'm not inclined to agree. MadFloyd specifically stated that the intention is to make Lama into a test server with sufficient feedback time to make changes based on it rather than the preview server that it is now.

Its quite obvious from comments by MajorMalphunktion and MadFloyd that Turbine is making changes to their QA process based on the problems of this last year. Hiring more staff (50% more according to MF), pushing builds public sooner, etc.

Of course, none of this could end up happening. But if your only contribution is "the devs are lying, so this will be a disaster," then there's not much point in talking.

i called no one a liar. this is how it has been i the past. they may effect changes based on feedback once it gets to lama. sure hope so. would b great if they did. till they do tho....

[Artos_Fabril]

That whole 'bonus for points spent' structure becomes massively more unstable if you allow for 6 or 9 tabs. You'll either have to put in all kinds of specific lockouts or otherwise make sure that all those 5pt free abilities don't add up to be an enormous advantage for the character with 9 trees over the person with only 3.
Why in the world would you expect 9 different abilities from 5 points each in 9 trees to be more powerful than the higher tier abilities of putting 45 points in one tree, or 15 each in 3 trees, or 30 in one and 15 in another?

The only one of those situations where you get strictly fewer free abilities is putting 45 points into one tree, and that grants you a capstone as well.

30 points in one tree grants 6 free "bonus for points spent" abilities, the same as putting 5 points in each of 6 trees would if they allowed it. The difference is that all 6 of those free abilities would be focused in one general theme, and it's likely the later ones would be more powerful than the early ones.

Also, having to sacrifice a tree for the racial PrE tree is strictly a nerf for any elven tri-class arcane archers out there, not that there are many. Do you think any of those builds is overpowered? Or any arcane archer build at all, for that matter?

The point isn't being missed. There is a trade in for that where the lower level options are going to be replaces with access to higher level options including a capstone.

Once a person takes that capstone the AP cost per tier in each tree limits depth up the trees anyway. I have no trouble seeing Dkyle's point. I don't think think the loss is as concerning looking at the potential gain.
What is this stuff about gaining a capstone by being multi-classed? You don't Gain access to a capstone by selecting a multi-class, you gain access by selecting a race based on the PrE you want a capstone from. That only applies if every multi-class build relies on taking a racial PrE. Since taking a racial PrE removes one of your class trees, that is strictly a limitation, not a gain.

Again, let's look at an elven arcane archer, since that is the only case for which we can make a valid comparison of Racial PrE trade-offs now vs. after the change.

Now:
Any PrEs available based on class levels, with a limit of no ranger PrEs and one PrE line per class (up to 4 PrEs on a 7/7/6 or 8/6/6 split, , including the full AA line, regardless of the dubious utility of doing so) any non-PrE enhancements from any selected class, limited only by class level and AP available

After:
1 PrE tree locked in for AA, select 2 others from any classes taken, both of which are limited by AP availability and class levels.

Comparrison:
Lose 1 PrE line, all enhancements in all non-selected trees.
Gain ability to select Tempest or DWS PrEs if taking ranger levels, possibly gain racial AA capstone.

[Vormaerin]

Except for Eladrin saying that they might reduce that to a level bonus, so there will be no more 'racial capstone' unless you are also taking at least 12 levels in the favored class - which is as it should be.

They have already backed away from races getting automatic tier 3/capstones. So arguing that it is a benefit is not going to help.

Umm saying "that is a neat idea" is not the same thing as saying anything about actually doing it or accepting it as is. If you have some quote about them actually backing away from anything, I'd like to see it.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

Ive read enough posts about DOOM from a handful of posters.

Anxiously awaiting more data from the devs at this point...

[Vormaerin]

Why in the world would you expect 9 different abilities from 5 points each in 9 trees to be more powerful than the higher tier abilities of putting 45 points in one tree, or 15 each in 3 trees, or 30 in one and 15 in another?



Because we don't know what those abilities are. Straight lines are usually pretty straightforward and easy to balance. Webs of abilities almost always have unintended synergies. The more such abilities you have, the more that is likely.

There are a lot of low level abilities that are quite powerful. Most abilities in this game are at least partially front loaded.

Look at sorcerer damage lines. The first point is 4x as useful as any subsequent point.

Yes, the +4 AC dual wielding (for example) is better than the +2 AC. But you get the +2 for 5pts and you only get another +2 for 20 more points beyond that. If you have enough abilities like that, where 50% of the benefit is cheap and the other 50% is expensive, you'll quickly get to the point where a lot of cheap is better than a little expensive.

Many of those "six free abilities" could be the same ability slightly improved a few times.

[Vormaerin]

i called no one a liar. this is how it has been i the past. they may effect changes based on feedback once it gets to lama. sure hope so. would b great if they did. till they do tho....

If MadFloyd posts in this very thread that this is changing and you build your entire argument around it not changing, I think that's pretty much saying either "I didn't read the posts I'm supposedly providing feedback on" or "I don't believe he's telling the truth."

Take your pick.

[Aashrym]

So you rather bank on the unknown than ask to keep the known intact? Who cares about 1 million current players builds, because the next system MIGHT be better....

We've seen how that little diddy turns out historically. :p

A lot of it based on accepting the the next set of builds will have there own advantages different from what we have now. On that note, however, I like making new characters with different options than I had before and when things change I can just TR and run a new life going with the change.

I would much rather be optimistic about the benefits than linger on what I had to give up for them before even seeing what they are.

I might even try AoV archmage spellsinger if I can find a way to swing it in there somehow.

[kingfisher]

If MadFloyd posts in this very thread that this is changing and you build your entire argument around it not changing, I think that's pretty much saying either "I didn't read the posts I'm supposedly providing feedback on" or "I don't believe he's telling the truth."

Take your pick.

no my point is that a 3 tree limit is bad. i am talking it about it here and now because in the past once things get to lama they are done. whatever anyone says to the contrary is great, i hope it works out. till its a reality tho i'll still comment here if thats ok with you.

[Vormaerin]

So you rather bank on the unknown than ask to keep the known intact? Who cares about 1 million current players builds, because the next system MIGHT be better....

We've seen how that little diddy turns out historically. :p

Yeah, we have. The enhancement system got vastly better when they ditched the original model and implemented the one they have now.

[Vormaerin]

no my point is that a 3 tree limit is bad. i am talking it about it here and now because in the past once things get to lama they are done. whatever anyone says to the contrary is great, i hope it works out. till its a reality tho i'll still comment here if thats ok with you.

You are welcome to comment, obviously. I can understand why a 3 tab system can be bad. I just think its premature to say "this IS a disaster".

I'm inclined to take MadFloyd at his word when he says that character design flexibility is the bread and butter of D&D and we will absolutely keep it. I can see ways in which a 3 tab system adds flexibility. I can see ways in which it completely crushes it.

I have no way of saying which this will do until I get more information.

[Thar]

Are you going to redo enhancements that are useless and too expensive?

The wow enhancement tree is lame. Why do you keep on trying to make this game easier and wow like. we don't want WOW or we would be there. We want enhancements that we have the freedom to pick and choose to max our characters the way we want them.

PLEASE... put some development time into new quests and areas. WE need more game, not redoing the old game.

STOP messing with the game to fix this or fix that... you killed rangers, never finished half the pre's, made each new class more powerful than the existing, etc... put more time into increasing the game.

[Aashrym]

Are you going to redo enhancements that are useless and too expensive?

The wow enhancement tree is lame. Why do you keep on trying to make this game easier and wow like. we don't want WOW or we would be there. We want enhancements that we have the freedom to pick and choose to max our characters the way we want them.

PLEASE... put some development time into new quests and areas. WE need more game, not redoing the old game.

STOP messing with the game to fix this or fix that... you killed rangers, never finished half the pre's, made each new class more powerful than the existing, etc... put more time into increasing the game.

Part of this is finishing off PrE's.

[nayozz]

i don't care what other players say...

but please while you redo enhacements... can you make the light and positive energy line modified as the arcane lines... now arcane got lines split into single elements and force and repair... i would gladly like that for the divine line...
also feel free to boost the +40% max we have now to the same amount arcane classes get :P

also... i would like more pre released especially for divine and arcane and artificier class :P or at least finish the currently unfinished ones :D

thanks :D

[Vormaerin]

I think all these WoW comments are amusing. There are only a few ways to actually organize things. Right now we use a straight columnar list that provides no direct feedback about prerequisites.

If you want prerequisites to be visually obvious...which is one of the design goals, I gather... there aren't many ways to do that. Trees are the easiest. Webs are possible, though pretty complex to do legibly.

How would you organize it so that you can see what level and what enhancements you need for a specific ability without having to pull up all the tooltips constantly?

[Artos_Fabril]

Yes, the +4 AC dual wielding (for example) is better than the +2 AC. But you get the +2 for 5pts and you only get another +2 for 20 more points beyond that. If you have enough abilities like that, where 50% of the benefit is cheap and the other 50% is expensive, you'll quickly get to the point where a lot of cheap is better than a little expensive.
And if the only thing you got from putting in those other 20 points was a +2 AC, then you would have a valid point.
Instead, you also gain +20% offhand attacks deflect arrows and scimitar as a light weapon (+2 to-hit or save a feat for the rare scimitar wielding tempest)

As things stand right now, that 20% offhand attack chance is far more powerful for 96% of TWF builds than +8 AC from 4 additional PrEs granting +2 AC each at tier 1. I doubt they're going to do much to change that, and I'm certain that you'd have some problems finding 5 different PrEs with a +2 AC tier 1 even if you got to choose from all classes, rather than a max of 3 trees each from 3 classes plus a racial PrE. And that still assumes you can find 5 points of abilities in every one of those trees that is better than 5 points farther up the tempest tree.

Here's a (very) quick mock-up of what I, and I think other people advocating for a general tab and/or more than 3 PrEs want to see.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-BQ1NlTz91so/Tw-dhYLx8PI/AAAAAAAAABU/roYTqWkJlOs/s912/Enhance%252520Trees.png
Create a "General" set of enhancements available for each class. Higher tier general enhancements may be unlocked based on class levels, or points spent into that classes PrE trees, or whatever. (Haste boost 1 requires level 1, Haste Boost 2 requires level 4, HB 3 at 7, HB 4 at 10, for instance. Fighter Str 1 at 2, Str 2 at 8, Str 3 at 14, or whatever.)
Shorten PrE trees by ~10 points to adjust for general abilities not counting towards PrEs, or put a radio button next to them to allow you to select which Pre you want to assign them to, or maybe someone else can come up with a better mechanic? (again, do the math on this, and test it, and then release a character builder tool on the website to see what kind of broken stuff the community comes up with that the Devs and testers never thought of)

[Meat-Head]

.

DKyle got confirmation that the abilities will not repeat in the trees for multiple PRE, and they will get put into the appropriate lines for each class.

Song Magic - spell singler is now locked in
damage song - warchanter is now locked in
song of the dead - virtuoso is now locked in

You get 3 trees, all are now locked in.

How do I take fighter haste boost, str 1 and toughness 1 at this point? I can do so today in the current system, but the new system disallows this.

Let me now remind you this is a 2 fighter splash. One of the most common splashes inthe entire game.

Your Ghengis Khan build for example, is 16 bard 2 fighter 2 barbarian. You want run speed AND haste boost? All you have left is the warchanter tree now.

The new system is MORE LIMITING then what we currently have according to DKyles confirmations he received from developers in PMs - ]


Where was that info at? EDIT: NVM post #1729 has something about this. I searched. But I wouldn't say that's quite conclusive yet.

Been thinking. I really think they need ot do a general class tab OR they need to do away with the 3 tree limit.

BUT, I also agree that race + 9 trees might be a little silly.

SO, I like what someone else suggested that you get ONE more tree for each class you multi for a total max of 5. (3 trees plus one for each of the two added classes).

Some will say this discourages pure builds. I don't agree. Why? Cause pure builds will get more high abilities in their PrEs. Seems pretty fine to me.

[Meat-Head]

By the way, and I'm talking to myself here, it appears this thread is more or less over. I mean, they are well into the next "Let's Talk" thread at this point. Looks like they got whatever feedback they wanted.

Now it's wait and see time. :)

[Failedlegend]

SO, I like what someone else suggested that you get ONE more tree for each class you multi for a total max of 5. (3 trees plus one for each of the two added classes).

Some will say this discourages pure builds. I don't agree. Why? Cause pure builds will get more high abilities in their PrEs. Seems pretty fine to me.

Agreed, now we need more info...come on devs throw us a bone here we've chewed the mock-up and tempest tease raw..we NEED more

Oh and I still think this Tree system makes a GREAT way to introduce Multi-class PrEs (IF were not locked into 3 Panes) even if that just a some other time idea...that and giving Races actual RACIAL PrEs (but again no complaints if thats a "future" plan)

[Aashrym]

Where was that info at? EDIT: NVM post #1729 has something about this. I searched. But I wouldn't say that's quite conclusive yet.

Been thinking. I really think they need ot do a general class tab OR they need to do away with the 3 tree limit.

BUT, I also agree that race + 9 trees might be a little silly.

SO, I like what someone else suggested that you get ONE more tree for each class you multi for a total max of 5. (3 trees plus one for each of the two added classes).

Some will say this discourages pure builds. I don't agree. Why? Cause pure builds will get more high abilities in their PrEs. Seems pretty fine to me.

I suspect that by adding more trees we would be hearing about how players are getting the shaft by not having points to spend in them.

I also suspect there will be a big debate on what belongs in which tab.

I suspect the thought of trying to come up with more enhancements to fill the PrE tabs after moving some to a general tab would push this back farther than expected.

I'm wondering if the reason we only saw 1 tier of one PrE for artificers was to open it up but not spend too much dev time on it while this was underway.

I'm also wondering if it would be possible to spend a point or two in one tree to move an enhancement to another. Sounds unlikely but if it were possible pretty useful.

[dkyle]

The tree is smaller with the option of replacing it with a larger tree by racial PrE. No one is stuck with a smaller tree unless they choose to be stuck with a smaller tree and that is a build choice instead a design flaw.

One tree can be replaced by one Racial PrE. The other two trees are still stuck at being small.

So 12/6/2 can get one full tree (which must be a Racial PrE), and 2 small trees to choose enhancements from. Pure can get 3 full trees (which can be a choice of any 3 of their class PrEs and Racial PrE). Again, huge advantage to pure. They get more freedom to choose which tree to focus on, and they get a larger variety of enhancements to choose from once they set their trees. How is this not an advantage to the pure build? This is an advantage that has no analog to multis vs. pure currently, so the disadvantages for going multi compared to pure have increased.


That's a glaring advantage over the fact they are currently stuck with the limited smaller trees. 1 racial PrE plus 12 class levels in one class gives room for 1 full tree and two trees up to a PrE II and that is quite a bit.

If your belief is that the system presents no disincentives to multiclasses beyond what the current game presents, then arguing under the assumption that the 12/6/2 does not take a tree from the 6 class immediately invalidates your argument, because taking a PrE from the 6 class is a major incentive to go 12/6/2 in the current game.

The only way you can argue that 12/6/2 is not disincentivized is to look at the case where the 6 class has a tree taken for it.


At that point AP points are running out or gone and why I see that as a more limiting factor.

So, to be clear, your statement is that in all cases, AP points will run out before a multiclass is able to hit the max level enhancements? If there is ever a case where AP points do not run out, and a multiclass is unable to take enhancements they want because of a class level restriction, then your statement is simply false. Do really think there will never be such a case? If there is, then class levels + AP points will have been more of a limiting factor than AP points alone.


Every single character can have a full PrE line. How can you not see that as a glaring advantage over not having access to a full PrE line for multiclassed characters like we currently have?

I have never claimed that it isn't. I fully acknowledge that future multiclasses may have advantages over current multiclasses. I have said so many times.

My point is that future multiclasses will have greater disadvantages compared to future pure classes, than current multis have compared to current pures. That's the salient comparison. We will never be choosing between current multi and future multi, so how they compare isn't that important, except to sate concerns that peoples builds may or not be ruined. We have almost no basis make any predictions on that front. We will be choosing between future multi and future pure. And there is plenty to recognize that the proposed system disincentivizes multies compared to pures, moreso than the current game.


That's not completely backward. Higher tiers would be better because they cost more AP to get there. Pure classes do not have that greater opportunity because once they've gone through 1 full line they are limited by AP in the others.

Being able to choose among 4 possible capstones instead of being locked into 1 is a huge advantage. Being able to take two TierIIIs (which I expect to be entirely possible, leaving 20 points left over), is a huge advantage. Will all pure builds take two TierIIIs? No. But the mere freedom to do so is an advantage for pure builds.


That just gets back to every single character has that options to fill out 1 tree. Maxing out 2 trees is almost completely ignoring 2 others. If that is the only advantage I have a hard time seeing it as common because of the need to ignore enhancements in the other trees.

And you keep ignoring that the ability to pick among more full trees, and more enhancements in total once locking in the three trees, is an advantage.


We don't know how many capstones a multiclassed human or helf will have access to, or if there will be an actual capstone on the race tab. There might be more than one option for multiclasses already looking at that, but if a person wanted to multiclass and have a different capstone choice that is as easy as choosing a different race.

Sure, we don't know those things. But based on what we do know (and what we can give feedback on), there are many new advantages that Pures are gaining that multis do not, and as far as I can see, no new advantages at all that multis are getting that pures are not also getting. This points towards disadvantages for multies compared to pures.

[dkyle]

I suspect that by adding more trees we would be hearing about how players are getting the shaft by not having points to spend in them.

That would be a completely irrational response. Gaining the ability to spend points in more trees than currently cannot possibly be anything other than a benefit to player flexibility, and cannot "shaft" anyone. It is literally impossible for a build to be worse off because the player has the freedom to spend in more trees, unless the player simply makes bad decisions. Because they have the choice not to. In which case, their build performs exactly the same as it would if there were a three tree limit.

[Drona]

Where was that

BUT, I also agree that race + 9 trees might be a little silly.



Yep. Definitely not gonna happen. Rest assured.


By the way, and I'm talking to myself here, it appears this thread is more or less over. I mean, they are well into the next "Let's Talk" thread at this point. Looks like they got whatever feedback they wanted.

Now it's wait and see time. :)

Yeah just noticed the other one about challenges. This thread is finished. Move on folks :)

[dkyle]

BUT, I also agree that race + 9 trees might be a little silly.

Why? In the current game, a 3-way multiclass has access to, essentially, 9 trees-worth of enhancements already. Why is adding the race silly? Would race + 8 trees be silly? Essentially, why is keeping the same balance we have now, where pures and multis get the same amount of possible enhancements, but multis give up higher level ones for lower level ones of different classes, a bad thing? Why should multis be further limited?

Now, prohibiting 10 sets of free bonus PrE ranks, sure. I'm fine with a 3 tree limit on the trees eligible for bonus PrE ranks. But merely purchasing enhancements from all 10 trees is consistent with the current game. What's broken about the current game that needs to be fixed, here?

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

I suspect that by adding more trees we would be hearing about how players are getting the shaft by not having points to spend in them.

I also suspect there will be a big debate on what belongs in which tab.

Of course both of these will happen. Thats the funny thing. You are making perfect sense, as are most others in here. There are a few who will NEVER be satisfied, and those are the ones who naturally posted the loudest.

This is why there has to be a limit set. There were limits in 3.5 and there must be limits in place here too. Some people want it all, but they will not give the designers enough room to really design a new UI and offer us new possibilities. I am happy Turbine is trying to innovate here.

I'm expecting to build all my characters back to the way they were, with a new paint job and some nifty new bells & whistles. I'll possibly lose something along the way, but I'll be gaining new prestiges and better fleshed out enhancements. If I cant have that haste boost so be it, no other bard building the way I'm building it is going to have it either.

I have zero concerns because I have faith in Turbines adherence to 3.5 when it comes to its character building UI.. and I cant wait to see what their contribution is to the prestiges. My ONLY negative was it was its paltry prestige and class list, I think choices go through the roof in 2012 with this change, and other promises they made. Only time will tell.

I am taking Mad at his word that this is not about nerfing, this is about augmentation. Its the same game mechanics, just a more modular UI thats easier for us to build toons and easier for them to make changes in the future.

Exactly where that bar will be set is the key to be decided...

Anyways, this thread is basically over for now, at least until we get more data.

Great posting thus far +1.

[sephiroth1084]

On a somewhat separate note...

I don't know if enhancements are going to be fully divorced from having feats as prerequisites, but if they aren't, can we see more of the Past Life feats qualify us for stuff?

The change to the barbarian PL to count as Toughness was a good one, although it doesn't do so for all things that have regular Toughness as a prerequisite, when it should.

The sorcerer PL should count as Mental Toughness.
The wizard PL should maybe count as Spell Focus <insert school> (not sure how this would work for feats...whether it would lock out picking up Spell Focus).


Not sure what to do with the rest, but I think it would be a reasonable idea to restructure some of these to mimic important feats for the characters intended to be using these so that they can fit into our current feat selections OR give characters some more feats (many need that anyway).

--------------------------------------------------
Can we get enhancements that build off of PL feats a bit? Someone earlier in the thread mentioned using PL feats to count as class levels for qualifying for PrEs. I like that, but it would be nice for PLs to open up some enhancements as well.

For instance, the Fighter PL could open up Fighter Armor Mastery I and II, and Fighter Tower Shield Mastery I and II; the Cleric PL could open up Devotion I, II and III.

Or the PLs could have enhancements that boost their effects, like +1 use/rest for clickies, +2 to the Str and Con, and +25% to the duration of the barbarian PL's rage clicky.

Right now, PLs feel rather flat, and are largely a poor investment of a feat, barring a few exceptions.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

I'm also wondering if it would be possible to spend a point or two in one tree to move an enhancement to another. Sounds unlikely but if it were possible pretty useful.

