New Classes a necessity

[shiningprince]

More than any other i want a Duskblade... but a Scout would be nice too. otherwise Artificer, Beguiler, Druid, Hexblade, Warmage, Warlock, Soulknife, Warblade, Crusader, Swordsage all of these would be easy to institute not many gameplay changes except for the tome of battle classes the rest already have similar class options just not the specifics that make them worth trying to mimic with base class options. Most of us are stuck multi-min-maxing our characters for combat advantage and not the fun of playing an odd character. if they would add more option for classes and put multicalss restrictions or the penalties that should be there for muticlassing we would just stay with one class i would love to level any of the above mentioned classes to 20 but were stuck with basic classes so we have to multiclass just to contend with surviving long enought to get xp in the end of game Dungeons
Remember all... Dungeons and Dragons is about playing smart not relying on shrines to save our asses
Give us more options im sick of having to multi class some trap monkey levels just so somebody has the skills to at least warn the group about a trap ok ive ranted and raved enough please leave ur comments on the subject

[AyumiAmakusa]

Coming Soon™

[Angelus_dead]

More than any other i want a Duskblade... but a Scout would be nice too. otherwise Artificer, Beguiler, Druid, Hexblade, Warmage, Warlock, Soulknife, Warblade, Crusader, Swordsage all of these would be easy to institute not many gameplay changes

The classes in that long list are actually very different from each other, and bring a huge set of major obstacles to adding them, particularly if the (somewhat self-defeating) goal is to have "not many gameplay changes". (Why bother with all the work for a new class if having it won't change much?)

Notice that I am not saying it is impossible to add classes like that; just that it would not be an "easy" task in any way. Here's a fast comment on each class in the list:

Duskblade- A relatively good new option, as it occupies a vacant role: a melee combatant heavily dependent on a mana bar. The problems are (1) mana-bar dependent combat in poor shape in DDO, (2) that role might be better given to a (Kalashtar-linked) Psychic Warrior class (which is from an older D&D book).

Scout- It would be hilarious to add a class that gets their damage bonus by being in motion while you attack. You'd have people who need to run around in WASD squares while shooting the enemies! It's also not distinct enough from Rangers. Any decent specific Scout features should instead be given as options to Rangers, Rogues, or Monks.

Artificer- Dependency on crafting makes it both overpowered and disconnected from how DDO works. It would work to switch that into a focus on the Craft Homonculous ability, assuming the role of a "pet class", which is not yet found in DDO. But creating an effective pet class would require big investments in artwork, programming, and game design.

Beguiler- A fairly decent choice, as its basically a way to get a full caster plus trap skills. The limitation of offensive spells being mental-only can be mitigated by reliance on the Whelm series (which inflicts hitpoint damage via Will saves), but there's still the two big problems: (1) another mage class when existing mages aren't done yet, (2) class features that are almost totally useless against some major categories of opponent.

Druid- This one is really being worked on already. Adding Wildshape is difficult for artwork and programming, and also for game design, as the D&D Wildshape rules are known to be fairly broken. Switching to the PHB2 variant as a basis would help, but there's still a lot of work to do. It'll be hard to make Wildshape powerful enough to be a cool major feature, but not also leave Druids extremely overpowered next to Clerics. Here's a lengthy article I did about the problems of DDO Druids.

Hexblade- A fairly decent addition, as at least the artwork and programming effort would be very low. The problems: (1) Is it really good to allow Bards to get charisma saves by a two-level splash? (2) Can the melee damage be raised enough to be useful, without impinging on existing Warrior role? (As for the melee damage, I'd suggest going with some enhancements for +damage against enemies that are cursed)

Warmage- Being just a mix of Sorcerer and Bard abilities means it is technically and artistically simple, but the game design problem is huge: How to fit in a class based on hitpoint spells into a game where hitpoint spells from the existing mages are so dramatically imbalanced?

