Archetypes are NOT 4th enhancement trees

Some people have this idea that Archetypes are just meant to be an extra enhancement tree for an existing class and complain when they don't sync perfectly with the other available trees.

That is not what Archetypes are. They are a new way to play a class with their own strengths and weaknesses. You may need to think outside the box and use racial and universal trees to help power them.

In the future, we may see unusual Archetypes like a spell casting Rogue or a ranged Barbarian. I want them to keep the wild variants coming and not give in to the people who just want a 4th enhancement tree that plays the same way as all the others.

Some people think the world is flat and all weather balloons are aliens. Welcome to the internet.

But gj trying to fight the good fight in the name of truth and knowledge anyway. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nandos

Some people have this idea that Archetypes are just meant to be an extra enhancement tree for an existing class and complain when they don't sync perfectly with the other available trees.
That is not what Archetypes are. They are a new way to play a class with their own strengths and weaknesses.

---

My main complaints about some Archetypes so far are about those that don't seem to be able to hold to a theme.
Remember, Archetypes are both a new class AND an Enhancement tree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KookieKobold

Dark Hunter is a new Ranger Archetype with themes of Assassination, sneaking, hunting, trapmaking, scavenging, and throwing weapons

---

It has LESS support for throwing weapons, hunting and sneaking than BASE Ranger does, and as much Assassination support (Falconry does it better, and is available to both).
It's a flavor fail. The tree doesn't seem to know what its Archetype is meant to do, and is all over the place.

Meanwhile, Dark Apostate is an Enhancement tree that doesn't know whether it belongs to a caster or melee build, and gives very little reason to be a hybrid.

Acolyte's ultimate ability forces you to fight in melee when you had been dodging and kiting enemies the minute before, without giving you the survival tools needed to keep yourself on your feet while going toe to toe.

Notice very few complaints about Stormsinger.
It's not exactly a strong tree, but it does what it meant out to do - a Bard meant to dish out cold and lightning spells to the sound of sick guitar rips. It's a spellcasting-focused archetype that knows what it is.

Sacred Fist is GREAT at what it does. It's not overly strong, but it holds to its theme and it's certainly flavorful. It actively feels like a totally different class.

In both of the above cases, the power level is actually equal or lower than the initial class, but because they both hold to their theme, it WORKS.

The new Druid Archetype will be a resounding success. Plantform druid does poison, acid and thorns. Awesome! It even looks cool!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nandos

You may need to think outside the box and use racial and universal trees to help power them.

---

This is true of ALL builds. If one class has to find power outside of it to perform, and another does not, there's a clear balance issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xgya

Remember, Archetypes are both a new class AND an Enhancement tree.

---

They are and they aren't.

They're almost like what D&D might term a Prestige Class, a spin off an existing class but with a twist in a specific direction. Like the Urban Ranger. <shrug>

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if players think they are or are not "a new class"; in DDO they are their own thing, and they are distinct (enough) both in build and reincarnating considerations.

I mentioned this before, somewhere, but I think archetypes would've been a lot better if they didn't try and come up with enhancement trees.

I used to play a lot of pathfinder and there were a zillion archetypes, all adding/replacing inherent class stuff that made the character very different. So a fighter might give up half their bonus feats, but then get a rogue's sneak attack, or a druid might give up their pet and instead gain bard spells/progression and proficiencies or something. There were soooooo many options.

Also (even though it's way too late), if DDO did that they could put more out and then you wouldn't be replacing an enhancement tree (most of the time replacing one that would help a lot but not be broken) that guts the character.

These DO change the character a bit and make them feel different, the problem is, for the most part (I like stormsinger, maybe blightcaster) they don't do anything well enough to justify playing them. Not as a pure class anyway. A lot of people are talking about splashing and such, but that doesn't seem to be the purpose or the markings of a great class update. It'd be like if they came out with a new epic destiny and everyone went "Wow I can't wait to spend 5 pts in that and stop!"

There are a lot of people writing here that just want to integrate these archetypes into their min-maxing and are disappointed or angry when they just don't fit.
However this min-maxing has some really strict requirements. If all that was put into every class then the classes would all be the same.
This game is not just about min-maxed endgame r10 and raiding. A big part of this game revolves around leveling and there is also the very popular hardcore league. I think it is important to accept that not all classes and enhancements can be "ideal" for all parts of the game or for all kinds of players. If something doesn't suit your playstyle just don't play it. This game is huge and has tons of possible builds. Nagging on the lamannia forums because things don't get changed your way is not gonna help anything.