Im thinking something like this will happen, or like I suggested earlier a choice made in one tree might open up a mid level or upper level option in another, allowing us to get a feature or group of features that would make many of the negative thoughts in this thread seem quite premature.

Also of note, any significant alterations/improvements to dragonmarks and/or past lives can make these wild card additions that might prove quite useful and popular to many...

[bigolbear]

a few suggestions for all us multiclass character builder nuts.

1. racial capstones. (would go in the race tree, and presumably only be available if you have spent X points there)

2. cross tree abilities: This would go in the race category. Lets take an old school example (any one remember 2nd ed?)

dwarven fighter/cleric.
race dwarf.
racial enhancement: bulwark of faith.
requires: fighter-stalwart defender and cleric-warpreist trees to be unlocked and selected.
you count as 4 lvls higher in both fighter and cleric for the purpose of selecting enhancements.

Elven fighter/wizard.
race elf.
racial enhancement: arcane warrior.
requires: fighter-kensai and wizard-archmage trees to be unlocked and selected.
you count as 4 lvls higher in both fighter and wizard for the purpose of selecting enhancements.


Or something more suited to DDO history:

Monster.
race Warforge.
racial enhancemnt: Monster
requires fighter-kensai and ranger-tempest trees to be unlocked and selected.
grants over 9000% doublestrike bonus when using 2 khopeshes cos they are the bestest. ;)

Im sure you get the idea.

Im not suggesting every posible combination should be in there but it would be nice to tip your hat to the origins of D&D and its traditional multiclasses, and posibly throw in some of the more inventive multiclasses DDO has created.
If we can do anything to help validate builds like cleric/wizard too that would be a real boon.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

a few suggestions for all us multiclass character builder nuts.

1. racial capstones. (would go in the race tree, and presumably only be available if you have spent X points there)

2. cross tree abilities: This would go in the race category. Lets take an old school example (any one remember 2nd ed?)....

...snip...

it would be nice to tip your hat to the origins of D&D and its traditional multiclasses, and posibly throw in some of the more inventive multiclasses DDO has created.


Now thats an old timer! ;) Like your suggestions.

[waterboytkd]

Why? In the current game, a 3-way multiclass has access to, essentially, 9 trees-worth of enhancements already.

The problem with this thinking is that you're only looking at existing enhancements. If only existing enhancements make up 3 trees in a class, then yeah, getting 9 trees is nothing to be worried about.

But there could be tons of new stuff in those 9 trees. If each tree is packed with enhancements, having no limit might be insane. And a lot of that might be stacking stuff. What if Toughness enhancements are in tier 1, and you could take them 3 or 5 times? Do you think it would be balanced if a 3 class toon got 9-15 toughnesses, and didn't have to sacrifice access to anything to get them?

[Vormaerin]

?

Now, prohibiting 10 sets of free bonus PrE ranks, sure. I'm fine with a 3 tree limit on the trees eligible for bonus PrE ranks. But merely purchasing enhancements from all 10 trees is consistent with the current game. What's broken about the current game that needs to be fixed, here?

No way to know if its broken or not. We just don't know what choices we are gaining and what choices we are losing.

You don't know what the proportion of high to low end enhancements is. If the top two tiers are only a couple enhancements each and the bottom tiers are very broad, the advantage in having very broad would be significant.

If the top tier abilities are totally badass and the low tier abilities are weaksauce, then its hugely crippling.

Certainly, what options you are going to have will be different. Its not at all clear whether it will be better or worse. The incentive for fewer tabs is system simplicity. You need to do less enhancement specific restrictions (like "this doesn't work with that"), have fewer complex interactions that might be bugged, and generally easier to understand.

Anyway, not much point in further posting until we get more information on which to base our statements.

[dkyle]

This is why there has to be a limit set.

What is broken about the current system that requires more limits? Do you really think it's unfair that multiclasses are getting the choices of enhancements they are currently getting? That they should be getting fewer choices? I know you love pure builds. I don't understand how you can be playing the same game as me, and not feel like pure is already the best way to go for most builds.

Also, your citation of 3.5 is pure wishful thinking. There has been absolutely nothing in any of the info we've gotten that brings the PrE system even remotely more similar to anything in 3.5. The limits being proposed (and indeed, the limits already present in DDO), are far stricter than the kind of limits in 3.5 PnP on build options. I don't know why you're bringing 3.5 into the discussion, except to poison the well by implying that those that disagree with you are trying to prevent DDO from becoming more like 3.5 by opposing certain aspects of this plan.


I am taking Mad at his word that this is not about nerfing, this is about augmentation. Its the same game mechanics, just a more modular UI thats easier for us to build toons and easier for them to make changes in the future.

I think he absolutely means that as his intent. In regards to pure classes, I expect huge buffs. I also expect buffs to multiclasses as well. But here's the thing: even if every single build in the game is buffed, multiclassing can still be disincentivized more than it currently is, if pure builds get buffed more than multiclass builds, which, based on what we've seen so far, is what I fully expect, given the major increase in disincentives to multiclass inherent to the enhancement system.

Every buff is a nerf, from a different perspective. And vice versa. So saying that this is "not about nerfing" doesn't really mean much. What I think he means is that we won't get nerfed (for the most part) compared to our current builds. But that isn't really what's important. It's how builds compare to each other, and how builds compare to the content.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

What I think he means is that we won't get nerfed (for the most part) compared to our current builds. But that isn't really what's important.

Wow, feel free to keep commenting if you wish, but to me you are just repeating yourself over and over (thats your right).

I say there's no reason a Fighter shouldn't be allowed to go Tempest, and no reason a Ranger shouldn't be allowed to go Kensai. This concept is already used for Arcane Archer (All Elves can take it, regardless of class).

If you take all the right feats or invest in all the right skills and stats, all PrEs should be available to take for any class as long as you meet the required feat/stat/skill/enhancement abilities.

This was how it was done in PnP and how it should be made available in DDO. Im very happy to see Turbine walk a bit closer to this path. Even if its a hybrid system of some sort (it most likely will be), this gives us many more build choices. They would TOTALLY have to screw up the tree system for this not to be the case. If they take their time, listen to the community and adhere to as many 3.5 names and definitions as they can, things will probably go well.

Boosting/Reshuffling Dragonmarks might also lead to some really cool new builds. They can be a great deal of fun and shouldnt be too hard on the design team to figure out how to make them respectful. Dragonmarks were very important and respected, and in fact an integral part to the lore of Eberron. I'd love to see this worked in.

Sorry Dykle, you had some good ideas, but you are just spinning the same tale over and over again at this point, with essentially few facts (and none in stone yet) given to us by the devs..

I will play it cool and see what comes next.

[Meat-Head]

Why? In the current game, a 3-way multiclass has access to, essentially, 9 trees-worth of enhancements already. Why is adding the race silly? Would race + 8 trees be silly? Essentially, why is keeping the same balance we have now, where pures and multis get the same amount of possible enhancements, but multis give up higher level ones for lower level ones of different classes, a bad thing? Why should multis be further limited?

Now, prohibiting 10 sets of free bonus PrE ranks, sure. I'm fine with a 3 tree limit on the trees eligible for bonus PrE ranks. But merely purchasing enhancements from all 10 trees is consistent with the current game. What's broken about the current game that needs to be fixed, here?

I hear and agree with you. I guess I'm thinking from a UI perspective. Having a truckload of trees with one or two enhanced chosen in each just seems sillyish. But I agree with the spirit of what you are saying.

[azrael4h]

The problem with this thinking is that you're only looking at existing enhancements. If only existing enhancements make up 3 trees in a class, then yeah, getting 9 trees is nothing to be worried about.

But there could be tons of new stuff in those 9 trees. If each tree is packed with enhancements, having no limit might be insane. And a lot of that might be stacking stuff. What if Toughness enhancements are in tier 1, and you could take them 3 or 5 times? Do you think it would be balanced if a 3 class toon got 9-15 toughnesses, and didn't have to sacrifice access to anything to get them?

That's assuming infinite AP, which is a bad argument. Taking 9-15 Toughnesses might give a character 90-150 hp... but you only have 80AP regardless.

So it would be well balanced, because even if toughness went down to 1 per tier, spending 15ap on those hp means you DON'T have 15ap to spend on Haste Boost, Rage enhancements, or whatever else happens to be available. It means you have 15ap less and when a capstoned PrE is 41ap, regular tier III is 30, you've just locked yourself out of a second TIII PrE.

The entire problem lies with making core class abilities into PrE abilities instead of class. This can be easily solved by placing core class abilities either into all tabs, not allowing them to stack, changing the "race" tab into a "general" tab, holding those abilities and racial abilities, or making a "general" tab for core class enhancements. Any way it is done, they can still count towards the same PrE's, just not lock people from buying into other trees. The 80ap limit is what will balance things out in the long run; you simply will not be able to take everything.

Yes, I will be able to take my 16/2/2, and possibly get say the Spellsinger 10% casting cost reduction song. Awesome. However, at the same time, I lose out on Fighter STR 1, Fighter Toughness 1, Haste Boost 1, Trap Senses, and Sneak Attack Training because I have to go into Virtuoso to get Extend Song, Spellsinger to get Wand and Scroll Mastery and Song Magic (the healing damage line), as well as Warchanter because the build is a Warchanter.

So I lose a burst 15% to attack speed, +2 to saves when running traps, +3 SA damage, +1 to-hit and damage due to ending STR on an odd number, and 10hp. No thanks.

I'm already losing tier III WC, whatever it is (currently a non-issue, since there isn't one, but when this change goes through I'll presume there will be). I'm also sacrificing class capstone, spells, spell points, and other core Bard abilities by losing 4 levels for the two splashes. Now I won't even be able to take abilities from my Fighter or Rogue levels, or training, without sacrificing core Bard abilities that I have now and also require.

Hallucinate all you want; the fact is the enhancement pass as was shown removes multiclassing's strengths. It becomes a pure-class-only game, with small splashes being the odd exception. Forget 12/6/2 or 12/8 or 14/6 or 16/2/2. Those builds are worthless in the new DDO.

[rfachini]

None of the enhancements should be so overpowered that they are essential. After running a high level cleric without radiant servant for a while, I finally respecced and took it. There is no reason not to take it. If something is that essential, it should be a granted class ability, not an enhancement. Or, there should be another enhancement option that is just as good.

[Feithlin]

None of the enhancements should be so overpowered that they are essential. After running a high level cleric without radiant servant for a while, I finally respecced and took it. There is no reason not to take it. If something is that essential, it should be a granted class ability, not an enhancement. Or, there should be another enhancement option that is just as good.

Well there's only one cleric PrE atm, that's why. If you had 2 more, you could actually choose something else.

[azrael4h]

None of the enhancements should be so overpowered that they are essential. After running a high level cleric without radiant servant for a while, I finally respecced and took it. There is no reason not to take it. If something is that essential, it should be a granted class ability, not an enhancement. Or, there should be another enhancement option that is just as good.

Radiant Servant is not essential to being a good Cleric. Good Clerics were around for a few years before RS hit the scene.

Now not taking RS on a Cleric is somewhat pointless, but then we have no other options. It's spend points on RS, or... not spend points on RS. Had we another PrE, then this would actually be a discussion. It's not like you were taking Warpriest instead.

On the other hand, Cleric Life Magic is essential, as is Smiting. These directly affect core Clerical abilities. Thus they should be available to any Cleric, whether Exorcist, RS, or Warpriest. So should Turn Undead abilities (maybe not the clickies like DM or DV, but Improved Turning and Extra Turning yes), Spell Penetration, and Wisdom.

[Aashrym]

That would be a completely irrational response. Gaining the ability to spend points in more trees than currently cannot possibly be anything other than a benefit to player flexibility, and cannot "shaft" anyone. It is literally impossible for a build to be worse off because the player has the freedom to spend in more trees, unless the player simply makes bad decisions. Because they have the choice not to. In which case, their build performs exactly the same as it would if there were a three tree limit.

How is it irrational to realize the point cost locks those items out?

If you add more trees all you are going to accomplish is the need to unlock tiers by spending points in those trees, points that you won't be able to spend unlocking tiers or developing the enhancements with in those tiers.

Just opening up the 2nd row of enhancements for all the enhancements for the 9 trees is 45 out of your 80. That is just the costs to unlock the tiers, not to develop them. That is pretty unrealistic.

For every tree there is that unlock cost. Where are the points going to come from in order to unlock those enhancements you want to keep so you can cherry pick the best of the best of the best? A 2nd enhancement tier just cost you 5 points before you even selected it let alone placed any points into it.

4 windows is 20 points to hit that 2nd tier across the board. 40 points to hit that third tier. Nothing fleshed out yet, just minimum requirements to access those not even looking at class level yet. Add 2 more trees for those windows you want for multiclassing and that just became 80 points filling in the minimum requirements for the bottom tier and second tier to access the third. A 20th level character barely making 6th level enhancements because he wants more windows instead of spending the points in what he started with would suck monkey butts.

A level 6 on the split that you would add more windows for is going to be 5 points per tier and more to spent in the highest tier available. All that will do is remove points to spend in your other 4 trees and take away higher tiered enhancements in favor of lower tier enhancements. More trees = more unlock req's interfering with your cherry picking and costing you in the long run by taking away the higher tiers available in the other windows.

If you are spending between 30 and about 48 in the main tree and 20-25 in one additional tree to develop it plus whatever in your race enhancements you have squat left to spend in the existing 3rd tree, let alone any additional trees. If you are not spending 30-48 in the main tree then you are fixating on low level enhancement at the expense of high level enhancements, which makes it a bit of a stretch to consider that more effective for the character. It might not be too bad in that 3rd tree but loses feasibility adding more still developing what is in the current trees.

That's why the number of trees doesn't provide more for the characters. All that does is leaves him giving up higher level enhancements and/or spreading what he has too thin.

EDIT: to be clear, those unlock costs are from using AP and have some benefit but they still would restrict higher tiers.

[sephiroth1084]

I think the discussion is beyond the point of usefulness...the avenues of speculation have been exhausted for the information we have so far. Now people are just filling the thread up and making it more difficult (impossible) for the devs to read and collate what little useful/different opinions and thoughts are being posted.

Can we stop speculating about how build X will work within the system that we don't know much about?

[Aashrym]

Why? In the current game, a 3-way multiclass has access to, essentially, 9 trees-worth of enhancements already. Why is adding the race silly? Would race + 8 trees be silly? Essentially, why is keeping the same balance we have now, where pures and multis get the same amount of possible enhancements, but multis give up higher level ones for lower level ones of different classes, a bad thing? Why should multis be further limited?

Now, prohibiting 10 sets of free bonus PrE ranks, sure. I'm fine with a 3 tree limit on the trees eligible for bonus PrE ranks. But merely purchasing enhancements from all 10 trees is consistent with the current game. What's broken about the current game that needs to be fixed, here?

Because 9 trees costs over half your AP just for the first unlock in all 9 trees. What's broken about the existing game is MF stated he wanted to make changes that included finishing off pre's and it would be easier this way, and some classes would see some buffing up that needed it. I'm sure there was more too. :D

What's broken right now is we don't have all those PrE's and some classes could use a boost.

Multi's can afford the same things that I placed in my previous post with 4 trees. 30-48 in a main tree, 20-25 in a second tree, what ever in the race tree, what ever is left in the 4th tree or fleshing out the other 3 trees more. After that the characters is out of AP.

The difference between pure and multi is multi gives up a few AP to unlock that main tree and the class features built into the classes provide different features then the class levels of a pure would get. The difference in what is available in enhancement options is dependent on the racial PrE.

If I can get my capstone AND splash or multi I am more likely to do that under the new system than the current system where I am dependent on pure classing for a capstone or tier III.

I wouldn't be able to afford more AP in more windows even if it was an option.

[Viisari]

You people are talking like enhancements are the only reason to multiclass, since when has this has been the case?

Are they a consideration? Sure. But evasion, access to more class skills, more feats, AC bonuses, sneak attack, rage etc etc are all huge considerations that have nothing to do with enhancements at all.

Also consider that currently deep multiclasses are often more powerful, versalite and fun to play than pure classes I say lets buff pures.

Critic is good but some of this sounds like baseless baww baww I hate change... All the more so since we have so little actual details that you can't really say anything for certain yet...

Oh, and yes I'll take 100hp for 10 action points, that's more than is currently possible to have with that cost.

[Artos_Fabril]

For every tree there is that unlock cost. Where are the points going to come from in order to unlock those enhancements you want to keep so you can cherry pick the best of the best of the best? A 2nd enhancement tier just cost you 5 points before you even selected it let alone placed any points into it.
That is exactly the point! AP is currently the limiting factor, and should be under the new system. You don't need to have artificial limitations to the way in which players are allowed to spend AP, when they are already limited to spending AP in their class and racial PrEs, with a limit of 80 total AP to spend.

[dkyle]

How is it irrational to realize the point cost locks those items out?

If you add more trees all you are going to accomplish is the need to unlock tiers by spending points in those trees, points that you won't be able to spend unlocking tiers or developing the enhancements with in those tiers.

If player A has access to only 3 out of the 9 trees they could pick, and can only place his APs among those 3 trees, and player B has access to those same 9 trees, and can distribute his APs among them as he sees fit, how is player B getting "shafted"? Player B could still put all his APs in the same trees player A chose to. But he has so many other options available to him. If player B is somehow feeling "shafted", that's his own problem. He is in a strictly superior position than player A.


Just opening up the 2nd row of enhancements for all the enhancements for the 9 trees is 45 out of your 80. That is just the costs to unlock the tiers, not to develop them. That is pretty unrealistic.

So what? Who says you need to put APs in trees just because they're available? Put the APs in the trees you want to put them in. Am I missing something here? What you're saying is not making any sense to me at all.


For every tree there is that unlock cost. Where are the points going to come from in order to unlock those enhancements you want to keep so you can cherry pick the best of the best of the best?

So it's a tough decision to decide whether splashing APs in a tree is worthwhile. How is that a problem? What's wrong with giving that option?


A 2nd enhancement tier just cost you 5 points before you even selected it let alone placed any points into it.

I don't understand what you mean. How can an "enhancement tier" cost you anything before you select it? Nothing costs you points until you select it...


4 windows is 20 points to hit that 2nd tier across the board. 40 points to hit that third tier. Nothing fleshed out yet, just minimum requirements to access those not even looking at class level yet. Add 2 more trees for those windows you want for multiclassing and that just became 80 points filling in the minimum requirements for the bottom tier and second tier to access the third. A 20th level character barely making 6th level enhancements because he wants more windows instead of spending the points in what he started with would suck monkey butts.

So don't choose spread yourself so thin. Stick to fewer trees, and get those up. Splash in other trees if you want to. It would be up to the player. Maybe there will be builds where putting points in a whole bunch of trees makes sense. Who knows. Why not let us experiment, and figure out our own builds? See what the system is capable of? There are lots of terrible multiclass combinations we could make. Does that mean we shouldn't be allowed to make them? We don't need the devs holding our hands and making sure we don't screw over ourselves putting points in too many trees, anymore than we need the devs holding our hands and making sure we don't screw ourselves over with bad multiclass combinations.

The only reason to limit the number of trees is if it produces overpowered characters, otherwise. And I'm just not seeing that potential, as long as they're careful to prevent things like cherry-picking stat bonuses. But you aren't even arguing that unlimited trees would be overpowered! So why can't we have them?


That's why the number of trees doesn't provide more for the characters. All that does is leaves him giving up higher level enhancements and/or spreading what he has too thin.

Suppose all the stuff I want from my main three PrE trees only costs me 70 points. I want to spread 10 points among a bunch of other trees for a few choice, low-level, enhancements. Why shouldn't I be allowed to do this?


Because 9 trees costs over half your AP just for the first unlock in all 9 trees.

So? Why is this a problem? If I don't want to put points in some of them, I won't. Why not let me have the option?


What's broken about the existing game is MF stated he wanted to make changes that included finishing off pre's and it would be easier this way, and some classes would see some buffing up that needed it. I'm sure there was more too. :D

What does the three tree limit have to do with finishing off PrEs?


Multi's can afford the same things that I placed in my previous post with 4 trees. 30-48 in a main tree, 20-25 in a second tree, what ever in the race tree, what ever is left in the 4th tree or fleshing out the other 3 trees more. After that the characters is out of AP.

But why should Multi's be restricted to what you think they should do? Why shouldn't we get the option to pick up some of the enhancements from our splashes, the way we do now?


I wouldn't be able to afford more AP in more windows even if it was an option.

You wouldn't? How are you so sure of this? Why wouldn't you want the option, just in case?


You people are talking like enhancements are the only reason to multiclass, since when has this has been the case?

Who has claimed this?

Perhaps I misspoke at some point, but I have only ever intended to claim that enhancements are a major reason to multiclass, that most deep multiclasses are for PrEs, and that most multiclassing done for class features is splashes. Do you disagree with any of that? The new system weakens the incentive to multiclass for enhancements. If there are fewer reasons to multiclass, then, well, multiclass is disincentivized, and fewer multiclasses will make sense.

The reason we're focusing on enhancements is, well, it's a thread about changes to the enhancement system. As far as we know, class features aren't being changed at all. So it doesn't make much sense to discuss multiclasses that are focused on class features, except to point out that they will be the main multiclasses that survive the change.

[Vormaerin]

Artos,

While there could be a point for the 12/6 type builds being overly restricted, its also important to make sure that the uber combination doesn't suddenly become 18/1/1. Before capstones, you were pretty much crazy to go 20 instead of 18/something on any melee. And it was often a good idea to splash even on a caster.

It looks like capstones are still lvl 20 only, so multiclass builds could only do so with their racial PrE. But you'd still get that and 11 trees (racial, racial PrE, 9 class trees) by going 18/1/1 instead of 20. Even if you only had the lowest level options, the synergistic effects of that advantage would be significant.