Warlock- There has been a lot of discussion of that recently, and someone who puts in a little more effort than me could easily find it (unless the mods erased it, which is possible). Instead, here's one older thread. The big problem with Warlocks is that they're a caster whose spells are much weaker than those of a sorc/wiz, supposedly balanced by having many many more uses per day. But it should be obvious to anyone who's played a high-level DDO Wizard that reducing your spells to 20% power and 0 spellpoint cost would not lead to gameplay that is effective or fun.

Soulknife- A notoriously weak class from D&D, as the major class feature is simply possession of a typical magic item. Soulknife would need just about an entire class's worth of features added to make it solid enough to play, meaning that the better approach would be to implment the Soulknife power not as a class at all, and instead as a feat or power for something like a Psywar.

Warblade- Should be split apart into martial abilities which are given as feat options to Fighters and other warrior characters. The D&D Warblade is basically a superior replacement to the Fighter, and it hardly fits to have them in the same game.

Crusader- Better to instead split those abilities off into Fighter/Paladin options.

Swordsage- In the TOB pattern, it's features could be divided as options for Fighter and Monk.

[shiningprince]

u actually read my post and atleast under stood what i meant im no programmer i mean easy to institute because a few class differences are basically just adding lines of code to an already made template...again im no programmer so i really dont know how much harder it is to do.... i do understand that there r a gazillion lines of code in a game like this and it will take time to do but it will be worth it in the long run for them to do.
i like the idea as those as prestige enhancements instead of actual classes spefically if they require multiclassing as prereq's like a traditional prestige class. then its literally just adding to the existing
please keep the comments coming

[Aashrym]

In PnP Druids get spontaneous summon nature's ally and animal companion. Would they not be the most suited to a pet class?

Artificers get the repair line, UMD, trapfinding, and the ability to buff thru items. I would see them more as another trapmonkey/buffer class than a pet class. Homunculus sounds more like the familiars our mages are missing out on.

[flynnjsw]

The one thing I can say OP is that I would rather they added core (standard and Ebberon) classes/races before they add in all the splat book nonsense.

[Angelus_dead]

In PnP Druids get spontaneous summon nature's ally and animal companion. Would they not be the most suited to a pet class?

No, because Druids have so many other features.

It has been often observed that Druids got too many good features compared to other classes. The DDO Druid is going to have to have spellcasting, and that spell list is already enough to be an effective character. They're also going to have to give them Wildshape, and they're going to have to make Wildshape a good feature: generally superior to what a Cleric can achieve with DP (otherwise it wouldn't justify the size of the system).

So if a class already has such strong features, then it's too late to make it a "pet class", because it's already got so much combat power that a pet cannot provide more than a minor portion of it. To call something a "pet class" means saying that the pet is a big part of the capability.

In addition, the DDO precedent from Rangers is that Animal Companion is not retained.

Artificers get the repair line, UMD, trapfinding, and the ability to buff thru items. I would see them more as another trapmonkey/buffer class than a pet class. Homunculus sounds more like the familiars our mages are missing out on.

Trapmonkey/buffer is not enough of a role for a character class. It doesn't give the character enough to bring to the party, and it doesn't give the player enough to do in combat. (Artificers also get Blade Barrier, but that's still not enough).

Craft Homonculous from D&D is a really open-ended ability (far stronger than Familiars), so the DDO devs would have the freedom to make their version as powerful as needed. It would also give Artificers something to use their Repair magic on in those frequent situations without a Warforged teammate to heal.

Since a Homonculous is built using a tissue sample from the Artificer itself, they have a close mental connection, which I would represent in DDO by allowing the player to toggle into operating the construct directly. In that mode the Artificer would follow along at a reasonable distance and still be able to cast spells immediately; a lot like playing two characters at once. This avoids many of the UI weaknesses of traditional pet classes in MMORPGs.

[Kza]

Make new classes before all pres are done are imo fail.
Focus from my point of view are make all existing classes full 3 pres up to t3.
+ fun new quests ofcourse :-)

I want solid well balanced classes with many pres and enhancements and spells, feats etc etc. Instead of many classes "half made".

[Aesop]

I'd like

Druid

Artificer

Swashbuckler


Going for food though so I'll discuss later

Aesop