I think Archetypes are a chance to get some variations into the game that are very different from what we have.

I believe lamma and previews are what they are: previews to gather feedback. They use the feedback the way they see fit not necessary in the way player base suggest or expects it to be.

For that whatever you have to say if respectful is fine. Each person got its own baggage and thats why they want you or me to say something so they can fit and adjust acording to their intention not what the player think it is.

If an archetype is itended to fit r10 it will fit. If it tended to explore different themes and different playstyles it will do .

My first contatc with an archetype is an Sacred Fist/ sorc EK and despite the complains I read its doing awesome for me . I guess we all have to do what we all do in ddo, learn and explore the possibilities to adapt to our own game or in some cases just ignore what dosent fit our taste or needs at all. And thats fine the game is made for a range of different people with different tastes and playstyles.

The current archetypes are mostly too tame imo, and they actively destroy any hope for classes to get a fourth or a fifth enhancement tree instead (fighter and paladin would need some more distinction there, monk could need a more defensive one, etc.).

Sacred Fist - Actually fine archetype, plays very unlike a paladin and the devs weren't afraid to delete the strongest tree there. Yet it was too early, as there weren't other trees aside from monk that would have really fit there. I like the Radiant Servant there, but Sacred Defender shouldn't be there. But there isn't a buff monk tree.

Stormsinger - Almost no work at the base class and even removing buffs from the general song was just because ppl like me complained. Caster bard was a thing before, and when I have one in my party, the only difference I see is whether my attacks proc lightning or not.

Dark Apostate - Idea is nice, especially with people like the Dark Abbot that shows the dark side of the divine. Base class does get some changes, but I'd prefered a more limited domain list to underline the theme. But while there was a theme, there wasn't a playstyle. The tree looks like 40% original, 40% that should have been in warpriest, and 20% of stuff I can't remember because it was so uninteresting for me.
So aside from the cure inflict auto-prepare, was there any reason to not just make it a 4th enhancement tree? Not like most people would have combined it with radiant servant (which is a tree out of time and would have loved a revamp). Enhancement trees can add spells into spellbook, and cleric is the prime example of it working. But hey, it's not like you could ban one tree if you put points in a specific other tree... if we ignore the sorcerer.

Acolyte of the Skin - Aside from dissing Fiend Pact by making a "True Fiend Pact" (seriously, devs: Rename it to Demonskin Pact or something), this archetype is super half-worked. Why a beam if the focus should be to have demonskin on your body? It could have been a melee tree that uses spellcasting stats, but in the end it maybe makes three attempts to look like there is indeed demonskin involved and outside there is just a standard defensive tree.

Dark Hunter - That tree has a big identity crisis, as the only feature it seems to have is: Be a trapper. The tree adds a pet to it, which is like a kick between the legs of the much more iconic beastmaster ranger, which has been part of D&D for quite some time, but don't follow that theme. I guess adding trapper mechanics into an enhancement tree would have been too much, but the drawbacks of the tree are just too cute. You can get the most important FEs via universal trees and to counter that, medium armor proficiency was given (to a stealthy character that seems to want to use Dexterity) and evasion taken in return.

Blightcaster - At first glance it looks like it's exactly what it's supposed to be, changing class traits and such. Then you can think about it calmly and realize that wildshapes are multiselectors from the beginning. And then you could also come to the conclusion, that adding a blightcaster tree would have been enough on its own, using several bonuses only in specific forms, like the two wildshape trees... In the end you may end up like me for wanting to try it out, but feel kinda deceived of thinking of it as an actual archetype. Especially considering that Eberron does have a formal druid sect that specialized into decay and death, called the Children of Winter.


To sum it up: Archetypes don't follow their narrative enough with gameplay elements, and to be honest, all of them would have been better as iconic characters. I mean, Bladeforged aren't afraid to add some stuff to their paladin, but then the devs never made an iconic character different from other members of their class. Archetypes are following that trend.