[Vormaerin]

What does the three tree limit have to do with finishing off PrEs?



I don't know. But the devs seem to think it would.



We’re re-doing it – replacing it with a tree-based design that should make character planning and advancement much better and also have the added benefit of making it easier for us to implement new enhancements (PrE’s anyone?).

It will also be the foundation for some future work.



I suppose you could argue that's just the tree system in general. *shrugs* But without knowing what the problems are, its hard to say for sure.

[UniqueToo]

The more I think about this, the more I think the enhancement UI doesn't need to be fixed; and the limitations of trees will just make everyone the same. If this is what DDO players wanted then we would all be playing WOW (the current UI is really not that difficult if you have more then a lonely brain cell).

What DOES need fixing is the Lesser/Greater Reincarnate UI.... You know, so it does what it is advertised to do; instead of telling you half way through that you cant pick another class because you already have 3 (that you originally took after this choice's level - and were going to chainge later in the choices anyway).

Very slack implementation!

I refuse to purchase double or more the hearts of wood to reincarnate something that should be done with 1 or 2 if they worked "as advertised".

[sirgog]

I think the discussion is beyond the point of usefulness...the avenues of speculation have been exhausted for the information we have so far. Now people are just filling the thread up and making it more difficult (impossible) for the devs to read and collate what little useful/different opinions and thoughts are being posted.

Can we stop speculating about how build X will work within the system that we don't know much about?

No useful comments, please.

[azrael4h]

Also consider that currently deep multiclasses are often more powerful, versalite and fun to play than pure classes I say lets buff pures.


Name a deep Multi that is more powerful than pure.

Fighter - Capstone makes even a splash hard to argue for. SDIII is very strong for tanks. Kensai at least on par with top DPS.
Barbarian - Can argue 2 Fighter for feats, but doesn't really need it. FBIII is at least on par with DPS
Paladin - Can argue 2 Monk or Rogue, capstone made less relevant due to Artificers. But hard to argue against pure, at least on par.
Monk - Better Pure
Ranger - This one is better MCed, as Tempest III isn't worth it. Even with a 12/x split, Rangers remain the weakest class in DDO. AA's might want the capstone, but even then, I'd MC.
Rogue - Better pure, 17d6 SA > whatever you could have gotten out of a splash.
Artificer - Some might argue for Evasion, but not necessary. Capstone is very nice.
Bard - Caster Bards will want the capstone; it makes them viable. Melee not so much. I'll be nice and make this #2 definitely better for MC, though that's more based on build than the class itself.
Cleric - Can argue for 2 Monk, as it's 1 more DC. Sacrifices Spell Pen however, making it a wash. Evasion is iffy, given the low reflex saves. A better capstone with +2 WIS will make pure no contest.
Favored Soul - Pure, no contest. And I have a monk-splashed one.
Wizard - Pure, no contest.
Sorcerer - Pure, no contest.

So, of 12 classes, 5 are definitely better pure, no contest. 4 more can argue for a wash between an evasion splash or pure, but cannot claim any MC is better than pure. 1 likely loses for a MC vs pure, but at least evasion can make an argument. 1 depends highly on build, and can easily go both better pure and better MC. Only 1 almost universally is better MCed. And it's the weakest class in-game by far (and would, if not become weaker directly, become weaker relative to other melee classes if they lose their FE enhancements to a PrE instead of class).

So tell me of a deep MC build that beats a pure. Tukaw? Sorry, that takes a heck of a lot of gear and a heck of a good player besides to make work. 12/6/2 Stalwart Monk? Not buying it, you're either centered and lose DR out the wahzoo and threat to be in monk stance, or you basically took an evasion splash and get no benefits from much of the monk levels. For that matter, armored AC is starting to catch to pajama AC, so you lose out on a lot of the strengths of armor as well.

MC trades power for versatility. This includes the enhancements.

[Angelus_dead]

So tell me of a deep MC build that beats a pure. Tukaw?
A 16/2/2 build doesn't count as a "deep" multiclass in any way. Taking two levels of two alternate classes is still just a splash build; "deep" multiclassing would mean doing more than grabbing the 1-3 lowest levels of an alternate class.

[sephiroth1084]

Name a deep Multi that is more powerful than pure.

Fighter - Capstone makes even a splash hard to argue for. SDIII is very strong for tanks. Kensai at least on par with top DPS. Depends on what you want to do with the thing.
Barbarian - Can argue 2 Fighter for feats, but doesn't really need it. FBIII is at least on par with DPS 2 feats makes a rather big deal on these guys, to the point that a pure barbarian is probably significantly less effective in a greater sense than a /2 fighter. Improved Sunder, Stunning Blow and Toughness are hard to give up.
Paladin - Can argue 2 Monk or Rogue, capstone made less relevant due to Artificers. But hard to argue against pure, at least on par. Entirely dependent upon what your goal is. The /2 fighter is stronger in many ways than the pure paladin. The /2 monk is a completely different animal, and really, 6 monk is pretty reasonable.
Monk - Better Pure If you want to tank, 2-6 paladin or fighter levels are strongly suggested. Swapping for 12 fighter/8 or 6 monk is pretty strong as well.
Rogue - Better pure, 17d6 SA > whatever you could have gotten out of a splash. As an Assassin, yes. As an Acrobat, maybe. Monk levels are hard to pass up here. The extra 5d6 SA, while very strong, is often less relevant than other things you can pick up.
Artificer - Some might argue for Evasion, but not necessary. Everything is unnecessary, but many are rather strong.
Cleric - Can argue for 2 Monk, as it's 1 more DC. Sacrifices Spell Pen however, making it a wash. Evasion is iffy, given the low reflex saves. A better capstone with +2 WIS will make pure no contest. I doubt that. Monk is adding 2 feats, Evasion, more saves +1 to DCs, opens up the possibility of going for AC... /2 fighter offers a better base for a battlecleric, which can be rather strong.
Favored Soul - Pure, no contest. And I have a monk-splashed one. Splashing seems rather popular, but I'd say that this is probably the 2nd worst class to multi- behind wizards.
Wizard - Pure, no contest. Hard to justify, but /2 rogue and /2 monk are both strong and interesting. If you're a multi-TR, and especially if you're a Completionist, the multiclass version is probably stronger in most ways.
Sorcerer - Pure, no contest. I think the reasons to multi-class on a sorcerer are rather weak, but they are popular.

MC trades power for versatility. This includes the enhancements.
Disagree.

[Vormaerin]

A 16/2/2 build doesn't count as a "deep" multiclass in any way. Taking two levels of two alternate classes is still just a splash build; "deep" multiclassing would mean doing more than grabbing the 1-3 lowest levels of an alternate class.

Definitely. The trick here seems to be how to avoid hurting deep multiclasses without putting the cheap splashes back on top of the heap.

[Angelus_dead]

Definitely. The trick here seems to be how to avoid hurting deep multiclasses without putting the cheap splashes back on top of the heap.
There is very little wrong with the current power of splash builds that couldn't be fixed by finishing t3 specialties and correcting underpowered capstones.

The reason it's so attractive for Cleric, Ranger, Bard, and Artificer to splash other classes is because their top level enhancements are weak or missing; and that would be a flaw of the class design regardless of whether multiclassing was allowed.

[sephiroth1084]

Definitely. The trick here seems to be how to avoid hurting deep multiclasses without putting the cheap splashes back on top of the heap.
The amount of power and utility gained through enhancements on splashes is pretty minimal. +1 stat? Haste Boost I? The utility is there, but it isn't very large. Most of the power in a splash comes from feats and class abilities, but that isn't to say that the enhancements are without value.

Simply allowing players to pick their enhancements as they like isn't going to somehow propel the /2, /1/1, or /2/2 builds to the top of the power curve.

Deep multiclasses tend to still gain from their enhancements than they do from class abilities. Again, giving free reign probably isn't going to propel these way ahead of anyone else, either. AP is still going to be a limiting factor, and there will be competition for more points in your primary class and PrEs in all likelihood. No reason to impose such a strict limit on where one can stick their AP.

[Artos_Fabril]

Artos,

While there could be a point for the 12/6 type builds being overly restricted, its also important to make sure that the uber combination doesn't suddenly become 18/1/1. Before capstones, you were pretty much crazy to go 20 instead of 18/something on any melee. And it was often a good idea to splash even on a caster.

It looks like capstones are still lvl 20 only, so multiclass builds could only do so with their racial PrE. But you'd still get that and 11 trees (racial, racial PrE, 9 class trees) by going 18/1/1 instead of 20. Even if you only had the lowest level options, the synergistic effects of that advantage would be significant.
The synergistic effects of what? Being able to spread ~39 points across 10 trees instead of focusing them into 1 or 2? Unless each of your three classes has toughness enhancements or stat increases in the bottom tier and they all stack with no classlevel restrictions, I don't see how that's a major concern.

What you are doing is screwing over the 16/2/2 bards that want, say, +1 barb con, +1 fighter str, a stunning blow, trip, or sunder enhancement, and extra rage/longer rage without giving up 100% of their bard enhancement trees and racial PrE. Let alone if they do something crazy like putting the different monk stances or animal paths in different trees.

Right now I have a Elf 13Rogue/6ranger/1fighter, a relic of pre-U5. Acrobat/Tempest TWF.
That character has the acrobat II pre-reqs and enhancements, full sneak attack lines, full haste boost line with extra boost, favored enemy enhancements, sprint boost, Tempest 1, a smattering of other stuff, and fighter tactics enhancements and toughness 1. This is not a godly build desperately in need of nerfing. But under the new system, if limited to 3 trees without a general tab:
Lose fighter enhancements, right off the top, there's only one level and there's nothing available from a single level of fighter that's worth giving up another tree.
No racial PrE, this is an elf with no feats to spare for ranged abilities not already granted by ranger levels.
Keep Tempest 1, or there's not much reason for the deep ranger splash
Keep acrobat, unless it gets a big heap of "they changed it now it sucks", also this is probably where haste boost will live.
Put points into the assassin line, for SA damage and Subtle Backstabbing

So there's 3 PrE lines: Acrobat, Assassin, Tempest.
So no favored enemy bonuses, those are all in DWS.
No mechanic related enhancements, so lose skill boost, and any trap skills, trap sense, resistances, wrack construct.
Nothing from the fighter level except a feat.
Not a high-int build, so It's not going to gain much out of a deeper investment in assassin, unless the tier 1 and 2 of that tree get serious buffing. Can't go deeper than tier 2 in acrobat because of class level restrictions, same with Tempest. So where does this build put the points that are now spent in fighter enhancements, mechanic enhancements, or any that are freed up by cost reductions in Pre-reqs (looking at you, 12 points for Rouge Dex III *scowl*)

A limit of 3 trees is a strict nerf to this build, and I'm sure it's not alone. What's probably going to happen is a TR into a pure class build. Maybe a half-elf Battle Eng/AoV if they get a light damage line, so I can take a light damage rune arm with full enhancements, or a Battle Eng/Mechanic

[Totensonntag]

The more I think about this, the more I think the enhancement UI doesn't need to be fixed; and the limitations of trees will just make everyone the same. If this is what DDO players wanted then we would all be playing WOW (the current UI is really not that difficult if you have more then a lonely brain cell).

signed

why fix what isn't broken?

i'm 99.9% sure the changes when applied will leave many people unhappy. and in worst case kill the game. at least for me.

give me the missing prestige enhancements and i'm happy. but please don't force those annoying and limiting trees on me that already prevent me from playing games like WoW, AoC or rift.

if this changes happen i'm not even sure if you could call it D&D online any longer.

[Phemt81]

Talking about customization, and taking the chance, to expand that, i've come upon some suggestions about improving some feats currently considered somewhat lame via enhancements:

Prerequisite Feat: Weapon Focus

Weapon focus enhancement: get additional +1 to hit with chosen weapon cost 1 AP
Weapon focus enhancement tier 2: get additional +1 +1 to hit with chosen weapon cost 1 AP

Prerequisite Feat: Greater Weapon Focus

Greater Weapon focus enhancement: get additional +2 +1 to hit with chosen weapon cost 1 AP
Greater Weapon focus enhancement tier 2: get additional +2 +1 to hit with chosen weapon cost 1 AP

This should lead to the elimination of superior weapon focus (already not really picked by anyone)

Prerequisite Feat: Weapon Specialization

Weapon Specialization enhancement: get additional +1 to damage with chosen weapon cost 1 AP
Weapon Specialization enhancement tier 2: get additional +1 to damage with chosen weapon cost 1 AP


Prerequisite Feat: Greater Weapon Specialization

Weapon Specialization enhancement: get additional +2 to damage with chosen weapon cost 1 AP
Weapon Specialization enhancement tier 2: get additional +2 to damage with chosen weapon cost 1 AP

This should balance a bit the underrated melee classes damage vs casters

Prerequisite Feat: Augment Summoning

Augment Summoning enhancement: Your summoned creatures, charmed minions, and hirelings get additional +1 to all ability scores,health, and fortification. Cost 1 AP
Augment Summoning enhancement tier 2: Your summoned creatures, charmed minions, and hirelings get additional +1 to all ability scores,health, and fortification. Cost 1 AP
Augment Summoning enhancement tier 3: Your summoned creatures, charmed minions, and hirelings get additional +2 to all ability scores,health, and fortification. Cost 2 AP
Augment Summoning enhancement tier 4: Your summoned creatures, charmed minions, and hirelings get additional +2 to all ability scores,health, and fortification. Cost 2 AP

This is a useful feat on low levels and the enhances line would help "summoners" keeping their playstyle vivid.


The more I think about this, the more I think the enhancement UI doesn't need to be fixed; and the limitations of trees will just make everyone the same. If this is what DDO players wanted then we would all be playing WOW (the current UI is really not that difficult if you have more then a lonely brain cell).



And i agree with you. But looking at OP looks like they already decided that this has to be done.

We can only hope that they will actually only change UI as advertised and not limit character customization, maybe improve it.

[Artos_Fabril]

Prerequisite Feat: Weapon Specialization

Weapon Specialization enhancement: get additional +1 to damage with chosen weapon cost 1 AP
Weapon Specialization enhancement tier 2: get additional +1 to damage with chosen weapon cost 1 AP


Prerequisite Feat: Greater Weapon Specialization

Weapon Specialization enhancement: get additional +2 to damage with chosen weapon cost 1 AP
Weapon Specialization enhancement tier 2: get additional +2 to damage with chosen weapon cost 1 AP

This should balance a bit the underrated melee classes damage vs casters
Only for fighters and heavy fighter splashes, as these require 4 and 12 fighter levels respectively, and feats are already extremely tight on many melee builds.

[Phemt81]

Only for fighters and heavy fighter splashes, as these require 4 and 12 fighter levels respectively, and feats are already extremely tight on many melee builds.

True. That's why i assume when you pick a feat it should be useful to your toon! :D

I didn't address to who these tweaks are directed, cause i thought them just to improve the feats themselves :)

[Artos_Fabril]

True. That's why i assume when you pick a feat it should be useful to your toon! :D

I didn't address to who these tweaks are directed, cause i thought them just to improve the feats themselves :)
Then you should have said

This should balance a bit the underrated fighter damage vs casters

[Vormaerin]

The synergistic effects of what? Being able to spread ~39 points across 10 trees instead of focusing them into 1 or 2?

Did you even read what you wrote? You listed a huge pile of enhancements you want to have for a trivial splash. It seems likely that there will be more good enhancements in the future, since they are adding a bunch of PrEs and have strengthening weak enhancements as a goal.

Now... give me a couple good reasons to go 20 in any class except maybe a caster if this new system allows for both racial PrEs and all 9 enhancement trees.

You'd be an idiot not to go 18/1/1 to pick up six more trees. The only reason that 18/1/1 and 18/2 stopped being clearly better before was the capstones being pure class 20 only. But after this change, that wouldn't be the case. Maybe you didn't play before capstones existed. I did. Splashes dominated the upper levels.

If you wanted to be barb, you'd very likely be as stupid as your half orc toon not to go Barb18/F1/R1 to pick up some free sneak attack damage, fighter haste boost, an extra feat, and a few other things. And just get your capstone from the Racial PrE.


Btw, no one is denying that certain builds will be adversely affected. Pretty much every character is going to have to be redone when this happens, pure or multiclass. The point isn't whether you can still make old builds. Its whether there are more new options gained than old options lost. Not enough information to assess that yet.

[Artos_Fabril]

Now... give me a couple good reasons to go 20 in any class except maybe a caster if this new system allows for both racial PrEs and all 9 enhancement trees.
Because the enhancements for the classes you only have one level in are still limited to the level 1 amounts of those enhancements. So no stat increase, max 1 toughness enhancement unless splashing 2 classes that get enhanced toughness at level 1 and toughness enhancements don't lock out other toughness enhancements of the same tier. Level 1 of whatever boosts are available to those classes.

You're not going to get 80HP 30% haste boost and 30% damage boost out of a 1 level splash under any system. Enhancements that are not part of the racial tree are still limited by class levels.

Here's one: can you come up with 9 enhancements you would want that are available at level 1 across all classes, let alone the three with the best?

If a capstone and the enhancements in the capstone tier are not clearly better than a 1 level splash to pick up level 1 enhancements, whether it limits the other trees you have available or not, that needs to be addressed, not the ability of a multiclass to acquire class feature enhancements from all of the classes it has taken.


You'd be an idiot not to go 18/1/1 to pick up six more trees. The only reason that 18/1/1 and 18/2 stopped being clearly better before was the capstones being pure class 20 only. But after this change, that wouldn't be the case. Maybe you didn't play before capstones existed. I did. Splashes dominated the upper levels.
Capstones for everything but racial PrEs are still going to be Pure 20. Capstones may or may not exist for racial PrEs when this goes live. You assumptions are based on even less complete information than mine. They also assume that all characters already have a race that synergizes the racial PrE with the classes taken. Certainly that looks likely going forward. If true, that limits options rather than expanding them. If every tank must be Dwarf or Warforged and not fighter for Stalwart+other PrE, and every rogue must be drow/human/helf for 100% offhand attack, or cannot be halfling without giving up all benefits of a racial PrE, this is again limiting builds.

Your assumption that every character must fully utilize a racial PrE is flawed to its core.


If you wanted to be barb, you'd very likely be as stupid as your half orc toon not to go Barb18/F1/R1 to pick up some free sneak attack damage, fighter haste boost, an extra feat, and a few other things. And just get your capstone from the Racial PrE.If you're going to be a barb, you'd be stupid to go HOrc at all. You could be a full Ravager OR FB OR Occult Slayer, and still pick up Stalwart on a dwarf or warforged, or Kensai on a Human or Helf... Or be a capstone FB and T3 ravager on any race at all.

Btw, no one is denying that certain builds will be adversely affected. Pretty much every character is going to have to be redone when this happens, pure or multiclass. The point isn't whether you can still make old builds. Its whether there are more new options gained than old options lost. Not enough information to assess that yet.
There are clearly more options lost than are gained unless the implementation the goes live is not the implementation that has been indicated by the Devs in this thread. I gave you a specific example, and you said "sure there are specific examples" I gave you general statements, and you said "You can't make general statements without more information." But I can, legitimately, make predictive statements such as "We have A, we have been told 'minus x,y,z'; if A minus x,y,z = B, then B."

[Phemt81]

Then you should have said

No, cause you can pick those feats even as a wizard...

[Vormaerin]

Here's one: can you come up with 9 enhancements you would want that are available at level 1 across all classes, let alone the three with the best?

If a capstone and the enhancements in the capstone tier are not clearly better than a 1 level splash to pick up level 1 enhancements, whether it limits the other trees you have available or not, that needs to be addressed, not the ability of a multiclass to acquire class feature enhancements from all of the classes it has taken.




You seem to be missing the point. You don't give up the capstone or tier III by multiclassing under the new system.

Even if the exact same level restrictions are used in the future, which is not a given, I can easily think of six enhancements (its only six, since you'd have 3 anyway..) that are better than anything you can get in your non racial prestige at lvl 19 and 20. Considering there aren't any lvl 19 or 20 only enhancements except the capstones, exactly what am I giving up?

For this exercise, we will assume that nothing stacks because it wouldn't if you have a 10 tree system.

My horc is barb 18/F1/Ro1. Ravager racial PrE. I get my Ravager capstone. I get Fighter Haste Boost, Fighter Strategy: Stunning Blow, Fighter Strategy: Sunder, Rogue Skill Boost (for UMD & Intimidate), and Rogue Sneak Attack Training. Add that to the 1 Feat, the 1d6 Sneak attack damage, and UMD as a class skill.

All you give up by not being 20 is 8hp and +1 to hit (since Rogues don't get +1 BaB at lvl 1. And if you took Ranger as your other class or went F2, you wouldn't give that up). You don't sacrifice any enhancements. None.

[Artos_Fabril]

No, cause you can pick those feats even as a wizard...
http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Special:Advancedsearch?type=feat&name=Weapon&x=0&y=0&action=search&item_type%5B%5D=
All weapon specialization feats require fighter levels. Specifically Fighter 4 for Weapon Specialization, fighter 12 for Greater Weapon Specialization. Greater and Superior Weapoon Focus also require fighter levels, 8 and 16 respectively.

[Artos_Fabril]

You seem to be missing the point. You don't give up the capstone or tier III by multiclassing under the new system.

Even if the exact same level restrictions are used in the future, which is not a given, I can easily think of six enhancements (its only six, since you'd have 3 anyway..) that are better than anything you can get in your non racial prestige at lvl 19 and 20. Considering there aren't any lvl 19 or 20 only enhancements except the capstones, exactly what am I giving up?

For this exercise, we will assume that nothing stacks because it wouldn't if you have a 10 tree system.

