Let's Talk: Enhancements!

[boomer70]

Ok Chai, anyone who starts off with "Why be anything less than..." makes me laugh. Such a narrow viewpoint is not very well fitted for toon creation, most certainly not a bard!

There will be plenty of reasons for bards to multi-class in the new system. Pure bards do not get 100% ownership in any tree. There hopefully will be many reasons to go pure or to go multi, and if I need to make adjustments I'm perfectly willing to make them if they make sense to the build.

Now about the "blown out of the water" comment, you are on dream street...

Bards versatility will make it much more likely to integrate smoothly into the new system. I think bards might be gaining the most of all the classes out of these changes, as we get rehauled enhancements and finished PrEs, its just pure unlettered to think any bard is "blown out of the water" at this early stage (6+ months to go, and very incomplete info released thusfar, including absolutely nothing about bard PrEs).

Pure bards may in fact gain the most out of the changes. A bards versatility often plays well with multiclassing. Multiclass to heighten one aspect of a bard at the expense of the others. In order to make 3 independant trees for bards I would envision that there will be enhancements that end up doing what multiclassing does now i.e. strengthening aspects of a bard moreso than is currently the case. Warchanter is likely to get more combat related enhancements (remember they have to fill up a whole tree with (probably) unique enhancements). So if I can do what multiclassing does without losing any class features why would i multi?

This is on top of the silly 3 tree limit that if enhancements are split among 3 trees will mean that multiclasses will have to actually be less versatile (because they have to sacrifice a weak tree) in order to hope to compete with pure builds. This will either lead to far fewer multiclasses in general or at least fewer multiclass builds once someone figures out what the exact right splits are to make a multi build viable.

[dkyle]

Silly, silly, silly me...

Overlooking the obvious that I already know.

Epic level are coming.

The level cap will eventually go to 30 (maybe higher).

Going back to the Epic Rules for 3rd edition handbook~~

When one hits level 21, one can take an epic level in a class that already has 20 levels,
or you can take a level in another class.

Hence, a fighter might have 20 normal levels along with 10 epic levels,
or a fighter might have 18 normal levels for Kensie 3 along with 12 cleric levels for Radiant Servant 2.

Obviously the list would go on, and the Epic enhancements are separate from heroic enhancements, but the class potential splits could be far different than people are describing here in this thread.

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Epic_Level_Basics

We've been told that Epic levels will not work that way. They won't just be additional class levels. They will use a different system.

[LeLoric]

What rules described in this thread seem likely to increase viability of deep multi-class and multi-splash Bards, compared to pure or single-splash Bards? Because, obviously, being unable to reasonably take enhancements from those Rogue/Fighter/Barb levels tends to reduce the viability of multiclasses, compared to the current system. What new rule do you believe counterbalances that loss, in favor of deep multis?

Or are you simply speculating based on wishful thinking, and just assuming that the devs will get it right, and accomplish the goals they've stated? Your "hopefully" sounds like that's the case.

For many bards just getting the extra feats from fighter levels will often be enough reason to splash. Regardless of enhancement system. There are still lots of benefits just from being a class even if you cant or dont want to take any of the enhancements. In all likelyhood the only thing you would miss out on by splashing is any class granted stuff (mighty rage for barbs, caster spell slots, etc.) and the 41 point capstone. Actually there has been no confirmation that the capstone would require lev 20. If a class likes the benefit of 2 feats, evasion, pally saves, barb run speed, umd or anything similar over a capstone choice they will splash it's that simple.

We also have literally no idea how the epic levels are going to play out and how that factors into all this something the devs have to keep in mind for a lot of this development.

[Failedlegend]

Well it's a good thing I spent so much time on working out those enhancements and speculating on the future because the people that asked me to do so completely ignored them.

http://forums.ddo.com/showpost.php?p...postcount=2939

Edit: OH sorry one person did respond...to tell me all my data is invalid due because its speculation...but this entire thread is speculation...which the devs asked us to comment on despite the need to speculate..but according you guys we shouldn't provide feedback to will get more information...but the Devs want feedback before they move ahead and they can't give us more info until they move ahead so they need our feedback but we shouldn't give feedback until we move ahead but they need ou...you get it yet or should I say it a few more times.

