Let's Talk: Enhancements!

[jkm]

If a multi-class is more powerful than a pure in his chosen profession, the fundamental design is flawed.

As people have pointed out, there existed a time when this was the case, and was compensated with capstones.

The problem with capstones was that a 20 fighter did 10% more damage than a level 19 fighter. A level 20 rogue did 4d6 more damage than a level 19 rogue (that is 7 rogue levels btw).

You can't justify that kind of power increase by one level. That is why I'm saying that you make everything additive instead of geometric.

For example, the Fighter Alacrity Capstone should have 2.5% per tier from level 17 to 20. This makes a Level 20 fighter better than a level 19 fighter but not prohibitively so.

[dkyle]

The reasoning behind my statement is that I believe that pures would need to gain more just to have a slight lead over multis in their focused specialty.

Was it a statement of what you think will happen based on what we've been told, or what you hope will happen? The post sounded like an assessment of the proposed system to me, not a wish for what it should do.

So, did you mean "multis get a boost, pures get a smaller boost, except in their focused specialty"?

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

Was it a statement of what you think will happen based on what we've been told, or what you hope will happen?

Both. That's my assessment. I've explained it already, twice for you There is nothing more to be said until we see more data. We'll see what happens.

[dkyle]

But my point is that as a general rule, in one class, all 3 of their PrE's have different builds and focuses. How does this translate into trees? It means that pure classes will have some wasted space. Multiclasses will not.

I don't understand how this is an argument for why multis would be stronger with the 3 tree limit than without that limit. Remember, Claim 1 is only that the three tree limit harms multis more than pures.

To be fair, I believe they asked for general feedback, so something like, "I fear the 3 tree limit could really screw multiclasses, for reason x, y, and z."

Instead, or really I should say In addition, we've given a lot of specific, prescriptive feedback like "This is how you should do this tree system to alleviate my fears of the 3 tree limit." Of course, we're all guilty of this point. How can we not be? We're creative and excitable people. :P

I believe I've given feedback in this thread on reasons X, Y, and Z why I think the 3 tree limit is a bad idea that really screws multiclasses. What's wrong with also giving prescriptive feedback? I don't see how that is anything other than helpful, or what they expected with this thread. Suggesting how to fix something is often a good way of clarifying what you think is wrong with it.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

snip

Since you are so gungo-ho on a the necessity of 9-10 trees, perhaps you can draw us a mockup, with the new enhancements filled in, that prove that not going your way, would be a fail for all multi-classed builds.

[dkyle]

Both. That's my assessment.

OK, so part of your assessment, then, is that pures are getting a boost to their focused specialty, moreso than multis. I'm not sure I see why. Maybe I missed it, but this seems to me like a new assertion. If anything, I'd expect most of the benefit pures are getting is the versatility of the Racial PrE.

If anything, hyper-focused builds might actually be best as multis, because they can more easily put together 3 PrEs all focused on the same goal. Usually a class has different PrEs for different build goals, so Pure is likely to get at most 2 PrEs with similar focus.

But perhaps I'm not entirely certain on what you mean by "focused specialty".

[dkyle]

Since you are so gungo-ho on a the necessity of 9-10 trees, perhaps you can draw us a mockup, with the new enhancements filled in, that prove that not going your way, would be a fail for all multi-classed builds.

An absurd request. You are asking me to prove something I haven't even come close to asserting, using a proof unrelated to the assertion (what does a UI mockup have to do with multi-class power?), requiring massive amounts of guesswork.

[Aashrym]

Just looking at a random character here -> Level 20 Monk, I have 43 Monk Enhancements (11 are skill). I have 1 feat enhancement (dragonmark). 5 Racial Enhancements. Please note that these are enhancement lines with each of htem having 4-5 within them.

Another random character here Level 20 rogue -> 52 enhancemnts (19 skill) same racial, no dragonmarks.

As you can see there are a ton of enhancements in the current system that are available. Most may suck, but they are there.

Each tree looks like about 16 or 17 with the ability to place multiple points instead of a new enhancement at higher level. that places us somewhere between 50 and 80 per tree or so.

That is almost more options per tree than we have per class if we look at increasing the existing enhancements. Rogues have about 18 or so plus the capstones and PrE's. A quick look at ddo wiki shows monks have 31 lines develop including the capstone and PrE's. A rogue has 22 lines to develop including capstone and PrE's.

Moving into the new system rogues get PrE's for free, capstone for free, and have 49 actual enhancements in the mock up. It looks like the new system is providing a huge increase in the number of enhancements available for us to develop while they are simultaneously freeing up AP to spend on them.

[Aashrym]

The problem with capstones was that a 20 fighter did 10% more damage than a level 19 fighter. A level 20 rogue did 4d6 more damage than a level 19 rogue (that is 7 rogue levels btw).

You can't justify that kind of power increase by one level. That is why I'm saying that you make everything additive instead of geometric.