There has been hope that classes gets revisited, mechanics get revised, and a lot more whenever an archetype tries to make use of them. This was also squandered, as we got a pet archetype without revisiting pets. Or a trapper archetype without revisiting trapmaking. What, they are the same!? But there was enough time to make several new spells for the druid, huh?


My wishlist for the future:
* If there isn't enough time to actually work out the kinks of an archetype, don't force them out. If it's in the game, a lot of people will see the additional hours that should have been spent there.
* Make more changes to what the baseclass loses and gains. That should be the main-focus of the gameplay design to strengthen the narrative, and from there you can go to the additional tree to add more to it and its flavor, while removing the trees that tie into the cut mechanics.
* Try to tie in Eberron lore more into several of the archetypes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaviMOC

I believe lamma and previews are what they are: previews to gather feedback. They use the feedback the way they see fit not necessary in the way player base suggest or expects it to be.

For that whatever you have to say if respectful is fine. Each person got its own baggage and thats why they want you or me to say something so they can fit and adjust acording to their intention not what the player think it is.

If an archetype is itended to fit r10 it will fit. If it tended to explore different themes and different playstyles it will do .

My first contatc with an archetype is an Sacred Fist/ sorc EK and despite the complains I read its doing awesome for me . I guess we all have to do what we all do in ddo, learn and explore the possibilities to adapt to our own game or in some cases just ignore what dosent fit our taste or needs at all. And thats fine the game is made for a range of different people with different tastes and playstyles.

---

1 small problem with what you're saying:
Yes, the game is supposedly made for a range of different people and tastes and playstyles. Yet, all we're getting is archetypes for lower difficulty.
For those of us who play R10, archetypes are pretty much either ignore or a quick pass-through life (if you want to get full triple completionist).

The thematic support, as mentioned previously is very inconsistent.
Then we run into things like ki wave being VERY good on sacred fist, but nowhere close to that on a monk, which is the original ki class. But devs hating monk is a different conversation.
Dark Apostate could've been pretty fun if they gave it an enhancement that made inflicts ranged instead of touch (so you could actually be a "healer" in an undead group). Would that be overpowered? No, but it would enable the said undead groups to run more challenging content.
Dark Hunter in preview 1 was an interesting, even if niche, idea of having a "ranged assassin". Which in preview 2 just turned into something worse than assassin.
Storm singer could've probably used some ice spells in the spellbook. As it is now - it's just an electric sorc that can give song buffs instead of actually being able to do real dps. I barely ever see lightning proc from the cores. There's just 1 cold spell (don't start me on the SLAs, they're very weak), and sonic spells are horribly behind anything you can do with lightning. So those are relegated to use against lightning-immune mobs. Tier 5 in stormsinger is worthless compared to tier 5 in spellsinger.

It's just extremely disappointing when we see so many potentially good or at least interesting ideas be ruined or just straight up poorly executed. None of these classes truly give us a "new playstyle for the class". Just a bit of mixed flavor and not a lot of sense to take the archetype over the base class.

I really want to support the devs, but it's becoming very difficult lately. There have been a lot of good and bad decisions that have been made over the years. So far archetypes are proving to be one of the poorly thought out ones (very much like the failure of a stat squish they performed).
I would've much rather seen some much needed tree reworks, than all these archetypes. Wizard archmage is horrible; sorc doesn't need 4 savant trees, but instead a multi-selector tree like alchy's bombardier; cleric's radiant servant is pretty bad as a healer tree (compared to fvs). The list goes on and on.

I'm by no means an end-game player. My group does r1 heroics, elite/r1 in epic, and then bump up to r3-4 once we hit 29/32 (depending on how good we are lol). I haven't even done 2-3 of the legendary raids.

So when I'm saying most of these archetypes are bleh and ****, and would never use, I'm talking from experience of playing plenty of sub-optimal builds. No trances, forgetting to get enough str for thf, etc.

One of the big problems I see is that they seem to have little to no idea how the game works. Like acolyte of the skin fearing things you want to melee. Or like someone mentioned, cramming medium armor (that no one uses) down dark hunter's throat and taking away evasion.

There was some feedback way back with the first archetypes, where the first draft of dark apostate was just too weak, and they bumped up the damage (think they let some stuff be meta'd?) of various things.

The differences between the lamannias this time are barely anything, other than art. And the handful of tiny changes are completely out of touch with our feedback.