For many bards just getting the extra feats from fighter levels will often be enough reason to splash. Regardless of enhancement system. There are still lots of benefits just from being a class even if you cant or dont want to take any of the enhancements. In all likelyhood the only thing you would miss out on by splashing is any class granted stuff (mighty rage for barbs, caster spell slots, etc.) and the 41 point capstone. Actually there has been no confirmation that the capstone would require lev 20. If a class likes the benefit of 2 feats, evasion, pally saves, barb run speed, umd or anything similar over a capstone choice they will splash it's that simple.

We also have literally no idea how the epic levels are going to play out and how that factors into all this something the devs have to keep in mind for a lot of this development.

Yes but thats not the system that's changing enhancements are so other systems such as feats and class abilities are largely irrelevant in this thread especially since as I showed alot of multi-class build rely on enhancements to be viable vs. Single-Class builds especially one's that don't have Full BAB progression or have Non-Caster Levels etc.

The simple fact is Single class and multiclasses are both gaining alot from this new system due to new enhancements, improved enhancements,etc. and although we don't know what those are we can consider them equal until we actually see them for the purpose of speculation but when we look at possible losses Multi-Classes clearly lose alot while Single classes lose nothing leading to a clear net loss for Multis..this honestly isn't opinion based on the best we can speculate on the current information this new system in its current state is detrimental to Multiclasses (The Favored PrE System, Multiclass PrEs, Actual racially themed racial PrEs, Removing the Tree Limit & A Tabbed UI instead of a single tab could all help with this)

[Chai]

Ok Chai, anyone who starts off with "Why be anything less than..." makes me laugh. Such a narrow viewpoint is not very well fitted for character creation, most certainly not a bard!

Its exactly that, the NARROWING of possible options that makes what I stated true. You are supporting the narrow viewpoint here, not myself. I am supporting removing the three tree limitation which doesnt currently exist but will in the new system if they go ahead with it as planned.

There will be plenty of reasons for bards to multi-class in the new system. Pure bards do not get 100% ownership in any tree. There hopefully will be many reasons to go pure or to go multi, and if I need to make adjustments I'm perfectly willing to make them if they make sense to the build.

This is incorrect. Pure bards can climb 2 bard trees and a racial tree.

In relation to ehnancements, what are these reasons to splash? None. In order to take one enhancement from a 2 level limited fighter tree you need to sacrifice an entire bard tree or your entire racial to do so. Call it an assumption if you want, but I dont feel 2 level limited fighter tree will

Now about the "blown out of the water" comment, you are on dream street...

Much of the ghengis combat strength lies in those barbarian + fighter levels - if you take enhancements in both, you will be restricting yourself to merely one bard tree, OR one racial tree, not both. Being high up in spellsinger, high up in warchanter, and high up in racial PRE will completely PWN enhancements in 2 level restricted fighter, 2 level restricted barbarian, and one bard OR one racial tree.

Bards versatility will make it much more likely to integrate smoothly into the new system. I think bards might be gaining the most of all the classes out of these changes, as we get rehauled enhancements and finished PrEs, its just pure unlettered to think any bard is "blown out of the water" at this early stage (6+ months to go, and very incomplete info released thusfar, including absolutely nothing about bard PrEs)....

Bards are versatile now....however, not in the new system as far as builds go when limited to 3 trees. I have clearly demonstrated how the three tree limit does away with multiclassing and makes pure the best choice. Enter the era of cookie cutter pure bards being the best optimized builds.

You are welcome to debate in my thread this summer whether the choices I make are valid or not, and whether it is worth persuading as a build option vs pures, or any other split. Im going on my intuition that there room for almost everybody, if you plan effectively.