For example, the Fighter Alacrity Capstone should have 2.5% per tier from level 17 to 20. This makes a Level 20 fighter better than a level 19 fighter but not prohibitively so.

The problem without capstones was there was no reason to go to 20 levels of fighter in the first place and seriously marginalizing pure class fighters.

Comparing that one level of fighter is not an accurate depiction of reality because the capstone is there to compete with something like a rogues splash where 2 levels provide much more benefit than those last 2 levels of fighter ever did.

[BlackSteel]

I don't understand how this is an argument for why multis would be stronger with the 3 tree limit than without that limit. Remember, Claim 1 is only that the three tree limit harms multis more than pures.

well the way you've worded the question leaves only one answer. ANY restriction on multi's inherently weakens them. My point was that in either enhancement, multi's are better equiped than pures to have available a useful range of options. which is all those pretty both otherwise useless numbers alot of people have been throwing around as justification for kicking and screaming like a child that their toys are being taken away.

my point is that for the classes that we currently have with all 3 pre's, almost all of them are going to have empty or nearly empty trees if they remain pure. Yeh a multiclass is going to have several nonactive trees with no points in it, but the ones that are chose are certainly going to be well utilized. of course this is all up in the air. A revamp could be drastically different than what any of us are visualizing.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

If anything, hyper-focused builds might actually be best as multis, because they can more easily put together 3 PrEs all focused on the same goal. Usually a class has different PrEs for different build goals, so Pure is likely to get at most 2 PrEs with similar focus.

... which is exactly why your argument is at best inconclusive (and at worst.. baseless, to me). A pure must be better at what it was mainly built to do than any multi. That is what prestiges and capstones are all about. What would be the purpose of taking prestige up to tier 3 if tier 2 was better?

Pures must do what they do better than multis.

If you are a smart builder, and are well versed in your build's synergies, you might be able to combine multiple classes/enhancements/prestiges/feats etc. to overcome the effectiveness of a pure, but you would be compensating with different abilities.

The key is Turbine has to get Pures and multis so close in effectiveness, that either one could be better for the smartest builders, while making it all make sense to those who's main proficiency is not building ultra-effective builds to begin with.

No easy task.

[Cor_Dath'a]

I don't know if someone has made the following suggestion because I haven't read all of the the posts. But, why don't you award the AP for the fifth rank of each level so that we get 100 AP instead of 80. Of course, this would depend on the cost structure of the "rare" enhancements.

I like what I see so far. I think that it will be easier to plan the exact character that we want-playing to each toon's strengths while supplementing its weaknesses. Keep up the good work.

[Vormaerin]

DKyle,

The problem with your analysis is that it is relying on a debate trick to unfairly limit the discussion.


Yes, absolutely, 3 trees will remove options that currently exist from multiclasses. No one is denying that.

What you are refusing to acknowledge is that it is entirely possible to construct a 3 tree system that adds more options than it takes away.

There are all kinds of restrictions built into the current enhancement system that are not obligated to be in the next iteration. Yes, if the Devs keep every existing restriction and add more, they will be weakening MCs.

I don't see any reason to believe that. In fact, when they talked about relaxing some of those restrictions that would benefit multis (cross class stacking, for instance), there were howls about imbalance.

In both cases, what is being ignored is that restrictions are not being added, they are being changed. Some things you can do now, you can't do in the future. Some things you can't do now, you can do in the future.

Which system is more restrictive cannot be evaluated right now. There is not enough information.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

setting my watch for the next time DKyle asserts that multis are getting nerfed... 3.... 2.. 1....

[dkyle]

... which is exactly why your argument is at best inconclusive (and at worst.. baseless, to me).

I'm confused. What reason is why what argument is at best incluclusive?

Pures must do what they do better than multis.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that Pures should be the paragons of a certain build focus (say, DPS, Tank, or Healing), and that multis should be versatile between those things, but not as good in any one? Because that's really not like what we have now. Pure builds are often more versatile than multis, while multis are often more single-mindedly focused. This is because classes usually aren't designed with a single focus in mind, and multis can combine the portions of classes that have the desired focus, to produce a more focused build.

For example, pure Ranger Arcane Archers tend to have more versatility between melee and range DPS, than Bowbarians, who have better range DPS, but tend not to have the feats to support melee DPS. Another example: if you want to optimize Stunning Fist, better to be a Fighter12/Monk8 than a pure Monk. But I can say from experience that the pure Monk is a much more versatile build.

If you are a smart builder, and are well versed in your build's synergies, you might be able to combine multiple classes/enhancements/prestiges/feats etc. to overcome the effectiveness of a pure, but you would be compensating with different abilities.

The key is Turbine has to get Pures and multis so close in effectiveness, that either one could be better for the smartest builders, while making it all make sense to those who's main proficiency is not building ultra-effective builds to begin with.

So we're on the same page, would you say that the game is at this place currently?