My horc is barb 18/F1/Ro1. Ravager racial PrE. I get my Ravager capstone. I get Fighter Haste Boost, Fighter Strategy: Stunning Blow, Fighter Strategy: Sunder, Rogue Skill Boost (for UMD & Intimidate), and Rogue Sneak Attack Training. Add that to the 1 Feat, the 1d6 Sneak attack damage, and UMD as a class skill.

All you give up by not being 20 is 8hp and +1 to hit (since Rogues don't get +1 BaB at lvl 1. And if you took Ranger as your other class or went F2, you wouldn't give that up). You don't sacrifice any enhancements. None.
Unless, of course, you want one of the other Capstones, or a non-HOrc race. There are 3 trees per class.

If you're arguing that allowing 1 level splashes to take level 1 enhancements from all available trees means that all barbarians must be HOrcs, I think you've got your head in an anatomically impossible place, even assuming Ravager is superior to both FB and OS.

That also assumes they add no enhancements to any of the PrEs that require 19 or 20 besides the capstone, as long as you're discussing changes to required levels for enhancements.

[sephiroth1084]

You seem to be missing the point. You don't give up the capstone or tier III by multiclassing under the new system.

Even if the exact same level restrictions are used in the future, which is not a given, I can easily think of six enhancements (its only six, since you'd have 3 anyway..) that are better than anything you can get in your non racial prestige at lvl 19 and 20. Considering there aren't any lvl 19 or 20 only enhancements except the capstones, exactly what am I giving up?

For this exercise, we will assume that nothing stacks because it wouldn't if you have a 10 tree system.

My horc is barb 18/F1/Ro1. Ravager racial PrE. I get my Ravager capstone. I get Fighter Haste Boost, Fighter Strategy: Stunning Blow, Fighter Strategy: Sunder, Rogue Skill Boost (for UMD & Intimidate), and Rogue Sneak Attack Training. Add that to the 1 Feat, the 1d6 Sneak attack damage, and UMD as a class skill.

All you give up by not being 20 is 8hp and +1 to hit (since Rogues don't get +1 BaB at lvl 1. And if you took Ranger as your other class or went F2, you wouldn't give that up). You don't sacrifice any enhancements. None.
Uh, you give up Mighty Rage and the Barbarian Capstone, which are +2 Str and Con, +2 Str and +10% glancing blows damage, which totally eclipse everything else you got except UMD as a class skill (it's been shown that Damage Boost IV is stronger than Haste Boost I on a barbarian). That is: +4 Str for +2 to your tactics DCs (+1 over the AP you spent), +3 damage per swing on a 2-hander multiplied on crits, 10% to your glancing blows probably ends up at around another 2-4 damage per swing on average, DR 1/-, and 28 HP.

[Vormaerin]

No, I'm not arguing that. Where do you see me say that? I'm taking a common build...half orc barbarian 20... and explaining why it would be clearly inferior to a splashed barb under the system you propose.

It wouldn't matter if you changed the class, though warforged and dwarf barbs may suffer a bit for having a defensive class as a PrE option. Halfling, Human, and Drow have offensive oriented PrE options.

Obviously, you don't have to min/max your character. But you can be sure that quite a lot of people do. And if you have all 9 trees, you'll see a huge percentage of those minmax types playing 18 splashed.

Which is exactly what happened before capstones existed. Its why capstones were added in the first place.

[Vormaerin]

Uh, you give up Mighty Rage and the Barbarian Capstone

No, I'm taking the Ravager capstone instead. Which may or may not be something like Barb Crit Rage, but we don't know yet.

Sure, its possible that Ravager is suck compared to FB. But that's another issue entirely.

[Artos_Fabril]

Uh, you give up Mighty Rage and the Barbarian Capstone, which are +2 Str and Con, +2 Str and +10% glancing blows damage, which totally eclipse everything else you got except UMD as a class skill (it's been shown that Damage Boost IV is stronger than Haste Boost I on a barbarian). That is: +4 Str for +2 to your tactics DCs (+1 over the AP you spent), +3 damage per swing on a 2-hander multiplied on crits, 10% to your glancing blows probably ends up at around another 2-4 damage per swing on average, DR 1/-, and 28 HP.
He's talking about the new system, while making the following assumptions:
All barbarians are HOrcs
All Barbarians are Ravagers
There is no enhancement that will ever require 19 or 20 levels besides the capstones.
There aren't enough valuable enhancements across 3 barbarian trees to make spending points outside of them on level 1 enhancement at least a non-trivial decision.

[Artos_Fabril]

No, I'm not arguing that. Where do you see me say that? I'm taking a common build...half orc barbarian 20... and explaining why it would be clearly inferior to a splashed barb under the system you propose.

It wouldn't matter if you changed the class, though warforged and dwarf barbs may suffer a bit for having a defensive class as a PrE option. Halfling, Human, and Drow have offensive oriented PrE options.

Obviously, you don't have to min/max your character. But you can be sure that quite a lot of people do. And if you have all 9 trees, you'll see a huge percentage of those minmax types playing 18 splashed.

Which is exactly what happened before capstones existed. Its why capstones were added in the first place.
Then you can solve the problem all over again by taking capstones away from racial PrEs.
But I don't think that's necessary, because I think your basic assumptions are flawed. To wit:
All Barbarians must be HOrcs
All Barbarians must be Ravagers
All Barbarians must fit your narrowly defined understanding of their role i.e. Full ****** DPS.
...
Because there aren't ANY tanking barbarians now. That is a thing they never do or build for. Shhh Don't tell Shade.

[Vormaerin]

There aren't enough valuable enhancements across 3 barbarian trees to make spending points outside of them on level 1 enhancement at least a non-trivial decision.


This is a funny argument coming from someone who thinks you'd be getting screwed by only having 3 trees. If there are three trees that are better than the splash level enhancements, doesn't your argument about your splash builds sort of break down? Your splash would be better off spending those points in your three best then, too.

[Vormaerin]

Then you can solve the problem all over again by taking capstones away from racial PrEs.
But I don't think that's necessary, because I think your basic assumptions are flawed. To wit:
All Barbarians must be HOrcs
All Barbarians must be Ravagers
All Barbarians must fit your narrowly defined understanding of their role i.e. Full ****** DPS.
...
Because there aren't ANY tanking barbarians now. That is a thing they never do or build for. Shhh Don't tell Shade.

I can do the same thing with a dwarf or WF. They'd get a defensive minded capstone, of course. But the HP and threat would be insane and the strength/Con boost pretty decent. The main problem there is you probably can't rage and SD Stance at the same time. That would be a knock on this combo.

Or a really max DPS build with a drow and tempest. Or maybe even a halfling and assassin.

Or human and whatever, according to the current suggestion.

[Artos_Fabril]

This is a funny argument coming from someone who thinks you'd be getting screwed by only having 3 trees.
No, because there is a significant difference between having to make a non-trivial decision and not getting to make a decision.

It's the difference between choosing cake or pie for dessert, or having an entire cake shoved down your throat.

Non-trivial decision are good for variety, and increase the number of viable builds.
Non-existent decisions railroad players into the only possible builds or the only approved builds.
Trivial decisions are almost as bad; they cause the community to force players into the only approved builds.

Some examples:
Non-Trivial- TWF or THF, Sorc or Wiz, Cleric or FvS, Light or Dark monk, Deadly Shadows or /Ftr2
Non-Existent - Bard/monk or bard/pal, Warpriest or Acolyte of the Skin, Teifling or Gnome
Trivial - Toughness or No, Khopesh or dagger, Radiant Servant or Not


If there are three trees that are better than the splash level enhancements, doesn't your argument about your splash builds sort of break down? Your splash would be better off spending those points in your three best then, too.That depends on how deeply you splash, and for what and needs to be decided build by build, if not point by point. But if you only get 3 trees, there's no question. You take the 3 trees that best fit your race/class combo and your concept. I already provided one example of a build that sacrifices its racial PrE for a splash class PrE if trees are limited, because not all racial PrEs are valuable to all builds, and so gets no capstone under the new system. (Theoretically, I guess, the capstone could be taken, just without the supporting feats to make the racial PrE desirable or useful.)

The other assumption you are making that i forgot to state previously is that no existing characters will exist after the change. They will all either TR or reroll, unless they just happen to have a perfectly matching race/class combo to take advantage of a racial PrE. Maybe if they gave out BtC LR+20 tokens to everyone, so we could all repick our perfect classes for each character's race, or some sort of a race change token, so that everyone can pick up a capstone that synergizes with their class(es)

[aerendhil]

to the devs :
what are your sources of inspiration for the new enhancements ? It looks like a mix of Dragonica (for the graphics) and Rift (for the mechanics)

[Vormaerin]

It looks like you didn't play the game in the era before capstones. It was definitely a no brainer decision for fighters, paladins, and rangers to multiclass at least /2. Mighty Rage sort of acted like a capstone and kept some barbs pure, though by no means all. Lvl 19 and 20 are "dead levels" for most melee classes.

There were all kinds of whinging on the forums by the 18/2 and 19/1 guys when capstones started coming out and being better than their splash.

If the system goes into place with racial PrEs being equal the regular ones and multiclassing allowing 9 trees, you will see a huge surge in splash builds again. It won't be every single melee character, but it will be a significant majority.

Pures will again be the flavor build and red headed stepchild of the game.

[Vormaerin]

But if you only get 3 trees, there's no question. You take the 3 trees that best fit your race/class combo and your concept. I already provided one example of a build that sacrifices its racial PrE for a splash class PrE if trees are limited, because not all racial PrEs are valuable to all builds, and so gets no capstone under the new system. (Theoretically, I guess, the capstone could be taken, just without the supporting feats to make the racial PrE desirable or useful.)

The other assumption you are making that i forgot to state previously is that no existing characters will exist after the change. They will all either TR or reroll, unless they just happen to have a perfectly matching race/class combo to take advantage of a racial PrE. Maybe if they gave out BtC LR+20 tokens to everyone, so we could all repick our perfect classes for each character's race, or some sort of a race change token, so that everyone can pick up a capstone that synergizes with their class(es)


Just saw your edit...

If you only have 3 tabs, I can think of lots of reasons why you might pass on the racial PrE, though DKyle doesn't seem to agree about that. Btw, you can't take the capstone without the supporting enhancements.

Not everyone will reroll or TR immediately. THey'll do exactly what happened the other two times they significantly changed the enhancement system. They'll whine in the forums for weeks until they would have naturally replaced/TRed their characters anyway.

The Devs have overhauled the enhancement system twice since the game came out. Both times there was short term pain for major long term gain in flexibility and gameplay. I see no reason to believe that won't be the case again this time. When we actually have some details and can make real characters, it might be feasible to make arguments about specific implementations. Right now, anyone can construct a scenario showing its total awesomeness or its major flaws because there aren't many facts to be burdened by.

All I'm saying it that if you increase the number of trees, you'll have to put significant restrictions on the individual enhancements. Level limits, non stacking rules, perhaps no racial capstones, etc. If you do have a limited number of trees, you can be far more generous about the other kind of restrictions.

The enhancements will be restricted one way or the other. Its a matter of which sort of restrictions work best.

[Artos_Fabril]

It looks like you didn't play the game in the era before capstones. It was definitely a no brainer decision for fighters, paladins, and rangers to multiclass at least /2. Mighty Rage sort of acted like a capstone and kept some barbs pure, though by no means all. Lvl 19 and 20 are "dead levels" for most melee classes.
It sounds like you don't think they made any changes since they added capstones, and have no intention or making other improvements or changes with the new enhancement system.

A meager selection of (8) of 36 different available capstones, even if no other changes were made to increase the absolute or relative benefit of being pure vs /2splash is not going to automatically invalidate all pure builds.

You don't even have to look back in time to see the effects of missing capstones. Rangers don't currently have a melee capstone, nor do bards. Rogues only got a useful capstone last year. Some other capstones are on the fence vs certain splashes.

Choices are good, eliminating choices is bad. If someone wants to build a 12clr/6ftr/2mnk radiant servant kensai arcane archer now, they can do it and still take fighter toughness and cleric smiting and way of the tortoise. Why shouldn't they be able to when we get a new UI?

If there is no incentive for a melee build to go pure, add an incentive that doesn't remove options from multi-classes. If the pure classes can't stand on their own without being propped up by arbitrary UI limitations, Improve them, don't nerf multi-classes and splashes.

As an absolute last resort, when neither the Devs nor the community can come up with any feasible ideas for balancing against racial PrEs granting capstones, remove that one, sole, unbalancing feature, and not the ability to customize your character based on 100% of the class levels you took.

[Artos_Fabril]

Just saw your edit...

If you only have 3 tabs, I can think of lots of reasons why you might pass on the racial PrE, though DKyle doesn't seem to agree about that. Btw, you can't take the capstone without the supporting enhancements.
I never said anything about not taking supporting enhancements. I said feats. The specific example I gave, since you didn't bother to look at it, Is an elf melee character.

In order to take the "highly recommended" melee feats on an elf, you are left with one discretionary feat, assuming you have no PrE requirements at all under the new system. That means one feat to spend on ranged combat. Not enough to make any real use out of the Arcane Archer PrE. Sure you could still sink 41 points into it, but it would be even less useful than making a wizard and putting 41 points into Ravager. That doesn't change whether you have 1 tab, or 3, or 10, or 36.

[Phemt81]

http://compendium.ddo.com/wiki/Special:Advancedsearch?type=feat&name=Weapon&x=0&y=0&action=search&item_type%5B%5D=
All weapon specialization feats require fighter levels. Specifically Fighter 4 for Weapon Specialization, fighter 12 for Greater Weapon Specialization. Greater and Superior Weapoon Focus also require fighter levels, 8 and 16 respectively.

Wow didn't remember that! Thanks for pointing it out!
They should change that to let other melees benefit as well (for those interested in picking the feats of course)

[Vormaerin]

\ Why shouldn't they be able to when we get a new UI?

\.

The difference here is that I'm inclined to see what is possible before I start telling the Devs they've made a horrible mistake and are screwing everyone over needlessly.

It is entirely possible to build a 3 tab system that is not a whack job on deep multis. It is, of course, also possible to build one that severely weakens them. Right now, we don't know anything at all about which of those two ways it will go.

Until I see what is in those blank boxes on the mock ups, there's nothing really concrete to argue about.

Something is always going to be suboptimal. I can remember when it could be pretty well proven that dwarves were the best choice for pretty much any class you could name. Didn't mean everyone played dwarves, but there were way more dwarves than a truly neutral system would have expected.

[Vormaerin]

I never said anything about not taking supporting enhancements. I said feats. The specific example I gave, since you didn't bother to look at it, Is an elf melee character.
.


Well, there is a reason why the elves are widely considered the least useful race for just about any application.. That's one thing I hope gets changed in the new system. I wished they'd get something better than AA as their racial PrE. Or, perhaps better, the devs actually make ranged combat competitive so AA is a good thing you might want to build around for a reason other than person flavor.

[orakio]

@Chai You said, "Please show me in the "roots of D&D" where there is a skill tree that limits us to taking only 3 PrC's".

to that i respond, where in the roots of D&D could you have 3 classes and still pick up 3 prestige classes? DDO is not D&D, the enhancement system exists nowhere in D&D so its kind of a bogus question.

I just don't understand the constant Doom posts, without relevant information you all are just working yourself up into a frenzy of panic and complaints. Wait to at least see some breakdowns of trees before you just automatically assume everything is screwing you over. Other people have already pointed out they did enhancement revisions before and they were successful, give Turbine a chance to show they can do it right again.

[Chai]

@Chai You said, "Please show me in the "roots of D&D" where there is a skill tree that limits us to taking only 3 PrC's".

to that i respond, where in the roots of D&D could you have 3 classes and still pick up 3 prestige classes? DDO is not D&D, the enhancement system exists nowhere in D&D so its kind of a bogus question..

3.0e, 3.5e. PRC was not limited to number of levels in a specific class like the 6-12-18 system we have now.

1. As long as you qualified for a PRC through feats and skills, you could take it - no other limitation.
2. No limit on multiclassing.

By level 20, a character could have PRC levels in quite a few PRC, as well as quite a few other classes as well.

Youre right DDO is not D&D, but why redo the enhancement tree to be more limiting than the current system? D&D is a game that is different than other games literally due to its ability to multiclass creating many more options. The niche crowd that plays DDO does so for the same reason - due to that difference. They even highlighted that difference in the OP.


@I just don't understand the constant Doom posts, without relevant information you all are just working yourself up into a frenzy of panic and complaints. Wait to at least see some breakdowns of trees before you just automatically assume everything is screwing you over. Other people have already pointed out they did enhancement revisions before and they were successful, give Turbine a chance to show they can do it right again.

DOOM? No, you got the wrong number, theres no doom here. What many of us are doing is providing feedback that we dont want time spent on a new system that will be more limiting than the old system, well in advance of release of said new system. If you interpret that as doom, thats your business.

People keep saying we dont have the relevant information yet. Comfirmation from devs that certain things work certain ways is relevant information. A few people now have PMed them and received confirmation.

[Chai]

The difference here is that I'm inclined to see what is possible before I start telling the Devs they've made a horrible mistake and are screwing everyone over needlessly.

Feedback provided now is worth more than feedback provided when they already unveiled the system. By the time you get to "see whats possible" they will be less inclined to make drastic changes due to feedback provided. Now is the time when its in its early stages to inform them what we favor and do not favor.

[Totensonntag]

where in the roots of D&D could you have 3 classes and still pick up 3 prestige classes?
you can't and it shouldn't be possible in DDO also. it's just not right and only demonstrates that we are already far from the pen and paper version. and it's far enough.
why should DDO turn away further from being a game based on D&D and instead turn into yet another WoW clone no one wants and no one needs.
for the people who love skill trees there's tons of mmos out there that already have them. for the people who like DDO as it is in it's current state there will be nothing.
so thank you very much for compromising the last talent tree free game.
introduction of skill trees won't grant anyone more freedom. there will be few new choices but at the cost of many possibilities you had before.
in addition it will be huge mess with high possibility of TP heart of wood ripoff when all existing characters have to be redone.
many multi class builds will be gimped even if there was a free lesser TR per charakter slot. at least if you don't add +5 or +8 or what ever to fix some levels that were rendered useless in the process.
anyway it means a lot of work for all players. not only for those who welcome this change. and i really don't.

[psteen1]

yes by all means limit the number of prestiges you can have, but not the number of trees. We don't want the prestiges we want to be able to take divine might on our defender of sib build (assuming DM will be in kotc) or fighter str on a stalwart, etc etc.

say a 12ranger/6fighter/2rogue
takes tempest.kensai and deepwood sniper. he has the 3 prestiges he wants but that leaves him no tree to put ONE enhancement into 'rogue wand and scroll mastery I'. he does not want rogue prestige, he only has 2 levels so he cant anyway. he just wants to take the enhancements to customise his toon. 3 trees limits this. 3 prestiges does not.

yup. this is the main problem as I see it. splashing 1 or 2 enhancements into a single tree will be impossible. Because then that little used tree becomes one of your only 3. I don't see anything good about this approach. If you are going to limit the number of trees for a UI reason, make it more like 6 trees... that should accommodate everyone...

[RTN]

<madwithpower>It will also be DESTROYED! BWAHAHA!</madwithpower>

Yeah, I'm getting rid of IF. People that have it will get a free feat respec token. It's going to be a tiered Warforged racial enhancement that doesn't destroy your character.


Maybe I am misremembering, but I think quite a few feat requirements for PrE will be changing from what you and others have written. If this is the case, I think dropping most everyone a free feat respec token would be greatly appreciated, especially since people might be moving multiple feats. Given the current system, that is pretty expensive and time consuming. Speaking of which, the feat UI and feat swap UI could use changes as well.

[psteen1]

Taking 3 prestige classes might be possible in this system- but you would only get to tier 1 on each tree. Remember that you are still AP limited, and getting to the top tier in the tree will cost 41 points-- more than half of your total AP.
People are writing in these comments like we will have the ability to max out 3 trees... not going to happen, and it isn't in the plan the devs wrote.

[orakio]

PrC's worked almost nothing like PrE's in DDO, they were considered an entire seperate class and opened up your character to experience penalties if you exceeded 3 classes, 2 classes if one wasn't favored by your race. If we want to play it similar to D&D then open up more than 3 trees but if you put points into more than 3 then you take an exp hit? Personally i think thats a stupid idea and not suggesting it but just pointing out that because D&D didn't have trees that DDO shouldn't is kind of stupid, the enhancement system in itself has almost nothing to do with D&D.

I am also not suggesting that you don't give feedback but there are a TON of people in here that are assuming the system will be broken and biased and I firmly believe you don't have the information for that yet. I am not assuming the system will work as described either, although I am hopeful for some of the new possibilities within it including multiple PrE's from same class and the racial PrE's allowing more variations for players that want to stay pure class.

Some people in here obviously love multiclass characters, and that is more than fine, but multiclassing in DDO is very powerful as is and there is often very little sacrificed for absolutely huge gains in the current system. It is something developers tried to address with capstone, with very mild results, but the incentive for non-casters and non-monks to stay pure in this game is next to nothing. That is something that is very sad to see in my opinion because D&D is not always about crazy combinations and as much as you don't want to see your favorite multiclass fall by the wayside I don't want to see the system revert to "multiclass or be inferior". Defend it all you want but there were large large periods of time where this was the case, especially before the level cap increases to 20 and introduction of capstones.

I will say this, if more trees are opened up than 3 then i firmly believe there should be stuff higher in the enhancement trees that are only accessible to 19+ in the class that would create a real decision between multiclassing and staying pure. With things like Haste Boost 1 it would have to be **** impressive to compete, but then again some of you would probably somehow feel that isn't fair to multiclass players either.

Feedback later in this process won't be ignored, developers already indicated that they are VERY interested in player feedback throughout the entire process. Things like what types of enhancements, costs of enhancements, and availability of those enhancements will all be subject to change. The concept of a tree system itself might not be, it is a visual representation that is probably much easier for newer players to understand especially if they come from a background in other MMO's.