I will be more than happy to outline what you are losing by not staying pure bard, and having full access to spellsinger, warchanter, and racial trees. This will be the cookie cutter combo - the splashes will be second rate. Pure will provide the best of spellsinger and warchanter + the racial combat PRE. The whole point of the ghengis level split is to make use of barbarian con, run speed, toughness, extra rage, and rage duration + fighter haste boost, + 1str + 2 feats. You will still have the two feats, but if you take the class enhancements I just outlined, you now have one tree left. Your choices will be 16 level limit in warchanter OR spellsinger OR virtuoso OR full racial PRE. One of the above. That level split isnt worth it without the enhancements. Taking the enhancements in the split classes compromises the rest of the build options. Meanwhile in other news, pure bard will have access to full spellsinger, full warchanter, and full racial PRE. This debate in the upcoming summer thread wont be a debate at all I think. It will be a long list of stuff the ghengis loses to pure bards. Each time you put an enhancement point into either one of the two splash classes, that list gets longer, as you just sacrificed an entire tree somewhere else to do so.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

Why can you make statements like these, but not compare what you expect of Emerald vs. Pure Monk?

Builds like Emerald rely so heavily on class split, gear and stats to do what they do best.

Without a look at whats contained in the trees, I'm just not ready to offer my opinion on a comparison between mutli vs pure monk (same as I said with bards) because I just dont know enough details. All I can say with a fair amount of certainty is Emerald looks like it will be highly effective in a PvE setting in most any quest in the game in the right hands.

[dkyle]

For many bards just getting the extra feats from fighter levels will often be enough reason to splash.

Depends on the feat prereq situation. If weapon focus goes away as a Warchanter prereq (which seems likely), that dramatically reduces the incentive to splash.

But still, extra feats plus enhancements is simply a greater incentive than extra feats alone. Just because there's still some reason to splash, doesn't mean the incentive to do so isn't reduced. The claim isn't that there will be no reason to splash. Rather, that there will be less reason to splash. Especially double-splashes.

Actually there has been no confirmation that the capstone would require lev 20.

We've been told that the bonus tiers require levels 3/6/9/12/15/18/20. For Racial PrEs, those are character levels. But there haven't been any announced Bard Racial PrEs, and class PrEs are class level.

We also have literally no idea how the epic levels are going to play out and how that factors into all this something the devs have to keep in mind for a lot of this development.

Indeed. Therefore, they can't really play any role in our feedback. Withhold feedback because of unknown information is counterproductive. We should endeavor to do the best we can with the info we do have.

[kingfisher]

I think it's far more likely for something to get broken in this new setup from some combo of new enhancements versus someone not getting enough of what they already have.

the 3 tree limit is dumb, serves no purpose, and takes a lot of the flavor and variety out of many builds. i also dont think it will break the game, just make it less interesting along with causing a lot of people to lr/tr. its pretty clear that pures will be getting a larger boost than multi's so limitng the perks of mulitclassing, whether they are worth taking or not, feels like an additional, uneeded kick in the pants.

I have to agree with Cyr here... Pointing out all the possible worthless combos like it's a good thing scares me. Ten good builds, and 54,000 crappy ones is not a good system...

All we care about is that we still have 100+ decent builds like we do today.

imo this is where we are headed. not necessarily just 10 good builds, but a limited number of widely accepted builds as opposed to the larger variety we have now. sure you will be able to make 961597649 combos, but why would you?

Actually, it's the opposite... Most crys of "It's going to break the game!" have been completely wrong in the past...

I'm willing to mostly wait and see without declaring doom... I'm very glad we get a chance to offer feedback.

idk about 'breaking' the game, but it could just make it less original, less fun, and less interesting for some while making it easier for others. its that change towards what most other mmo's are like that bothers people. that and the idea of having to lr/tr numerous builds because someone at turbine decided that changing the enhancement system was on the top of their list.

there is no choice but to wait and see but they did ask for feedback (careful what you ask for! )

its' still looking like my pures, 18/1/1s, and 18/2s will wind-up getting better with these changes. My 12/6/2s on the other hand we'll have to see. It won't be able to get everything I want but a net-gain is looking likely.