[Vormaerin]

So we're on the same page, would you say that the game is at this place currently?

Not really. Some classes it is very obviously bad to multiclass, some are good pure or multiclass, and some make little sense not at least splashed.

HOwever, the only thing doing that for most melee is the capstone. Without a pure class capstone, something would need to be done to make melee classes want to be pure.

[dkyle]

Yes, absolutely, 3 trees will remove options that currently exist from multiclasses. No one is denying that.

That's not quite what I'm arguing.

I'm arguing that the three tree limit hurts multiclasses more than pures, and in a game system without the three tree limit, multiclasses would be stronger than in the same game system, except with the tree limit.

What you are refusing to acknowledge is that it is entirely possible to construct a 3 tree system that adds more options than it takes away.

I've acknowledged this many times. As I've said many times, I fully expect options to increase, for everyone. But I expect the good options to increase more for Pures, than for Melees. That would mean a net nerf to Melee.

Lots of things are possible. What's useful, though, is trying to figure out what the most likely possibilities are, given the info we have.

There are all kinds of restrictions built into the current enhancement system that are not obligated to be in the next iteration. Yes, if the Devs keep every existing restriction and add more, they will be weakening MCs.

That is entirely possible. We simply don't have much info pointing in that direction. Relaxing feat requirements, for example, is not especially favorable to multis, I wouldn't expect. Lots of splashes are done specifically to help with feats, thanks to needing to meet PrE prereqs.

I don't see any reason to believe that. In fact, when they talked about relaxing some of those restrictions that would benefit multis (cross class stacking, for instance), there were howls about imbalance.

Cross PrE stacking. Which is very capable of benefiting Pures as well. Multis only get to cherry pick one more PrE than Pures, so while it would favor Multis, it's unlikely to be overwhelmingly so. We've gotten very little info on this, though.

Which system is more restrictive cannot be evaluated right now. There is not enough information.

There is enough info to evaluate the system that has been described so far. If that favors pures, isn't it more likely that the full system will as well?

Basically, there are two sets of rules at play. The ones we know, and the ones we don't know. The ones we know favor (in my assessment) pures. Why should we make any assumption that the ones we don't know will favor multis, to balance things out? Isn't the most logical hypothesis to work with, at this time, that the unknown rules are equally likely to favor pures or multis, so should be treated as neutral?

setting my watch for the next time DKyle asserts that multis are getting nerfed... 3.... 2.. 1....

The claim that multi's are likely to get nerfed, based on the information we've been told, is the point I'm trying to make (which is a point that isn't quite what you say here). Naturally, I'd assert some aspect of that point in the course of defending that point. Is this surprising?

Not really. Some classes it is very obviously bad to multiclass, some are good pure or multiclass, and some make little sense not at least splashed.

The only one of the last part I can think of is melee Rangers, since the capston is useless to them. All other classes, I see compelling reasons to stay pure.

HOwever, the only thing doing that for most melee is the capstone. Without a pure class capstone, something would need to be done to make melee classes want to be pure.

This is true. The Racial PrE does present some problems. My ideal solution would be to overhaul the Racial PrE, as I suggested early in the thread. But even limiting the Racial PrE so that it progresses 2 levels slower than the class version (like Arcane Archer for elves), thus eliminating access to the capstone, would be a good idea.

Basically, for a multiclass, I would value being able to pick and choose among a wide variety of options (so no tree limit), over now gaining a capstone. That helps multiclasses be unique, and more truly different than pures.

[lathreborn]

Pure builds are often more versatile than multis, while multis are often more single-mindedly focused. This is because classes usually aren't designed with a single focus in mind, and multis can combine the portions of classes that have the desired focus, to produce a more focused build.
For example, pure Ranger Arcane Archers tend to have more versatility between melee and range DPS, than Bowbarians, who have better range DPS, but tend not to have the feats to support melee DPS.

My pure builds are FAR more focused than my multis.
Ex: My AA is pure ranged (they're dead before they reach melee range, so why SHOULD I have a melee game?), whereas my rogue/ranger has melee/trap/assassinate abilities. I do not say that a multi-class toon has to be one or the other, I simply disagree that they will be negatively affected by the UI changes.

I do not see the proposed changes as a nerf to ANY of my characters, ESPECIALLY my multis.

[Aashrym]

There is enough info to evaluate the system that has been described so far. If that favors pures, isn't it more likely that the full system will as well?

Except for the fact that it does not favor pure classes at all, it favors splashing.

[dkyle]

Except for the fact that it does not favor pure classes at all, it favors splashing.

Yeah, that very well may be. I am concerned the Racial PrE capstone weakens the best reason to stay pure, which is part of why I've argued against the Racial PrEs.

I've gotten lax in my terminology. What I should have said is that the system as described favors pures and splashes, over deep multis. In my mind, splashes are much closer to pures, than to deep multis.