[dkyle]

where in the roots of D&D could you have 3 classes and still pick up 3 prestige classes?

It was entirely possible in 3.5 to have 20 completely different classes and prestige classes. Just 6 different classes/PrCs would actually be a fairly conservative build.

[EnjoyTheJourney]

I'll be fine with the new system as long as it's intuitive and reliable. Beyond these two issues, everything else is a distant third or lower in priority.

[ArcaneMelee]

...
Youre right DDO is not D&D, but why redo the enhancement tree to be more limiting than the current system? D&D is a game that is different than other games literally due to its ability to multiclass creating many more options. The niche crowd that plays DDO does so for the same reason - due to that difference. They even highlighted that difference in the OP.
...

I remember that too. I went back and re-read the OP - I wonder why it no longer mentions the importance of strengthening the diversity of builds in DDO.

[orakio]

It was entirely possible in 3.5 to have 20 completely different classes and prestige classes. Just 6 different classes/PrCs would actually be a fairly conservative build.

Yeah i misrememberd, there was a multiclass limit in AD&D, 1st and 2nd editions but the only limit for 3.0/3.5 was the xp penalty. Even so a 6 different class/PrC wouldn't be a conservative build :D

[dkyle]

The difference here is that I'm inclined to see what is possible before I start telling the Devs they've made a horrible mistake and are screwing everyone over needlessly.

The system, as it's currently designed, and based only on the info we've been given, and regardless of the details of what will go in those boxes, is a horrible mistake that will ultimately screw the devs over, themselves, if their goal is to keep deep multiclassing viable. They are only making their job harder.

The current enhancement system has no major biases inherent to it for multi vs. pure. The viability of multis vs. pure comes down to the specifics of the classes and their enhancements, but in general, if two PrEs are similarly powerful as pure builds, there's a good chance they'll make for similarly powerful hybrids.

But under the proposed enhancement system, there are serious biases against multiclasses inherent in the system. Will it be possible to keep multis viable? Sure. But it will be much more difficult because they now have to ensure that the benefits of a hybrid of PrEs is actually much stronger than pure, to overcome the inherent bias against multiclassing, and arrive at a net balance between pure and multis. And they have to make that combination stronger, even though the only benefit multis get over pures, in terms of enhancements, is the ability to cherry-pick a secondary class PrE. Both pure and multi can cherry-pick a race, and primary class PrE. That all sounds like a very tall order, and very likely to go wrong.


It is entirely possible to build a 3 tab system that is not a whack job on deep multis. It is, of course, also possible to build one that severely weakens them. Right now, we don't know anything at all about which of those two ways it will go.

But we do have enough to analyze the system, and recognize the serious biases it has, compared to the current game. And thus, form reasonable hypotheses on what's likely to actually happen. If the enhancement system itself has major biases against deep multis, why should I expect anything other than an whack job on deep multis, based on what we know? All the available evidence points towards that hypothesis.


Until I see what is in those blank boxes on the mock ups, there's nothing really concrete to argue about.

The enhancements system design, itself, is concrete. We've been given lots of concrete info, at least in terms of what they are currently planning. And giving feedback sooner is much better than later. The more time goes by, the more dev time gets spent on the current system, and the more locked into they feel.

[dkyle]

Yeah i misrememberd, there was a multiclass limit in AD&D, 1st and 2nd editions but the only limit for 3.0/3.5 was the xp penalty. Even so a 6 different class/PrC wouldn't be a conservative build :D

At some random PnP table? Perhaps not. It would be by the standards of the kind of optimization we get in DDO. 3.5's char op boards are filled with 1 or 2 levels per class monstrosities.

[HAL]

I supsect the reason lies in stacking enhancements and synergies between PrEs.

A three class multi + racial could concievably have LOTS of toughness enhancements for example if you were not limited to 3 + racial base branch (which lol still will be fairly crazy in all likelyhood).

The PrE combo's are more along the lines of tons of different stage one PrE's which are front loaded.

Instead of limiting the number of trees which limits EVERYTHING in the other trees instead of just the stacking items, they should just have a limit on the stacking. For instance today if I wear 3 items with +STR, there is already code limiting how and if they stack. They didn't have to say "we're taking away item slots in order to control stacking".

[Cyr]

Instead of limiting the number of trees which limits EVERYTHING in the other trees instead of just the stacking items, they should just have a limit on the stacking. For instance today if I wear 3 items with +STR, there is already code limiting how and if they stack. They didn't have to say "we're taking away item slots in order to control stacking".

I agree.

Best solution I can come up with is as follows.


Where enhancements are duplicates between tabs simply reduce the number that you can take in every other tab by one when you purchase it in a different tab. Example let's say class toughness starts out as 0/4 in SD, Kensei, Purple Dragon Knight (to name a few). You buy one step of it in SD. Now SD lists it as 1/4 (and adds to your points spent on that PrE) and the others list it as 0/3. You can then buy the next step in any one of the PrEs and it will work in a similar manner. This eliminates stacking concerns while allowing for nuts and bolts enhancements to go into the individual trees that the developers feel they belong in.
Limit the free PrE tiers from a class that you get from purchases based upon your total class level (including any psuedo adjustments from race or whatever else the devs want to add on here). Racial PrE's would then function as normal class PrE's of the appropriate type. I would propose a limit of 1 tier per six class levels you possess and have race give another six to the appropriate PrE (or 18 for AA or some fairly easy method to boost the six up for AA to 18) to replicate the current game with the addition of racial PrEs.
Eliminate the three PrE tree limit.

[Solmage]

The problem I see with your model is that there won't be enough action points to use the 10/20/30/41 points model for prestige levels and capstone, whereas if the general is broken out into each tree the new model works.

i.e. with the MF model you could do tempest III + capstone for 41 points, 9 points into racial and 30 points in kensai III.

With the "general" idea, you now have to take points out of the trees and put them into the general, so you would no longer be able to get to get 2 pre's to tier 3.

Vordax

...and you REALLY see it as a good idea that you can take 2 PREs up to tier 3? What you're doing is not creating more options at that point, you're taking them away. Essentially all melees will have to be of a race that favors a DPS pre so they can take that one to tier 3 and then choose their actual class and pre, just to keep up with the other people who will be doing the exact same.

So you'll have half-orcs ravager/whateverclassyouactuallywantedtoplay all over the place, because not choosing another DPS pre will be completely gimped.

Heck, the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced racial PREs need to go, with the exception of arcane archer because it's so harmless.

[dkyle]

...and you REALLY see it as a good idea that you can take 2 PREs up to tier 3? What you're doing is not creating more options at that point, you're taking them away. Essentially all melees will have to be of a race that favors a DPS pre so they can take that one to tier 3 and then choose their actual class and pre, just to keep up with the other people who will be doing the exact same.

So you'll have half-orcs ravager/whateverclassyouactuallywantedtoplay all over the place, because not choosing another DPS pre will be completely gimped.

Heck, the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced racial PREs need to go, with the exception of arcane archer because it's so harmless.

Yep, exactly why I've been arguing for a weaker "Favored PrE" system, that still offers new builds, but not overwhelmingly obvious ones.

Under the new system as currently proposed, race/class will be far more strongly shoehorned together than in the current game. The claims that that's somehow more true to 3.5 just boggle my mind...

[HAL]

Let me now remind you this is a 2 fighter splash. One of the most common splashes inthe entire game.

Your Ghengis Khan build for example, is 16 bard 2 fighter 2 barbarian. You want run speed AND haste boost? All you have left is the warchanter tree now.

The new system is MORE LIMITING then what we currently have according to DKyles confirmations he received from developers in PMs - MORE LIMITING - even to a 2 fighter splash. I dont even want to know what a 12/6/2 split is giving up.

I agree. What happened to this?:


- The new UI (and new enhancements) are not in any way intended to dumb down the flexibility and depth of character builds. Forgive me for the all caps, but DEPTH OF BUILD DESIGN, INCLUDING MULTI-CLASSING IS OUR BREAD AND BUTTER.

Trees should only be for ease of use / organization. The system already in use can still be used to limit what enhancements a character takes. Trees should not be used to limit or MadFloyd's statement is meaningless. Using trees to limit makes this game no more customizeable than WoW.

[orakio]

Lol, even with the tree system this game is infinitely more customizable than wow due to multiclassing and feats. Item choices are more of a choice in DDO without cookiecutter stats and itemization, and the questing system is about a million times better as well.

More than three trees is only acceptable if there is an equivalent benefit to staying pure as their is to multiclassing. It doesn't exist in the current system, even with capstones multiclassing just brings so much more between new "class" skills, proficiencies and class features/feats and additional enhancement lines. Find me a single enhancement or capstone in the game that is only available for level 19 or 20 characters that is even half as effective as a /2 monk or rogue splash for bonus feat/evasion or sneak attack/evasion. That isn't even counting the enhancements that those same splashes open up, and while you may say that "well that isn't a deep multi" it is still extremely common to see in those deep multis.

You want to look at the new system and only see what limits you as a multiclass but the reality is there is so much you gain in the process that pure classes should have SOMETHING in their favor. The 3 tree system may not work, a tree system still could. If you open it up to let multiclasses really mix and match and snag enhancements like they used to then you need to offset that by allowing deep investments to have their own benifits by more potent enhancements. You aren't entitled to a significantly better character just because you multiclasses.

[Chai]

...and you REALLY see it as a good idea that you can take 2 PREs up to tier 3? What you're doing is not creating more options at that point, you're taking them away. Essentially all melees will have to be of a race that favors a DPS pre so they can take that one to tier 3 and then choose their actual class and pre, just to keep up with the other people who will be doing the exact same.

So you'll have half-orcs ravager/whateverclassyouactuallywantedtoplay all over the place, because not choosing another DPS pre will be completely gimped.

Heck, the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced racial PREs need to go, with the exception of arcane archer because it's so harmless.

Whats the office pool up to that any melee contraption you could generate from gaining a racial PRE wont be as powerful as an ungeared water savant?

Completely gimped? Naaa. I disagree that a racial PRE will provide less options because players will be able to spec into Offense/offense, offense/defense, or defense/defense.

I keep seeing alot of claims of "ZOMG this is going to be overpowered" and "everyones going to have to do the same thing to keep up" - when in fact if this was the mentality, we would have all TRed into sorcs already.

The possibility of 2 full PRE doesnt overpower melee in this game relative to where they are now in terms of game balance. Its the 3 tree UI limitation that appears to be the limiting factor.

[Chai]

Lol, even with the tree system this game is infinitely more customizable than wow due to multiclassing and feats. Item choices are more of a choice in DDO without cookiecutter stats and itemization, and the questing system is about a million times better as well.

More than three trees is only acceptable if there is an equivalent benefit to staying pure as their is to multiclassing. It doesn't exist in the current system, even with capstones multiclassing just brings so much more between new "class" skills, proficiencies and class features/feats and additional enhancement lines. Find me a single enhancement or capstone in the game that is only available for level 19 or 20 characters that is even half as effective as a /2 monk or rogue splash for bonus feat/evasion or sneak attack/evasion. That isn't even counting the enhancements that those same splashes open up, and while you may say that "well that isn't a deep multi" it is still extremely common to see in those deep multis.

You want to look at the new system and only see what limits you as a multiclass but the reality is there is so much you gain in the process that pure classes should have SOMETHING in their favor. The 3 tree system may not work, a tree system still could. If you open it up to let multiclasses really mix and match and snag enhancements like they used to then you need to offset that by allowing deep investments to have their own benifits by more potent enhancements. You aren't entitled to a significantly better character just because you multiclasses.

Its up to Turbine to ensure the pure option competes with the multuiclass options vailable. Limiting multiclassing even more than it is now simply due to some arbitrary draconic tree system literally pushes this game closer and closer to generic clone MMOs ~ala WOW and EQ, due to making pure double t3 PRE the most powerful choice.

Instead of balancing both choices, they choose to limit one, more than it is currently limited, which pushes players toward the other one.

[dkyle]

More than three trees is only acceptable if there is an equivalent benefit to staying pure as their is to multiclassing. It doesn't exist in the current system, even with capstones multiclassing just brings so much more between new "class" skills, proficiencies and class features/feats and additional enhancement lines. Find me a single enhancement or capstone in the game that is only available for level 19 or 20 characters that is even half as effective as a /2 monk or rogue splash for bonus feat/evasion or sneak attack/evasion. That isn't even counting the enhancements that those same splashes open up, and while you may say that "well that isn't a deep multi" it is still extremely common to see in those deep multis.

If this is true, why do I see vastly more pure builds than even splashes? And vastly mores plashes than deep multi? Are things just different on my server?

There are plenty of capstones/level 20 class features that are a difficult choice for splashing. Rogue, Pali, Ranger (archer), Bard (caster-focused), Wizard, Sorc, FvS and Monk all lose a lot if they multiclass even a splash. I would expect that adding PrE capstones will make that choice even more difficult, since most of the splashed classes have poor (or limited use) capstones.

[AylinIsAwesome]

Find me a single enhancement or capstone in the game that is only available for level 19 or 20 characters that is even half as effective as a /2 monk or rogue splash for bonus feat/evasion or sneak attack/evasion.

Paladin Weapons of Good
Fighter Weapon Alacrity
Rogue Deadly Shadow
Monk Serenity
Paladin Divine Sacrifice 3
Paladin Divine Might 4
Monk Void Strike 4

To name a few.

[AylinIsAwesome]

Its up to Turbine to ensure the pure option competes with the multuiclass options vailable. Limiting multiclassing even more than it is now simply due to some arbitrary draconic tree system literally pushes this game closer and closer to generic clone MMOs ~ala WOW and EQ, due to making pure double t3 PRE the most powerful choice.

Instead of balancing both choices, they choose to limit one, more than it is currently limited, which pushes players toward the other one.

I'm not sure that double T3 would be the most powerful choice. Looking at the new Tempest bonuses, I must say that I like that a lot. But as my Drow is a Paladin, I would most likely want to go 41 points into KotC. If I went 30 points into Tempest, that leaves me only 9 for racial...and that's even if I can unlock Tempest with those 9.

What I'm probably going to end up doing is 41 KotC, 20 Tempest (to get the full off-hand, but ignore the double strike), maybe 5 or so points into either DoS or HotD, and then the rest into racial. But again, without knowing more about what's going to go into each of those boxes in the new trees, we can't really say for sure what would be best for particular builds.

My guess would be that some characters will be better off going 2x T3, while others will be better off going T3/T2/T1 instead, depending on what the bonuses are, the race of the character, the class, ect. EDIT: Other possible combinations would obviously exist, I just didn't mention them.

[kingfisher]

Of course both of these will happen. Thats the funny thing. You are making perfect sense, as are most others in here. There are a few who will NEVER be satisfied, and those are the ones who naturally posted the loudest.


pretty much have said what i needed to say already but i have to comment here, and this is to the devs if they are still reading. The above quote is decidely UNTRUE. MOST of the posters in this thread have a problem with the 3 tree limit. period. fact. count them up. for the most part there are only about 3 posters who rabiddly support the new enhancement restrictions and the 3 tree system.

most of us do not want any more restrictions. most of us will not be OK with it. if you are looking for feedback there it is.

what leslie said about people never being satisfied and being the loudest, this is true, except that its the side supporting the 3 tree limit that is the minority and the 'loudest' posting lol. just had to point this out.

[Aashrym]

Youre right DDO is not D&D, but why redo the enhancement tree to be more limiting than the current system? D&D is a game that is different than other games literally due to its ability to multiclass creating many more options. The niche crowd that plays DDO does so for the same reason - due to that difference. They even highlighted that difference in the OP.

DOOM? No, you got the wrong number, theres no doom here. What many of us are doing is providing feedback that we dont want time spent on a new system that will be more limiting than the old system, well in advance of release of said new system. If you interpret that as doom, thats your business.

People keep saying we dont have the relevant information yet. Comfirmation from devs that certain things work certain ways is relevant information. A few people now have PMed them and received confirmation.

Having a character with 10 options, removing 4 of them, and adding 6 different options is not limiting. It's providing more options to the character. A player might have wanted those 4 but the fact he lost those 4 doesn't mean he didn't get the other 6 or that he has more options available. Generic numbers for illustration until we have facts.

I see players complaining about what they might lose but pretending that is a limitation when it is still just a change.

I don't see an issue with taking a look at what those other options are before we decide we are being restrictive when that cannot actually be determined. The only determination so far is that some options will be lost and other options will be gained.

[kingfisher]

I see players complaining about what they might lose but pretending that is a limitation when it is still just a change.

I don't see an issue with taking a look at what those other options are before we decide we are being restrictive when that cannot actually be determined. The only determination so far is that some options will be lost and other options will be gained.

dont forget that the main issue is that the change will go from open choice to limited choice, restricting multiclass builds much more than pure. this is a LIMITATION. if they are doing this to limit multiclass builds they should say so, not say the opposite and then limit them anyway.

well we have no choice but to wait and see but they did ask for feedback, and the overwhelming feedback is, NO 3 TREE LIMIT. the problem with waiting to comment has been discussed already.

[Aashrym]

...and you REALLY see it as a good idea that you can take 2 PREs up to tier 3? What you're doing is not creating more options at that point, you're taking them away. Essentially all melees will have to be of a race that favors a DPS pre so they can take that one to tier 3 and then choose their actual class and pre, just to keep up with the other people who will be doing the exact same.

So you'll have half-orcs ravager/whateverclassyouactuallywantedtoplay all over the place, because not choosing another DPS pre will be completely gimped.

Heck, the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced racial PREs need to go, with the exception of arcane archer because it's so harmless.

And once we see what options are available that might be true. In the meantime it's based on the assumption ravager will be better than FB or occult slayer to make that statement in the first place without knowing what the alternatives are.

[Chai]

Having a character with 10 options, removing 4 of them, and adding 6 different options is not limiting. It's providing more options to the character. A player might have wanted those 4 but the fact he lost those 4 doesn't mean he didn't get the other 6 or that he has more options available. Generic numbers for illustration until we have facts.

We have the facts already and they are confirmed. Your statement is incorrect when applying it to the three tree limitation. It doesnt matter how many options I have in the beginning before I put any points into the tree, because once I have used points in any 3 trees, I am now locked out of every single option that was not a part of those 3 trees.


I see players complaining about what they might lose but pretending that is a limitation when it is still just a change.

Its been clearly stated how this will be a limitation and CONFIRMED by a DEV vie PM.


I don't see an issue with taking a look at what those other options are before we decide we are being restrictive when that cannot actually be determined. The only determination so far is that some options will be lost and other options will be gained.

We dont need to know what the options are. If you have a deep multiclass of 3 classes you have 9 possible class trees + 1 race tree for 10 trees total possible before you even begin to start putting points in. Using enhancements in any 3 trees locks you out of the other 7. Period. That is a limiting factor that DOES_NOT_CURRENTLY_EXIST. Again, this was also confirmed via PM by the DEVs.

The reason to splash in the first place is to gain low level benefits from the splash class, many of which are enhancement based. In order to do so in the new system you have to lock yourself out of 1/3 trees minimum just to put a few points into a splash class.

[dkyle]

Having a character with 10 options, removing 4 of them, and adding 6 different options is not limiting. It's providing more options to the character. A player might have wanted those 4 but the fact he lost those 4 doesn't mean he didn't get the other 6 or that he has more options available. Generic numbers for illustration until we have facts.

Sure. But that has little bearing one what is actually happening.

Except that pures gain 1 tree over their current 3, and then select three out of the four, arriving at about the same number of available enhancements options as currently.

Multis gain 1 tree over their current (possible) 9, and then select three out of the nine, arriving at far fewer available enhancements options as currently.

Both gain 1 tree to choose from. But the multi must give up more of what he gets currently. Sounds like a net loss compared to the pure to me.


I don't see an issue with taking a look at what those other options are before we decide we are being restrictive when that cannot actually be determined. The only determination so far is that some options will be lost and other options will be gained.

We have plenty of information to make the determination that the three-tree limit, and the proposed system in general, carries inherent disincentives to multiclasses. We don't need to know any more information to know this. We do not know the full outcome with certainty, since we don't know if specific enhancement combos will be so powerful that they overcome the increased disadvantages, but I'm not claiming I do. Just that there is more to support a hypothesis of nerfed multis, than status quo, or buffed multis.

That is all we can do at this time, but we shouldn't simply not do it. By the time we get all the details, most if it will likely already be implemented, and much more difficult to change. Early feedback, tempered by the understanding of what we do and do not know, is the best thing we can do right now. And that is exactly what I'm attempting to provide.

[Feithlin]

If implemented as Race + 3 class PrE, some people feel multiclasses will be definitively underpar. Perhaps splashing 2 levels will be less popular, but I'm not even sure of it: you'll still gain evasion, feats, monk stance, etc. while being able to have 2 tier III PrE (with race).
For deeper splashes, you don't know anything on the new enhancements. It may be interesting to get 1 tier III (racial) and 1 tier II (1st class) and 1 tier I (2nd class) than 2 tier III (racial and 1st class), because that could unlock some nice cumulative bonuses and allow to spend more points in the trees. Whining about choices are a bit ridiculous without knowing more.
If you really want more diversity, just eliminate the PrEs: why having to use only 1, 2, 6, 12, 18 levels (the vast majority of the builds) instead of any number of levels? or just eliminate enhancements: they don't pertain to DD3.5 and limit the possibilities of multiclassing... Of course, this is a bit provocative, but I just want to show that the Doomwhining is out of place atm.

[Aashrym]

dont forget that the main issue is that the change will go from open choice to limited choice, restricting multiclass builds much more than pure. this is a LIMITATION. if they are doing this to limit multiclass builds they should say so, not say the opposite and then limit them anyway.

well we have no choice but to wait and see but they did ask for feedback, and the overwhelming feedback is, NO 3 TREE LIMIT. the problem with waiting to comment has been discussed already.

Don't forget that you are gaining more choices than you are losing opening up options instead of doing nothing but losing them. We need to see the net result before we can see this as more restricting.

[dkyle]

And once we see what options are available that might be true. In the meantime it's based on the assumption ravager will be better than FB or occult slayer to make that statement in the first place without knowing what the alternatives are.

The half-orc was an example. If FB or occult slayer are better than Ravager, then we'll probably see Drow Tempest Barbs. Or whataver Humans have to offer. You are getting hung-up on thinking that examples of possible outcomes are anything more than that. They are not absolute statements of what will happen.

And if Ravager, FB, and Occult Slayer are all better than Tempest, then we have a serious balance problem.

So, assuming Barbarians aren't severely unbalanced, the need to pursue a Racial DPS PrE will be very strong for most DPS characters, thus shoehorning characters into specific Race/Class combos.

[kingfisher]

Don't forget that you are gaining more choices than you are losing opening up options instead of doing nothing but losing them. We need to see the net result before we can see this as more restricting.

we dont have any idea if a multi will gain ANYTHING. we know that we WILL lose a lot of stuff if they limit it to 3 trees. it will be more restrictive, if the 3 tree limit is in place.

[dkyle]

Don't forget that you are gaining more choices than you are losing opening up options instead of doing nothing but losing them. We need to see the net result before we can see this as more restricting.

What "more choices" are multis getting that pures aren't getting?

We know that multis are losing things that pures aren't losing (like more trees-worth of enhancements), and that pures are gaining things that multis aren't gaining (like the ability to have more than one PrE, since multis already have that).

[dkyle]

If implemented as Race + 3 class PrE, some people feel multiclasses will be definitively underpar.

I do not believe this.

I believe the system as described increases the disincentive to multiclass, and that is likely to make fewer multiclasses be worthwhile.


Perhaps splashing 2 levels will be less popular, but I'm not even sure of it: you'll still gain evasion, feats, monk stance, etc. while being able to have 2 tier III PrE (with race).
For deeper splashes, you don't know anything on the new enhancements. It may be interesting to get 1 tier III (racial) and 1 tier II (1st class) and 1 tier I (2nd class) than 2 tier III (racial and 1st class), because that could unlock some nice cumulative bonuses and allow to spend more points in the trees.

Maybe, maybe not. But given how few deep multiclasses there are currently, and multis will be getting strictly less out of multiclassing than they do now, why should I consider that a likely outcome?


Whining about choices are a bit ridiculous without knowing more.

Analyzing the info we have, on it's own basis, and providing feedback according to it is not "ridiculous" in the least.

What would be ridiculous is waiting to get all the details, when the value of feedback inherently lessens as time goes by.

[Ungood]

Its been clearly stated how this will be a limitation and CONFIRMED by a DEV vie PM.

a PM to whom?

And right now, it's in the concept-goo stage, nothing is "confirmed".

[waterboytkd]

I remember that too. I went back and re-read the OP - I wonder why it no longer mentions the importance of strengthening the diversity of builds in DDO.

Post 183 is the post you are remembering, I believe.


Feedback provided now is worth more than feedback provided when they already unveiled the system. By the time you get to "see whats possible" they will be less inclined to make drastic changes due to feedback provided. Now is the time when its in its early stages to inform them what we favor and do not favor.

General Feedback at this stage is great. Saying things like "I'm concerned that the 3 tree limit will gimp deep multiclass builds" is a perfectly acceptable thing to say.

What's not acceptable is being prescriptive, "This is how this system needs to work, or it'll be bad." The reason this is bad is because, well, NO ONE KNOWS HOW THIS SYSTEM WORKS YET.

Oh, we have a general idea, but we don't know any specifics. Like what trees will have what enhancements, and even what enhancements will still exist and which ones won't, not to mention what new enhancements they will come up with and introduce.

This thread devolved over 60 pages ago, when people started making absolute claims that this system would work this way or that with multiclassing, when people started saying, "a tree limit gimps multiclasses!"

I think the devs understand that there is concern for triple class, 12/6/2 builds. They've also said, in all caps mind you, that depth of build design, including multiclassing, is their bread and butter. They're not going to wreck it.


a PM to whom?

Normally, I'm not a skeptic. But why on earth would a dev relay telling information that a lot of players would like to know in a PM? Why wouldn't he respond to a PM in the thread itself? Yeah, not sure I hold any information claimed to have been obtained through a PM as legitimate. Not until the dev confirms it in the thread him/herself.


we know that we WILL lose a lot of stuff if they limit it to 3 trees.

Actually, you don't know that. In fact, you know almost next to nothing about the specifics of this new system, just like everyone else.

No one. Knows. Anything.

[dkyle]

a PM to whom?

And right now, it's in the concept-goo stage, nothing is "confirmed".

Their current plans have been "confirmed". First by MadFloyd's description in this thread, then via PMs I received from MadFloyd and Eladrin when I requested some clarification. There was debate on whether it was Racial PrE+3 Class PrEs, or 3 Class PrEs, one of which could be swapped out for a Racial PrE; they confirmed it was the latter, more restrictive mechanic. I posted about those PMs in this thread.

"Confirmed" doesn't mean set in stone. Just that we've had confirmation of what they are currently planning to do. I am hoping they will change those plans, which is why I am arguing against them, and providing feedback on what I expect those plans to produce if put into practice.

[pharky]

the thing i like most about this game is its versatility. other mmo's hardly hold a candle to this game because they all have 1 fixed type of class that you play. DDO is different and this is what they are emphasizing on right now -> their ability to customise characters.

so far i feel that they are doing a good job trying to finish the PrEs and balancing the different trees. this would provide an alternative and new feel to the game which might bring back some of the old players. change is a good thing if you are willing to accept it.

[Chai]

Oh, we have a general idea, but we don't know any specifics. Like what trees will have what enhancements, and even what enhancements will still exist and which ones won't, not to mention what new enhancements they will come up with and introduce.



I see people keep repeating the "we have no specifics" mantra, however - the devs were asked in PM how specific things would work and it was confirmed in PM how they would.

AKA: Wwe do have the specifics to understand how being limited to 3 trees will be more limiting to multi-classes and splashes than the curent system is.

Facts confirmed via PM by dev team =/= not having specific information. We got the information, and the confirmation.

I also see that people are playing the "we should wait and see" card - we see how this went historically - usually when turbine unveils major system changes they already have most of the ground work done already.

AKA: The earlier we can provide feedback, the better. People who dont agree with the feedback provided have tried to say we got the Do0oOmTrain® started too early, but this is not the case. We are providing feedback early on using the confirmed facts provided that we do not wish to see the entire system revamped, only to have a more limiting system than we previously had.

[HAL]

Don't forget that you are gaining more choices than you are losing opening up options instead of doing nothing but losing them. We need to see the net result before we can see this as more restricting.

Um, the devs ASKED for feedback. What's the problem?

[Aashrym]

Sure. But that has little bearing one what is actually happening.

Except that pures gain 1 tree over their current 3, and then select three out of the four, arriving at about the same number of available enhancements options as currently.

Multis gain 1 tree over their current (possible) 9, and then select three out of the nine, arriving at far fewer available enhancements options as currently.

Both gain 1 tree to choose from. But the multi must give up more of what he gets currently. Sounds like a net loss compared to the pure to me.



We have plenty of information to make the determination that the three-tree limit, and the proposed system in general, carries inherent disincentives to multiclasses. We don't need to know any more information to know this. We do not know the full outcome with certainty, since we don't know if specific enhancement combos will be so powerful that they overcome the increased disadvantages, but I'm not claiming I do. Just that there is more to support a hypothesis of nerfed multis, than status quo, or buffed multis.

That is all we can do at this time, but we shouldn't simply not do it. By the time we get all the details, most if it will likely already be implemented, and much more difficult to change. Early feedback, tempered by the understanding of what we do and do not know, is the best thing we can do right now. And that is exactly what I'm attempting to provide.

No we don't. We have supposition and fear of loss. We have 0 determination that this is actually worse yet. A person cannot possibly determine the new options are worse than the old options without knowing what the new options are.

We have definite information more higher level enhancements will be available to multiclassing using the 3 tree system, just not what they are yet.

How can you possibly even think there is a disincentive to multiclass a character who gains the ability to have higher level tiers of enhancements while multiclassing instead of not having higher level tiers of enhancements because he multiclassed?

Losing rogue action boost and gaining tempest III on a multiclass build is not restrictive. It's just a different set of options.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to take 3 of the 4 trees on a pure class and get the same number of options because the tiers are locked without the AP spend and that pure class would also need more than the 80 AP available to have all of the same options unless you can show me how to take a capstone in one, unlock the top tier in the other 2 with point buy, and still have points to purchase those top tier enhancements even completely ignoring the race tab.

That can be proven based on the point spend required for unlocks. That doesn't demonstrate any favor for a pure class to me. It demonstrates the opposite. Pure classes lose access to class enhancements they would currently have because of the point buy unlocks in each tree but multiclasses have more choices in which trees they want to keep or lose and gain the same benefits a pure class has with higher tier enhancements at the same time.

Until we see what is in those trees you won't be able to demonstrate that the new system hurts multiclassing any more than the old system just because you might need to give up some low level enhancements when a pure class is losing access to higher level enhancements with the AP purchase locks.

[dkyle]

What's not acceptable is being prescriptive, "This is how this system needs to work, or it'll be bad." The reason this is bad is because, well, NO ONE KNOWS HOW THIS SYSTEM WORKS YET.

How is that bad? Sounds eminently helpful to me. "I think the system is bad" isn't much use. "I think the system is bad, and here's how I think it should be changed" is much more useful feedback.

The only problem is the specific terminology you used ("needs to" and "it will be" instead of "should" and "likely to be"), but I believe the intent of most posters thoughout the thread has been "should" and "likely", even if we sometimes speak in more absolute terms. It happens. Sometimes we forget to include all the caveats when we feel they're obvious given the context.


This thread devolved over 60 pages ago, when people started making absolute claims that this system would work this way or that with multiclassing, when people started saying, "a tree limit gimps multiclasses!"

A tree limit restricts multiclassing more than it restricts pure builds. That is more likely to contribute to gimping multiclassing than to not gimping multiclassing. Do you disagree?


I think the devs understand that there is concern for triple class, 12/6/2 builds. They've also said, in all caps mind you, that depth of build design, including multiclassing, is their bread and butter. They're not going to wreck it.

Their intent is noble. But they've had many things turn out contrary to their intent in the past. The current system moves multiclassing closer to being "wrecked". Why shouldn't we be concerned?


Actually, you don't know that. In fact, you know almost next to nothing about the specifics of this new system, just like everyone else.

No one. Knows. Anything.

How do we not know that, with enough certainty to be concerned about it? We know lots of things about their current plans. We've been told that each class gets three trees. We've been told that enhancements will go to the most "appropriate" tree. We know that currently, some deep multiclass builds often take enhancements that are likely to go into more than 3 "appropriate" trees. We know that we will be restricted to taking 3 trees. How is this not a very good case that the new system will cause multis to lose stuff?

Your standard of "knowing" appears to be excessive considering the context. If I'm trying to decide whether to sentence someone to death, I want to be absolutely certain. If I'm trying to decide whether to be concerned about a game mechanics change, and advise against it, I'm OK with just going with the most likely hypothesis given the currently available info. Should I not be?

[Aashrym]

The half-orc was an example. If FB or occult slayer are better than Ravager, then we'll probably see Drow Tempest Barbs. Or whataver Humans have to offer. You are getting hung-up on thinking that examples of possible outcomes are anything more than that. They are not absolute statements of what will happen.

And if Ravager, FB, and Occult Slayer are all better than Tempest, then we have a serious balance problem.

So, assuming Barbarians aren't severely unbalanced, the need to pursue a Racial DPS PrE will be very strong for most DPS characters, thus shoehorning characters into specific Race/Class combos.

And in those race class combos they will be using the race for the access while multi-classing. If the player isn't multi-classing there is a lot less point in the taking the racial PrE in the first place because they could just focus on the PrE's in the class.

Following your assumption that Ravager, FB, and Occult Slayer are not all better than Tempest then going Ravager and FB on a DPS character would work too, removing the need for a racial PrE unlock unless multi-classing and leaving us with looking at whatever Occult Slayer and the racial enhancements have to offer.

Why would we need to take PrE's from different classes since we would no longer have that restriction?

[Chai]

a PM to whom?

DKyle sent out PMs to 2 devs, as he has been outlining in this thread for a few pages now. They confirmed that the we will have 3 trees accessible total.


And right now, it's in the concept-goo stage, nothing is "confirmed".

Which literally reinforces my viewpoint that the earlier our feedback is provided based on the information they DO give us, the better.

[waterboytkd]

AKA: Wwe do have the specifics to understand how being limited to 3 trees will be more limiting to multi-classes and splashes than the curent system is.

Really? Then in detail, what will your multiclass not have access to that he currently does? What enhancements specifically will 12/6/2 builds lack? How are desired enhancements going to be split into specific trees that would screw over multiclasses?

The only thing that can be said is that in the current system, a 2 class splash, for example, has access to all level 1 and 2 enhancements. In the new system, unless they devote all their trees to that splash, they will not have access to all that class's level 1 and 2 enhancements...not those levels make any sense in the new system. But, even though you may not have access to ALL low level enhancements, with just one tree, you might be getting access to more enhancements than you do in the current system, and you might be getting access to more powerful enhancements than you do in the current system.

If you say that possibility is wrong, then please show me the evidence that this cannot be the case.

[Aashrym]

we dont have any idea if a multi will gain ANYTHING. we know that we WILL lose a lot of stuff if they limit it to 3 trees. it will be more restrictive, if the 3 tree limit is in place.

They gain access to a capstone. We do have that idea. Everyone can get a capstone on the new system.

[Chai]

Don't forget that you are gaining more choices than you are losing opening up options instead of doing nothing but losing them.

Until you put your first point into the third tree, when you lose every single option that was available in every other tree you havent put points into yet.


We need to see the net result before we can see this as more restricting.

Incorrect - we already have confirmation on how it works. By the time we see the net result it will be too late to provide that kind of feedback and expect a change in a reasonable amount of time, if at all.

Better to provide that feedback now so they can choose to change their plan to fit the player base expectation. Besides, they requested the feedback based on the current information provided. No need to wait.

[orakio]

If this is true, why do I see vastly more pure builds than even splashes? And vastly mores plashes than deep multi? Are things just different on my server?

There are plenty of capstones/level 20 class features that are a difficult choice for splashing. Rogue, Pali, Ranger (archer), Bard (caster-focused), Wizard, Sorc, FvS and Monk all lose a lot if they multiclass even a splash. I would expect that adding PrE capstones will make that choice even more difficult, since most of the splashed classes have poor (or limited use) capstones.

You see it because it is easier. A pure 20 character is extremely simple to make and pretty much the best idea for a new player who is still learning the game. Just because it is more common doesn't mean it is better, or worse, except in the case of casters and perhaps monks mostly because monks get SOOOO many class features and deep class specific enhancements.

The point i was trying to make is that there are things a multiclass character can do that most melee could never dream of without the split. There still should be some sacrifice to multiclassing because there are plenty of cases where it feels like you really get the best of the situation and it isn't much of a decision. I am not advocating that multiclasses should be severely hampered or weaker than pure characters, just pointing out that some corrections suggested may imbalance things in the opposite direction of the currently proposed plan. The biggest current limitation on deep multiclasses is less access to deeper enhancements and tier 3 PrE's, with a racial bonus system or "unlimited trees" that could very easily become less of an issue especially with racial PrE's coming in.


@Aylin
Your post did put my statement in its place quite a bit, I will admit. I think the total bonus of a /2 rogue or monk is still a little bit better but it is a close enough argument that i won't debate the points you listed. You do still see a lot of those classes with capstone in light to deep multiclasses still though, especially fighter/rogue.

[Feithlin]

The only things that needs to be is the 1st tier giving slightly more than the 2nd and the 3rd so a multiclass could benefit from various class trees. But for a specialist, having tier 3 should still be better than 3 tier 1s.
The problem lies less on the number of trees than on the benefits from each tier and the various enhancements.
IMO, specialists should benefit more from staying pure or slashing 1-2 levels, while deeper multiclassing should give more flexibility to the build. All this can be done with a limit of 3 trees.

The real flexibility in building doesn't rely on the number of trees but on the ability to make the game rely on something else than HP / DPS.

[somenewnoob]

(raises hand)


Um.....Mr. Floyd....is it too late to just not do this and leave it the way it is?

:p

(and will you fix the damage boost text before you do this?)

[Aashrym]

What "more choices" are multis getting that pures aren't getting?

We know that multis are losing things that pures aren't losing (like more trees-worth of enhancements), and that pures are gaining things that multis aren't gaining (like the ability to have more than one PrE, since multis already have that).

Multi's are getting more choices to select for their 3 trees. Pure classes have 3 trees for that class and cannot just swap out another for something they might want more.

It still doesn't matter if there is another tree or not because a pure class cannot access all of the enhancements on their list either because they are locked without the point spend per tree. You are talking about losing access to low level enhancements on a pure class and I am showing how the pure classes are losing access to high level enhancements.

Multi's have never had access to high level enhancements outside of arcane archer so far. This is a functionality that can be added to a multi on the new system and no multi or splash could ever get a capstone and the new system allows for that.

Pure classes lose access to higher level enhancements because of the AP buy unlocks, multi's lose access to low level enhancements but gain access to higher level enhancements and a capstone. That's really multi class unfriendly pro pure class right there. ;)

If you can't see that potential I can't make you, but I'm not going to sweat over the losses on any of my characters until I can actually see what they are and measure that against the gains.

[Aashrym]

Um, the devs ASKED for feedback. What's the problem?

Um, where do you see a problem with disputing some of that feedback with other feedback? ;)

EDIT: I am pretty big on advocating everyone's right to post, provide feedback, and opinions. I provide mine and don't see any issues with it. I also let myself get carried away in the discussions but ultimately all I'm doing is responding to responses and exercising my right to disagree with them.

I understand their right to disagree with me too.

I understand that there is a concern over some of the multi-class builds. What I don't understand why players seem so adamant that the new system will suck and they will be losing out when no one knows what actual enhancements are going to fill each tree.

[Vindraxx]

I haven't read the whole thread... but with how the system seems like it's going to be set up I have some serious concerns. I like the fact that players will be given a lot of flexibility as to which enhancements and Pre's they can pick up (it's one of DDO's best features), I just fear that this might take it too far. What I mean by that is that if there is a specific race, or other Pre which is "the best for melee" or "best for casting" that we'll start to see all builds start to incorporate that class, even if just as a splash to get that PRE. A lot of people do this now for evasion or trap skills, so you'd assume it wouldn't be that different.

However, I think we would be looking at a situation where if 90% of the players base were using the same PRE's those PRE's are going to see nerfs and then everyone's multiclassed builds now are no longer the flavor of the month builds and you're options are going to be TR, buy a LR +X, or suck it up. This isn't WoW where the devs can just issue you a talent reset. Sure they can reset my enhancement points, but they're not going to let me reselect my monk or other levels if the talents from that class aren't useful for my build anymore.

Is anyone else worried about this?

[krackythehoodedone]

We have talked Enhancements & talked & talked & talked.

However in case my point is now buried under 50 more pages.

Remember us Crit Ragers.

Shame on those who call us ''obselete'' and say ''should have been killed off long ago''.Worry about your own Toons dont call for others heads on a platter. And for those posting here like Riggs for example who obviously dont have a Crit rage Toon it smacks of jealousy to me.

So firstly it is very bad form to get on the Forums and say ''nerf'' other peoples builds. I have never done it to anyone else and now it is being directed at me

Secondly it was Turbines official policy to allow Crit Rage Enhancement to stay. So any Toon that has stayed with that Enhancement is just as legitimate as any other.

Thirdly any Crit Rage builds have now been going for at least three years and that is just a gigantic investment in terms of game time.

I believe MadFloyd wasnt even aware of the ''Crit Rage'' situation when he posted this thread and i welcome his comment to look into ''Bowbarians'' .

Dont get me wrong i am not against change for the better. But those characters who still use this enhancement deserve a fair crack of the whip.

I intend to campaign very hard to ensure we get exactly that

[dkyle]

No we don't. We have supposition and fear of loss. We have 0 determination that this is actually worse yet. A person cannot possibly determine the new options are worse than the old options without knowing what the new options are.

We have definite information more higher level enhancements will be available to multiclassing using the 3 tree system, just not what they are yet.

We have definite information more higher level enhancements will be available to multiclassing using the Racial PrE system. The 3 tree system only ever restricts options. It never adds them. I'm arguing against the 3 tree system because of what it does to multiclassing. I'm arguing against the Racial PrE system for a different reason: what it does to Race/Class choices.


How can you possibly even think there is a disincentive to multiclass a character who gains the ability to have higher level tiers of enhancements while multiclassing instead of not having higher level tiers of enhancements because he multiclassed?

Again, just because one part of the system presents a disincentive doesn't mean that another part can't produce an incentive sufficient to create a net incentive.

My view in this thread has always been that the system presented so far presents a large disincentive. I do not know for certain whether there will be a net disincentive, but given that all the info points towards disincentive, isn't the most likely hypothesis that there will be a net disincentive? Shouldn't the best feedback at this stage be based on that hypothesis?


Losing rogue action boost and gaining tempest III on a multiclass build is not restrictive. It's just a different set of options.

Gaining the option of taking Tempest III is more restrictive than gaining the option of taking Tempest III and Rogue Action Boost. The three tree limit is likely to cause such restrictions. A loss of options, not a merely a "change" of options.


That can be proven based on the point spend required for unlocks. That doesn't demonstrate any favor for a pure class to me. It demonstrates the opposite. Pure classes lose access to class enhancements they would currently have because of the point buy unlocks in each tree but multiclasses have more choices in which trees they want to keep or lose and gain the same benefits a pure class has with higher tier enhancements at the same time.

The problem is that you are looking at pure builds, seeing that there are ways that pures could lose some of their current enhancements, and then looking a multis, and seeing that "same" possibility, and declaring those losses equal. That is not a good method of comparison, because you have no actual basis for declaring those losses equal.

The more useful comparison is looking at what multis gain/lose compared to pures in the current system, vs what they gain and lose compared to pures in the proposed system.

If you start with a pure build in the current game, and modify it to be 14/6 instead, you can expect to lose, from the primary class, a tier III PrE, lose your 15-20 class features and enhancements, and gain, from the secondary class, an additional tier I PrE, and all level 1-6 class features and enhancements.

If you start with a pure build in the proposed game, and modify it to be 14/6 instead, you can expect to lose, from the primary class, all options of any tier III PrE from your primary class (which could be two of them), all 15-20 class features and enhancements, plus another third of the remaining enhancements, and gain, from the secondary class, an alternative tier I PrE (but not additional, since the Pure could have 3 PrEs, including a TierI), all 1-6 class features, and one third of 1-6 enhancements.

How can you look at that, and not think that it's likely to produce a greater disincentive to multiclassing than the current system? The set of losses are strictly greater, and the set of benefits are strictly smaller.

[somenewnoob]

Here's an example I was thinking of on how this change will be MORE restrictive for one of my toons, a wf wiz with a rogue splash. I can't say that this will be the case for sure, but this is how it is sounding to me.

I plan to take several tiers of the rogue skill boost to use when searching/disabling. I can do that now, since rogue skill boost 4 only requires me to have 32 total ap's spent.

Say they change this, now there is a rogue tree......I get my first skill boost, but when I try to take the 2nd and later ones, there is a "points in tree requirement"......well since I only took one rogue skill boost I don't have the required points in this tree to continue with these enhancements and there are not an other rogue enhancements that I want.

That's how this tree **** is sounding to me, and that's why I don't like it.

[Aashrym]

Really? Then in detail, what will your multiclass not have access to that he currently does? What enhancements specifically will 12/6/2 builds lack? How are desired enhancements going to be split into specific trees that would screw over multiclasses?

The only thing that can be said is that in the current system, a 2 class splash, for example, has access to all level 1 and 2 enhancements. In the new system, unless they devote all their trees to that splash, they will not have access to all that class's level 1 and 2 enhancements...not those levels make any sense in the new system. But, even though you may not have access to ALL low level enhancements, with just one tree, you might be getting access to more enhancements than you do in the current system, and you might be getting access to more powerful enhancements than you do in the current system.

If you say that possibility is wrong, then please show me the evidence that this cannot be the case.

The issue with these builds isn't they they won't have access to all of the enhancements, they won't have access to all of the enhancements simultaneously. It's that they are forced to lock out enhancements and some of the players feel this is unfair these builds.

I can see that concern because the enhancements they need to give up have a potential to seriously impact those specific builds. That isn't actually an invalid concern if I want to play the other side of the fence a little bit. A lot of players do enjoy their current builds and the thought of losing functionality in the proposed system is not a pleasant one.

I can see that concern easily enough. My stance is wait and see what the alternative builds and enhancements actually are before deciding it actually is bad or not and then clean up the broken eggs and spilled milk if necessary.

[dkyle]

I understand that there is a concern over some of the multi-class builds. What I don't understand why players seem so adamant that the new system will suck and they will be losing out when no one knows what actual enhancements are going to fill each tree.

I'm not adamant that the new system will suck. I'm adamant that the portion of the new system described so far has parts that suck, and are likely to make the new system suck.

[psteen1]

Really? Then in detail, what will your multiclass not have access to that he currently does? What enhancements specifically will 12/6/2 builds lack? How are desired enhancements going to be split into specific trees that would screw over multiclasses?

The only thing that can be said is that in the current system, a 2 class splash, for example, has access to all level 1 and 2 enhancements. In the new system, unless they devote all their trees to that splash, they will not have access to all that class's level 1 and 2 enhancements...not those levels make any sense in the new system. But, even though you may not have access to ALL low level enhancements, with just one tree, you might be getting access to more enhancements than you do in the current system, and you might be getting access to more powerful enhancements than you do in the current system.

If you say that possibility is wrong, then please show me the evidence that this cannot be the case.

Even though you are defending the system, your 2nd paragraph here describes well the problem with the system. We don't want to lose those low level enhancements. Those low level enhancements are often among the best ones in the class (given their cost), and we don't want to give them up (rogue haste, fighter strength, monk wisdom, etc).

Sure, maybe those will be replaced with something better, but we don't know what at this point. At this point we need to comment on what we have been told.

[HAL]

Um, where do you see a problem with disputing some of that feedback with other feedback? ;)

You weren't just disputing the feedback, you were saying we shouldn't give the feedback until the devs give us more information:


I don't see an issue with taking a look at what those other options are before we decide we are being restrictive when that cannot actually be determined. The only determination so far is that some options will be lost and other options will be gained.

[dkyle]

Really? Then in detail, what will your multiclass not have access to that he currently does? What enhancements specifically will 12/6/2 builds lack? How are desired enhancements going to be split into specific trees that would screw over multiclasses?

I already did this analysis with my 15 Bard/3Rog/2Ftr build. I came to the conclusion that the most likely outcome was that her enhancements would likely be spread among 8 trees, based on Eladrin's "most appropriate tree" comment. Clearly, I should expect that some of her current enhancements are going to be unavailable to me.


If you say that possibility is wrong, then please show me the evidence that this cannot be the case.

I do not think that possibility is wrong. I actually have little doubt that my Bard will have more enhancement options available to her in the future than she does now. What I have a great deal of doubt about is that my current Bard build will have more/better enhancement options available than an 18/2 or pure 20 build. I honestly don't care that much how my Bard build's power in the future compares to her power now. I care that my current build be a reasonable alternative to 18/2 or 20 builds, or, at the very least, that there will be a wide variety of solid builds for me to choose from when I respec her. I believe the currently planned system makes that outcome less likely, than if there were no three tree limit.

I care about game balance, as a whole, because I care about there being a wide array of compelling build choices, that are difficult to choose between. I'm concerned that the three tree limit will make more deep multiclass builds obviously bad choices compared to 18/2 or 20 , as opposed to now. I'm also concerned that the Racial PrEs will make more Race/Class combos obviously bad choices compared to others, as opposed to now. Currently, most races can work reasonably well with most builds, and provide their own unique perks and twists.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

/recline off...

People quoting dev pms? Really now?

What are the NAMES of ALL of the new enhancements? Did they pm you those?

Without this tidbit of data, it doesnt matter what the same few people assume repetitively throughout this thread. These few base their entire argument on the set of current enhancements. Vehemently.

Without knowing what these enhancements are, or what they might open on other trees, or what stacks and doesnt stack, or what blocks out what, whatever else might be added that doesnt exist now, whatever else might be changed, making any argument that the new system is somehow flawed/limited/doom/almost doomed/doomed because I received a random pm from a dev is redonkulous.

Nobody knows the new system is too limiting until a dev posts on HERE that it is. Thus far, they have done nothing of the sort.

So far, they are clearly hard at work to ENSURE there are more character choices, not less.

/recline on

[waterboytkd]

How is that bad? Sounds eminently helpful to me. "I think the system is bad" isn't much use. "I think the system is bad, and here's how I think it should be changed" is much more useful feedback.

That's only useful if there's an actual system in place to critique. There isn't right now. At least, none that we know of. The only thing we know is that classes will have trees, and that there's a plan for a 3 tree limit. What if the devs design their trees and it's perfectly balanced around a 3 tree system, such that multis and pures are perfectly balanced? How useful was your advice that there needs to be no tree limit, in that case? Being specific about your concerns is fine, it gives the devs a lot to work with, "I fear the 3 tree system will hurt multi-classing for reasons x, y, and z," gives them real feedback to work off of. Saying, "Your 3 tree limit has to go and an unlimited tree system must go in it's place, because otherwise multiclassing will be gimped," only really tells the devs that the current level of enhancements available per class isn't enough, and that's only if they delve into the roots of the statement. If enough new enhancements get implemented, and trees are balanced against each other with stacking in mind, then a 3 tree limit might be providing perfect balance, and unlimited tree access would be way OP.


The only problem is the specific terminology you used ("needs to" and "it will be" instead of "should" and "likely to be"), but I believe the intent of most posters thoughout the thread has been "should" and "likely", even if we sometimes speak in more absolute terms. It happens. Sometimes we forget to include all the caveats when we feel they're obvious given the context.

That's more or less my problem. It's that people think something with this new system is obvious. Was Ten Thousand Cuts obvious? Or the other 2 new tempest enhancements? There is simply so much about this new system we don't know, specifics that are super-relevant, that speaking in absolute terms because one thought something was obvious tells me that the person hasn't really be considering all the possibilities enough. Certainly not enough to be using the level of prescriptive feedback that many have.


A tree limit restricts multiclassing more than it restricts pure builds. That is more likely to contribute to gimping multiclassing than to not gimping multiclassing. Do you disagree?

Do I think it could gimp them? Yes, of course. Any restriction has that capability. Do I think it's more like to gimp them than to not gimp them? Only if they fail to flesh out the trees so that each is a powerhouse in its own right.

Similarly, couldn't I say: Unlimited tree access benefits multiclassing more than it benefits pure builds. That is more likely to contribute to overpowered multiclassing than to not overpowering multiclassing. Do you disagree?


Their intent is noble. But they've had many things turn out contrary to their intent in the past. The current system moves multiclassing closer to being "wrecked". Why shouldn't we be concerned?

You should be concerned, and you should voice that concern. But saying that they must do the opposite or it will wreck multiclassing is only unfounded at this point, but actually doesn't help them in developing a balanced system whatsoever. It just changes the system they're trying to balance, which isn't necessarily any more balanced than the current system, or the currently proposed system.


How do we not know that, with enough certainty to be concerned about it? We know lots of things about their current plans. We've been told that each class gets three trees. We've been told that enhancements will go to the most "appropriate" tree. We know that currently, some deep multiclass builds often take enhancements that are likely to go into more than 3 "appropriate" trees. We know that we will be restricted to taking 3 trees. How is this not a very good case that the new system will cause multis to lose stuff?

Mostly because you're ignoring the fact that new stuff will be coming out.


Your standard of "knowing" appears to be excessive considering the context. If I'm trying to decide whether to sentence someone to death, I want to be absolutely certain. If I'm trying to decide whether to be concerned about a game mechanics change, and advise against it, I'm OK with just going with the most likely hypothesis given the currently available info. Should I not be?

Again, this all comes down to your level of prescriptive-ness You're not advising them about possible pitfalls in their current system, and how to avoid them in that system. You're telling them to scrap their current system altogether and redesign/rebalance a new one. If they have in fact been working on specifics in their trees (Vargouille's posts seem to indicate they haven't reached that point yet), then they've been trying to balance it with a 3 tree limit in mind. Telling them to go unlimited tree limits means you're telling them to start over.

[Aashrym]

Until you put your first point into the third tree, when you lose every single option that was available in every other tree you havent put points into yet.

Incorrect - we already have confirmation on how it works. By the time we see the net result it will be too late to provide that kind of feedback and expect a change in a reasonable amount of time, if at all.

Better to provide that feedback now so they can choose to change their plan to fit the player base expectation. Besides, they requested the feedback based on the current information provided. No need to wait.

I understand how the tree system is working from the post entered and I pos-repped dkyle for getting that clarification. What I was referring to on how it works out wasn't the mechanics it was referring to what the actual enhancements were that we would losing access to or gaining.

Every single option in a tree is not the same as every single option for the class though. I still see locking out a tree and functionally the same as locking out higher tier enhancements because of the cost. We both seem to understand fully well that we can lose access to enhancements on our bards depending on where those fall in the trees. To me no access to an enhancement regardless of how we lose is irrelevant. We lose that access and we lose it regardless of number of trees.

[HAL]

Losing rogue action boost and gaining tempest III on a multiclass build is not restrictive. It's just a different set of options.

If I currently have the option to have rogue action boost and you take away that option, that is more restrictive. I don't care if you give me something else, I wanted rogue action boost not that other thing. I don't understand how you can't see that this is an added restriction.

We're not talking numbers here where 1+3 = 4 but 2+2 also =4 so either way you still have 4. It DOES matter which enhancements are available, not just that we have a certain number of them available.

[somenewnoob]

if i currently have the option to have rogue action boost and you take away that option, that is more restrictive. I don't care if you give me something else, i wanted rogue action boost not that other thing. I don't understand how you can't see that this is an added restriction.

We're not talking numbers here where 1+3 = 4 but 2+2 also =4 so either way you still have 4. It does matter which enhancements are available, not just that we have a certain number of them available.

+1

[Aashrym]

The problem is that you are looking at pure builds, seeing that there are ways that pures could lose some of their current enhancements, and then looking a multis, and seeing that "same" possibility, and declaring those losses equal. That is not a good method of comparison, because you have no actual basis for declaring those losses equal.

Nope, I would use the fact that the higher level enhancements are higher level enhancements as an indication they might be of greater value than the lower level enhancements because they are lower level enhancements to lead to the possibility that is a greater loss regarding the higher level enhancements.


If you start with a pure build in the current game, and modify it to be 14/6 instead, you can expect to lose, from the primary class, a tier III PrE, lose your 15-20 class features and enhancements, and gain, from the secondary class, an additional tier I PrE, and all level 1-6 class features and enhancements.

If you start with a pure build in the proposed game, and modify it to be 14/6 instead, you can expect to lose, from the primary class, all options of any tier III PrE from your primary class (which could be two of them), all 15-20 class features and enhancements, plus another third of the remaining enhancements, and gain, from the secondary class, an alternative tier I PrE (but not additional, since the Pure could have 3 PrEs, including a TierI), all 1-6 class features, and one third of 1-6 enhancements.

That would assuming those lower level enhancements are worth more than the higher level enhancement just because there are more of them.

If you have 14/6 in the current game you have no chance at a capstone at all.


IHow can you look at that, and not think that it's likely to produce a greater disincentive to multiclassing than the current system? The set of losses are strictly greater, and the set of benefits are strictly smaller.

I disagree that the number of features available would be of more value than the level of the features available and I think that is what our discussion really boils down to.

[orakio]

If I currently have the option to have rogue action boost and you take away that option, that is more restrictive. I don't care if you give me something else, I wanted rogue action boost not that other thing. I don't understand how you can't see that this is an added restriction.

We're not talking numbers here where 1+3 = 4 but 2+2 also =4 so either way you still have 4. It DOES matter which enhancements are available, not just that we have a certain number of them available.

If you don't know where rogue action boost is you won't know if you have it available or not, you don't know if its going to be available in multiple trees (possible considering dev's have stated that some things will pop up multiple times like assassin/acrobat dex).

Waterboytkd has a point, until you have that information everything is speculation and the only feedback you can give is something that isn't making an assumption. Example:

1) I really enjoy multiclassing and I worry that the 3 tree limit will prevent me from having access to all of the enhancements I had before.
2) I am worried that there will be more incentive to stay pure due to capstones and dual tier3 class PrE's and that multiclassing will be an inferior option.
3) Will the new 41 point capstones provide enough incentive to give up 2 ranks of PrE's and how will pure classes be able to compete with the flexibility of multiclasses without the easier access to capstones.

By voicing something as a question or concern rather than claiming it as a fact or definite evidence to why this system would fail and instead we should do X, Y or Z you give the developers something they need to address and a more easily identifiable list of player concerns/question. Many players have posted those concerns positively, many have made very large assumptions on how the new system will work based on information that was not directly posted by a developer. Meat-Head had a fantastic post probably 20 pages ago identifying what sounded like communal concerns, perhaps you could PM him as I believe he started a thread with that information so it didn't get so buried in this one.

[Aashrym]

You weren't just disputing the feedback, you were saying we shouldn't give the feedback until the devs give us more information:

No, I was saying we shouldn't worry about it so much because we need more information. That doesn't mean don't provide feedback. It means I think we shouldn't worry about is as much as we are yet. If I was unclear then hopefully that helps.

[dkyle]

That's only useful if there's an actual system in place to critique. There isn't right now. At least, none that we know of. The only thing we know is that classes will have trees, and that there's a plan for a 3 tree limit. What if the devs design their trees and it's perfectly balanced around a 3 tree system, such that multis and pures are perfectly balanced?

If they manage to do that, then great. But I have no reason to believe that will happen at this time, based on what we've been told. So it would be foolish to predicate my feedback on such an assumption.

Knowing what we know now is enough to evaluate those rules, and make predictions on what those rules are likely to produce. That's all I've been saying this thread.


Saying, "Your 3 tree limit has to go and an unlimited tree system must go in it's place, because otherwise multiclassing will be gimped," only really tells the devs that the current level of enhancements available per class isn't enough, and that's only if they delve into the roots of the statement.

But I haven't said this. I've said that the three tree limit works to disincentivize multiclassing, and that having such a bias inherent to the system will make creating trees that support multiclassing more difficult, and therefore unlikely to work out.


That's more or less my problem. It's that people think something with this new system is obvious. Was Ten Thousand Cuts obvious? Or the other 2 new tempest enhancements?

That's not what I said was obvious. What's obvious is the fact that we don't know those things yet, so obviously our feedback is predicated on the things we do know. Is it necessary to point out that caveat in every post? Yet if we don't, we inevitably get accused of making assumptions.


Do I think it could gimp them? Yes, of course. Any restriction has that capability. Do I think it's more like to gimp them than to not gimp them? Only if they fail to flesh out the trees so that each is a powerhouse in its own right.

What's more likely? That they flesh out the trees and don't deviate from the current enhancement design enough to keep deep multi's viable? Or that they flesh out the trees and do deviate from the current enhancement design just enough to succeed at making deep multis viable, but not so far that multis dominate?

Seems to me, it's more likely they won't get it right, and the balance between multis and pure will get screwed up. Most likely, on the side of not enough for multis, given that nothing of the Tempest description we got points to any major restructuring compared to the current Tempest.

Wouldn't it be better to have an enhancement tree system that doesn't have inherent biases for or against multiclasses that the current system doesn't have, and work from there? We already have a set of enhancements that's pretty well balanced as it is. Why mess with it?


Similarly, couldn't I say: Unlimited tree access benefits multiclassing more than it benefits pure builds. That is more likely to contribute to overpowered multiclassing than to not overpowering multiclassing. Do you disagree?

That is true, but given that the system we have currently already essentially has "unlimited trees", that suggests it wouldn't be.


Mostly because you're ignoring the fact that new stuff will be coming out.

There is no indication that the new stuff coming out will favor multis over pures. So the most reasonable hypothesis is that the new stuff will be neutral to multis vs pures, and that the already apparant disadvantages will remain unchecked.


Again, this all comes down to your level of prescriptive-ness You're not advising them about possible pitfalls in their current system, and how to avoid them in that system. You're telling them to scrap their current system altogether and redesign/rebalance a new one. If they have in fact been working on specifics in their trees (Vargouille's posts seem to indicate they haven't reached that point yet), then they've been trying to balance it with a 3 tree limit in mind. Telling them to go unlimited tree limits means you're telling them to start over.

How is it "starting over"? It's not that radical a change.

And as far as balancing, I believe that the three tree limit makes it harder to balance the PrEs with respect to multis vs pures, since it is inherently biased against multis. I do think it would be in their best interest to switch to unlimited trees, and balance from there. If there's less bias in the enhancement system itself, then the PrEs themselves can be designed to be equally appealing to both pures and multies, and we're likely to arrive at a balanced system. If the enhancements sytem itself is biased against multies, then the PrEs must be designed to be more powerful in combination, across two or three classes + Racial PrE, than they are in combination within a single class + Racial PrE. That's a much more difficult goal to design towards.

[Aashrym]

If I currently have the option to have rogue action boost and you take away that option, that is more restrictive. I don't care if you give me something else, I wanted rogue action boost not that other thing. I don't understand how you can't see that this is an added restriction.

We're not talking numbers here where 1+3 = 4 but 2+2 also =4 so either way you still have 4. It DOES matter which enhancements are available, not just that we have a certain number of them available.

Lose and option gain an option is the same number of options. Still not more restrictive, just different choices to make.

[somenewnoob]

Lose and option gain an option is the same number of options. Still not more restrictive, just different choices to make.

If all the choices were equal that would be true. However here, it is not.

[Feithlin]

If I currently have the option to have rogue action boost and you take away that option, that is more restrictive. I don't care if you give me something else, I wanted rogue action boost not that other thing. I don't understand how you can't see that this is an added restriction.

We're not talking numbers here where 1+3 = 4 but 2+2 also =4 so either way you still have 4. It DOES matter which enhancements are available, not just that we have a certain number of them available.

What you want is nothing to change. Why did you want rogue action boost I? Because it was available with rogue I. Why will want something else in the future? Because it will be available. If you could have an enhancement giving +5 umd, would you still want your rogue action boost?

I want my batman build ! What? I can't anymore? This is so limitative!

[HAL]

Lose and option gain an option is the same number of options. Still not more restrictive, just different choices to make.

As I said, I don't want "an option", I want a specific option. If that specific option is no longer available to me then that is an added restriction if that option is currently available to me. I'm not sure why you're not understanding this.

[dkyle]

Nope, I would use the fact that the higher level enhancements are higher level enhancements as an indication they might be of greater value than the lower level enhancements because they are lower level enhancements to lead to the possibility that is a greater loss regarding the higher level enhancements.

But that's not consistently true in the current game, so why would you make that assumption in the proposed game? If it were true that higher level enhancements always beat lower level enhancements, then we'd never multiclass for the sake of enhancements. Obviously, we do. Not always for enhancements, but frequently.

But again, your approach is not a good one for answering the important question: how do the costs/benefits of multiclassing change in the proposed system?


That would assuming those lower level enhancements are worth more than the higher level enhancement just because there are more of them.

In both the current game, the multi gives up higher level enhancements in favor of lower level enhancements of a different class. In the future game, he also gives up additional lower level enhancements, and gains back fewer low level enhancements of a different class. How does an assumption of the relative value of low vs. high level enhancements enter into this?


If you have 14/6 in the current game you have no chance at a capstone at all.

So then, current game: multi loses capstone compared to Pure. Future game: multi loses three capstone choices compared to Pure. Do you really think that the capstone will always outweigh all those low level enhancements that the multi is now giving up? And I don't mean "usually". I mean "always". If it's not "always" than at least one multiclass combo is discouraged by the three tree limit.


I disagree that the number of features available would be of more value than the level of the features available and I think that is what our discussion really boils down to.

How so? The pure gets both more, and higher level, features to choose from compared to the multi. Choosing to multi means giving up any possibility of access to higher level features from their class.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

we already have confirmation on how it works.

This new tree format mechanic is very easy to understand. Sadly, its just the first 1% of the end product... at best. We dont know whats in the boxes. Heres an example. Lets say that we are holding a few hundred empty bags. You cant tell me the value of whats in the bags until somebody fills the bags.... it doesnt matter if you tell me that I can only have 30 bags. Its whats INSIDE those 30 bags which is whats pertinent! ;) Think this thread should be renamed Lets Talk: The Empty Bag Theory!


By the time we see the net result it will be too late to provide that kind of feedback and expect a change in a reasonable amount of time, if at all.

This is the gist of your fears. That's were we share a concern. Turbine has promised better QA, better testing, fixing the flaws of '11. They have gone as far as promising that Lamma is CHANGING from a preview server to a testing server, so they can actually make changes based on community concerns and/or simply bad code. This is precisely their greatest chance to start fulfilling all these promises.

So yes, I am optimistic, but very cautiously optimistic.

[dkyle]

What you want is nothing to change. Why did you want rogue action boost I? Because it was available with rogue I. Why will want something else in the future? Because it will be available. If you could have an enhancement giving +5 umd, would you still want your rogue action boost?

But it's less likely that we'll be able to have the stuff we want to multiclass for available to use thanks to the three tree limit. That means at least some multiclasses that would make sense without the limit won't make sense with the limit. I don't see the reason to be limiting multiclasses further than they already are.


I want my batman build ! What? I can't anymore? This is so limitative!

"Batman" was, arguably, overpowered. Overpowered options effectively limit the game by making certain choices obvious. By limiting overpowered options, we actually increase the number of choices worth debating.

Is splashing for Rogue Action Boost I overpowered? Should it be taken away for that reason? If it's not overpowered, why should it be taken away?

[dkyle]

This new tree format mechanic is very easy to understand. Sadly, its just the first 1% of the end product... at best. We dont know whats in the boxes, so at best we are holding a few hundred empty bags. You cant tell me the value of whats in the bags until you put something in the bags.... it doesnt matter if you tell me that I can only have 30 bags. Its whats INSIDE those 30 bags which is worthy of 1900+ replies! ;)

If I show you 3 bags of equal size in one pile, and another pile with three bags that look exactly the same, except two are 50% smaller, which pile would you expect to contain more worthwhile things, given just that information? Of course, it's entirely possible the three large bags contain trash, and the 2 small bags contain gold, but you have no basis to make that assessment. You've gotta go with the info you have, and do the best you can.

Yes, we're analyzing limited info. But that doesn't mean we can't make reasonable hypotheses, and produce meaningful feedback on that basis. I see a system where pure builds get 3 full-20 trees, and multiclasses get 3 smaller trees (only one, at most, full 20), with no indication that the quality of those 3 smaller trees will be any better than the quality of the full range of enhancements multis get now. Based on that info, I expect multis to be penalized by the current system.

[slimkj]

There has to be a limit to multiclassing
a) Why?
b) From what little we've seen, it looks like there are already good enough hard limits;
class levels to qualify,
maximum of three classes,
AP spent (total or by tree) prerequisites,
feat prerequisites (although it sounds like there may be fewer of these),
other enhancements prerequisites,
total available AP, and
tree capstone desirability.
Why would you need more than that? That could already really herd you if they wanted. To impose further limits feels unnecessary to me.

I'm pretty sure they are clever enough to work within that, not need to limit trees, and still manage to prevent abuse.

Anyway, even if something amazing slipped through for a month or three before it was nerfed, who cares? It's not like it hasn't happened before and we've always coped. ;)

[Vormaerin]

Is splashing for Rogue Action Boost I overpowered? Should it be taken away for that reason? If it's not overpowered, why should it be taken away?

Part of the problem is that these arguments are the same ones that were made the last two times they changed the enhancement system and they were ultimately wrong. Yes, it wrecked certain builds. Yes, it changed incentives around. No, it didn't reduce overall viability of multiclassing or reduce flexibility.

Badly done, the current proposal will screw over deep multis and specific race/class combos better than others even more than that is the case today.

Unlimited trees with racial capstones are very likely to make pure builds significantly weaker than shallow splash builds.


However, neither of these mistakes are inevitable. There are good, flexible 3 tab systems possible. There are balanced 9 tab systems possible. Absolute predictions at this point are not justified.

You can argue that fact free hysteria early is better than detail oriented analysis later, but I don't agree. Early days speculation without evidence is easily dismissed with "well, they don't see all the things we see."

[waterboytkd]

If I show you 3 bags of equal size in one pile, and another pile with three bags that look exactly the same, except two are 50% smaller, which pile would you expect to contain more worthwhile things, given just that information? Of course, it's entirely possible the three large bags contain trash, and the 2 small bags contain gold, but you have no basis to make that assessment. You've gotta go with the info you have, and do the best you can.

Yes, we're analyzing limited info. But that doesn't mean we can't make reasonable hypotheses, and produce meaningful feedback on that basis. I see a system where pure builds get 3 full-20 trees, and multiclasses get 3 smaller trees (only one, at most, full 20), with no indication that the quality of those 3 smaller trees will be any better than the quality of the full range of enhancements multis get now. Based on that info, I expect multis to be penalized by the current system.

I see this as a legitimate concern. 100% agree with you that this is something the devs need to address.

But why must tree limit be abolished? Why can't they just remove level retrictions, if any, on tiers on enhancements, so they only have "AP spent in this tree" prereqs (excluding enhancements that need fear prereqs because they affect that feat, or have class level prereqs because they affect a class ability gained at that level)?

That way, you'd have six bags all approxjmately the same size.

Also, what about the possible problems with stacking and unlimited tree limits?

[Chai]

This new tree format mechanic is very easy to understand. Sadly, its just the first 1% of the end product... at best. We dont know whats in the boxes. Heres an example. Lets say that we are holding a few hundred empty bags. You cant tell me the value of whats in the bags until somebody fills the bags.... it doesnt matter if you tell me that I can only have 30 bags. Its whats INSIDE those 30 bags which is whats pertinent! ;) Think this thread should be renamed Lets Talk: The Empty Bag Theory!

In that analogy, if you told me the minute you fill 3 bags youre done, we now know something definitive. It now doesnt matter if you put 10, 30, or 200 bags in front of me, because I know Im am only walking away with 3. It no longer became advantageous to put more bags in front of me.


This is the gist of your fears. That's were we share a concern. Turbine has promised better QA, better testing, fixing the flaws of '11. They have gone as far as promising that Lamma is CHANGING from a preview server to a testing server, so they can actually make changes based on community concerns and/or simply bad code. This is precisely their greatest chance to start fulfilling all these promises.

So yes, I am optimistic, but very cautiously optimistic.

Tis why I provide the feedback early. Historically Turbine has put these kinds of threads up before stuff hits Lamannia to get just this kind of "knee jerk" style feedback. They understand they have a bunch of experienced MMO players and experienced D&D players in their midst, so they gauge initial reaction just as much as they do feedback after the finished product is delivered. The U5 thread comes to mind as a semi recent example.

[waterboytkd]

Part of the problem is that these arguments are the same ones that were made the last two times they changed the enhancement system and they were ultimately wrong. Yes, it wrecked certain builds. Yes, it changed incentives around. No, it didn't reduce overall viability of multiclassing or reduce flexibility.

Badly done, the current proposal will screw over deep multis and specific race/class combos better than others even more than that is the case today.

Unlimited trees with racial capstones are very likely to make pure builds significantly weaker than shallow splash builds.


However, neither of these mistakes are inevitable. There are good, flexible 3 tab systems possible. There are balanced 9 tab systems possible. Absolute predictions at this point are not justified.

You can argue that fact free hysteria early is better than detail oriented analysis later, but I don't agree. Early days speculation without evidence is easily dismissed with "well, they don't see all the things we see."

Very well said.

[dkyle]

I see this as a legitimate concern. 100% agree with you that this is something the devs need to address.

But why must tree limit be abolished? Why can't they just remove level retrictions, if any, on tiers on enhancements, so they only have "AP spent in this tree" prereqs (excluding enhancements that need fear prereqs because they affect that feat, or have class level prereqs because they affect a class ability gained at that level)?

That way, you'd have six bags all approxjmately the same size.

Also, what about the possible problems with stacking and unlimited tree limits?

I actually proposed something along those lines earlier.

But I think the risk of that approach is greater than the unlimited trees, because unlimited trees is basically what we have already. Yeah, stacking is hairy, but we also already have a stacking system that works. Class level requirement prereqs are a huge balancing factor in the current game. Th more radical the shakeup, the more likely something goes wrong.

I'm also concerned that carte-blanche access to the entire tree (aside from those specific class-feature-based exceptions) would be too much. If a pure 20 gets 3 full-20 trees to choose from, but an 18/1/1 would get 3 full trees, and 6 nearly full trees, that seems like a lot. And it still discourages deep multiclassing, because more levels in a class would do less to gain you access to enhancements. It might just end up with a supremacy of splash builds.

My proposal earlier was to have the same character level requirements, but to reduce class level requirements significantly. So the current tierIIIs might become character level requirement 18, but class level requirement 12.

[dkyle]

You can argue that fact free hysteria early is better than detail oriented analysis later, but I don't agree. Early days speculation without evidence is easily dismissed with "well, they don't see all the things we see."

It's not "fact free" hysteria, because we have many facts. I'm basing my feedback on those facts. And I'm not hysterical. I'm giving feedback, and arguing points as best I can. But I'm not deleting my Bard just because I think her build is likely to get ruined, based on what we know currently.

And it's not an either-or. When the details come, they'll get analyzed.

[orakio]

Dkyle, you made your reasonable hypothesis and thoughts known multiple multiple times. At this point you are trying to refute any thought that anyone else has regarding the issue when you don't have the information to refute that point. With the amount of information we have pretty much any reasonable hypothesis people come up with has about equal validity.

I will pose a question to you, in the current system what enhancement is better for the cost? A barbarian picking up damage boost 4 or a /1 rogue getting rogue haste boost? In most current enhancements are the bonuses that are not even for each rank more front loaded or back loaded(i.e. caster damage lines... +20% for rank 1, 5% for each additional rank)? Is there anything in the previewed PrE that makes you think capstones or tier 3 PrE's are significantly better than t2 pre's considering the additional cost?

Those types of questions are why the actual enhancement data is so important. People asking you to wait for some of that information have every bit as valid of a point as your concerns are that multiclasses my suffer in how you think the previewed system will be implemented.

@slimkj
nearly all of those hard limits you supplied can be applied to pure classes as well. You pretty much just defined the concept of the current enhancement system. The point of a limit to multiclassing is that they shouldn't be purely superior to pure classes. If you don't think they are check out things like the dps challenges, see how heavily multiclassed most of those things are and also realize those multiclasses are typically picking up additional utility and survivability through UMD and evasion. Obviously that isn't empirical evidence that multiclasses are better, but it certainly indicates the overall strength of the builds and perhaps some of the gap between those multiclasses and pure classes (aside from barbs) needs to be closed just a bit.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

a) Why?
b) From what little we've seen, it looks like there are already good enough hard limits;

class levels to qualify,
maximum of three classes,
AP spent (total or by tree) prerequisites,
feat prerequisites (although it sounds like there may be fewer of these),
other enhancements prerequisites,
total available AP, and
tree capstone desirability.

Why would you need more than that? That could already really herd you if they wanted. To impose further limits feels unnecessary to me.

I'm pretty sure they are clever enough to work within that, not need to limit trees, and still manage to prevent abuse.

Anyway, even if something amazing slipped through for a month or three before it was nerfed, who cares? It's not like it hasn't happened before and we've always coped. ;)

You just named why multis need limits. This is an arcade game. Its in essence a D&D combat engine with fabricated quests. DDO is about killing, controlling and/or healing. Theres some things you can do in town such as haggle and crafting.

Unlimited trees would essentially come down to:

1. an overinflated (aka repetitive) UI that unnecessarily confuses the masses instead of streamlining it.

2. people running around with no imperative abilities to use in quests because they spread themselves out far too thin.

3. multis running around with far too much power (if the enhancements are front loaded) dismissing the purpose of pures entirely.

4. no penalties no costs to multiclassing would mean thousands of the same ubertoon running around essentially in god-mode.

5. limiting the purpose of the PrE/PrC if you are grabbing the 1st row of all 10 trees and calling that a toon.

That would invalidate the whole point of creating a better UI adding more enhancements if the same ones are chosen for every single class. I want many more options for multis, but there has to be a line drawn in the sand somewhere. If there isnt, builders WILL be able to build ubermultis that the original D&D engineers Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson did not perceive and would never have allowed.

[AylinIsAwesome]

In that analogy, if you told me the minute you fill 3 bags youre done, we now know something definitive. It now doesnt matter if you put 10, 30, or 200 bags in front of me, because I know Im am only walking away with 3. It no longer became advantageous to put more bags in front of me.

Not necessarily.

If you know that 2 of the green bags are really good for what you want to do, but the third green bag is kinda "meh", especially when compared to this purple bag. In that case, it's advantageous to put the purple bags in front of you, so you can take the 2 green and the purple you want, instead of being stuck with the 3 green.

That said, we've no way of knowing what will be in those bags at this time. My concern isn't over deep splashes (since I think with the new system they will still be viable), but over 2 level splashes. Due to that I'm a little more in favour of the 2 bags + 1 per class system some have already suggested.

[slimkj]

Hmm, I don't want all trees for all chars, though. Only each possible PrE that can be accessed by any class of which you've taken sufficient levels, as now. That's a theoretical maximum of, what, 10 active PrE trees? It's quite unlikely that'd ever be needed anyway.

Grouped tabs of class related trees would be intuitive and easy to navigate. Tabbed browsing is commonplace and understood in UI design now and accepted by most users, not least games players who have to deal with a variety of different ideas of good interface design (and some downright bloody difficult).

[dkyle]

You just named why multis need limits.

Huh? He named over a half dozen limits that exist on multiclassing, even if there are unlimited trees. Noone is suggesting those get removed.


1. an overinflated (aka repetitive) UI that unnecessarily confuses the masses instead of streamlining it.

Is it ideal? No, but the "masses" don't usually multiclass anyway, so they won't see all those trees.

But limiting build options over a UI limitation is a terrible idea. Adjust the UI, not the game mechanics.


2. people running around with no imperative abilities to use in quests because they spread themselves out far too thin.

That should be their mistake to make. We don't need the devs telling us what to do. Limiting OP abilities? Sure. Limiting options because the Devs think they'll be weak? Absolutely not. I'll make that judgement myself, thank you very much.


3. multis running around with far too much power (if the enhancements are front loaded) dismissing the purpose of pures entirely.

Why would you believe that enhancements will be any more front-loaded than the current game? There's no evidence that this is likely. If the distribution of benefits stays about the same (as the Tempest example we got points towards), then what's the problem?


4. no penalties no costs to multiclassing would mean thousands of the same ubertoon running around essentially in god-mode.

Who's saying "no penalties no costs"? Do you really think there are no penalties, no costs, as-is? There are tons of penalties and costs to multiclassing. Too many, in my opinion, frankly, but at the very least, let's not add even more of them!


That would decrease the whole point of adding more enhancements if the same ones et chosen for every single class. Theres a lot more but thats the ones that seem the most likely. I want many more options for multis, but there has to be a line drawn in the sand somewhere. If there isnt, builders WILL be able to build ubermultis that the original D&D engineers Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson did not perceive and would never have allowed.

Does everyone pick all the same enhancements now? Are there ubermultis running rampant? I'm not seeing it. We already essentially have an "unlimited trees" system.

Unlimited trees allows for more variety of options. Only if those options produce OP combos is that a problem. Limited trees means we'll never really even consider taking enhancements from a splash class. It would be too nuts to give up one of our full-20 trees.

[Chai]

Part of the problem is that these arguments are the same ones that were made the last two times they changed the enhancement system and they were ultimately wrong. Yes, it wrecked certain builds. Yes, it changed incentives around. No, it didn't reduce overall viability of multiclassing or reduce flexibility.

So it was wrong for people whose builds were knowingly going to be screwed up in that era to provide negative feedback on that? I disagree completely.

Let me also remind you in that era that there was no way to respec a toon whose build was screwed up due to changes made to the game. Reroll was the only option. 2 year old toons with full gear investment got deleted due to those changes.

Those who provided the negative feedback regarding those changes that screwed up builds to unfixable status were correct on that issue, just as it is correct now to point out that this new system has the potential to limit builds further than they are limited today.


Badly done, the current proposal will screw over deep multis and specific race/class combos better than others even more than that is the case today.

This is the toughest to fix. Yeah having to obtain a +3 heart to "fix" a splashed bard is one thing, but a 12/6/2 build might as well TR, as it will likely take 2 or 3 hearts to "fix" the build to make it viable with the new system.


Unlimited trees with racial capstones are very likely to make pure builds significantly weaker than shallow splash builds.

The points are limiting enough. If you got 80 points, and 100 points worth of good stuff to spend it on, or you got 80 points and 300 points worth of good stuff to spend it on, you are still only going to be able to come away with 80 points worth of stuff.


However, neither of these mistakes are inevitable. There are good, flexible 3 tab systems possible. There are balanced 9 tab systems possible. Absolute predictions at this point are not justified.

Early feedback based on the information and confirmations already put out there is justified.


You can argue that fact free hysteria early is better than detail oriented analysis later, but I don't agree. Early days speculation without evidence is easily dismissed with "well, they don't see all the things we see."

I see no free hysteria. What I see is people analyzing the known information about the system, and pointing out its limitations based on what has already been presented. If waiting until later until every single detail is fleshed out is the best way, then this thread should have zero posts in it. They presented us with some information and basically asked us for our early reaction. 100 plus pages of said feedback ina short amount of time shows me just how much players value getting this one right.

[dkyle]

Hmm, I don't want all trees for all chars, though. Only each possible PrE that can be accessed by any class of which you've taken sufficient levels, as now. That's a theoretical maximum of, what, 10 active PrE trees? It's quite unlikely that'd ever be needed anyway.

Yeah, that's what we mean. Unlimited being that we don't have to choose just 3 of the possibly 10 trees available to us. That we can put points in all of them, if we choose to.

I don't think anyone is looking at permitting every single class to access all the PrE trees. That would be a huge nerf to multiclassing, if pure builds could access all the trees anyway.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

snip

Look at what you just typed. Each sentence. I see no purpose, after 100 pages, to continue to argue these points with you. I'm not sure you are reading them anymore, just hitting autoreply, repeating your same nerf-mantra on each page, regardless what any one elses opinions may be. Thats your right though, no doubt.

We'll talk facts when more data comes out.

[orakio]

One more situation to pose for you Dkyle, is it possible that after all of the number crunching is done the best dps split could be say a 30(racial tempest)/20(ravager)/20(FB) PrE mix for say a half elf Barbarian? Let's just say its possible and look at a hypothetical situation.

There is a player named Bob, Bob likes Barbarians and is new to DDO so he decides to make a barbarian. After researching he finds out about this supposedly superior dps setup and really just wants to smash stuff. Bob has a choice though, he can go pure barbarian or he can go say 12barb/6 fighter/2 rogue split. If he goes Pure barbarian he has 24 more hp due to the hp/level differences, +1 attack, Tireless Rage, Indomitable Will, Mighty Rage and 3/- DR. If he goes for the multiclass split he picks up 1d6 Sneak attack, evasion, umd as a class rankable skill, 4 bonus feats, and a very slightly higher reflex save and access to the weapon specialization feat.

Is the multiclass Bob inferior to the pure class Bob? Now what if the multiclass bob had access to another tree of enhancements that had a really good enhancement (like equivalent of haste boost 1) enhancement that pure Bob never would have got?

This is obviously a situation that is biased towards my argument, I won't deny that, and the entirely opposite situation could possibly be true. However it is situations like these that are a perfect example of why you need the exact information to state that multiclasses NEED those extra trees, that they would be at a disadvantage without it, or that the system as envisioned is flawed and needs fixes already.

[Vargouille]

Just want say that we are still following along and appreciate the enthusiasm and feedback. Thanks, everyone.

[HarveyMilk]

Simple answer:

Leave the mechanic as it is now, or just make trees lock when you spend a point in them.

But allow players to unlock them, and thus spend in all of them they have access to, limited only by AP and class level requirements.

Players could unlock them in two ways:

A high favor count, 10 epic dungeon and 5 epic raid tokens - this unlock would be server wide.

or

purchase the unlock in the ddo store, account wide.

This provides the flexibility players who multiclass want, and it gives both an earn option and a revenue option.