Turbine needs to give us more information.

the 12/6/2 builds stand to suffer the most maybe because they are in some case built around pre's. 18/x and pures stand to gain, depending on their race.

the racial pre's, imo, are the biggest risk to both variety and unbalance. especially using exsisting class pre's for the racials. imo it would be bad to give a racial pre that is such a boost to dps (or tanking or whatever) that any build going for top dps needs to be that race or it will fall way down in comparison. besides that some of the choices are questionable, like giving drow tempest. give me a break with the salvatore stuff please.

imo racial pre's should be small and cheap and ORIGINAL, not something thats already out there and available in a class.

[dkyle]

Builds like Emerald rely so heavily on class split, gear and stats to do what they do best.

How is Emerald any less dependent on enhancements than Pure Monk? I'd say it's far more dependent on enhancements!

I have a build that's similar to Emerald (Fighter12/Monk8 instead of Fighter6/Monk14). I can safely say that the split is all about enhancements. Without enhancements, the build makes little sense.

Without a look at whats contained in the trees, I'm just not ready to offer my opinion on a comparison between mutli vs pure monk (same as I said with bards) because I just dont know enough details. All I can say with a fair amount of certainty is Emerald looks like it will be highly effective in a PvE setting in most any quest in the game in the right hands.

Whether it'll be capable of being "effective" isn't the important question. Almost any build can be "effective" in sufficiently skilled hands. How it compares to alternative builds is the important question.

If all you mean to say is that the Emerald build won't be nerfed to the point of being completely useless, then I would agree. But that tells me nothing about what I care about, which is having a vibrant ecosystem of viable builds.

If pure Monk with racial SDIII outclasses Emerald, as seems likely to me given what we know, then it isn't really a viable choice any more. Whether a skilled person can be "effective" with it or not. A truly skilled person would recognize that he'd be even more effective with a better build.

And why aren't you ready to offer your opinion? Do you truly feel that both possible outcomes are completely, absolutely, equally likely? If you feel that either is even slightly more likely than the other, then why are you choosing to withhold potentially valuable feedback? I just don't get it... Why is sitting on your hands more helpful than engaging in discussion?

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

snip

Not interested in discussing it with you anymore Chai. Gave my outlook. You can agree or disagree. Have no more questions or answers for ya. If you want to see how bards stay relevant in 2012/2013, just watch my thread. I am expecting a big boost for Mississippee and a big boost in Genghis.

I'll discuss the details in my threads when I've made my final decisions.

[dkyle]

If you want to see how bards stay relevant in 2012/2013, just watch my thread. I am expecting a big boost for Mississippee and a big boost in Genghis.

Noone is denying the viability of Bards in general. You're reading things that just aren't there. The concern is deep multi and double-splashed Bard builds, in comparison to pure and single-splash builds.

I expect big boosts for both Mississippi and Genghis compared to their current state, too, under the current proposed system. I just expect a far bigger boost for pure builds like Mississippi than to builds like Genghis.

I'll discuss the details in my threads when I've made my final decisions.

This makes no sense to me. Why not discuss the details we have now, in this thread, when it can actually help the devs? How does waiting for a "final decision" help anyone?

Honestly, noone's going to think badly of you if you make an assessment now that turns out to not reflect the game that ultimately gets released. At least, I should certainly hope not. This thread is about the specific rules the devs have proposed at this time, not the game that ultimately gets released.

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

[kingfisher]

There will be plenty of reasons for bards to multi-class in the new system.

there will be less reason than there was before the change if they limit each character to 3 trees. no not NO reasons, just LESS. less is bad. idc how you spin it, having less will hurt the utility and flavor of many multiclass builds. the whole point here is too show that the 3 tree limit hurts some folks while helping none. there is no reason for it.

[Chai]

Not interested in discussing it with you anymore Chai. Gave my outlook. You can agree or disagree. Have no more questions or answers for ya. If you want to see how bards stay relevant in 2012/2013, just watch my thread. I am expecting a big boost for Mississippee and a big boost in Genghis.

I'll discuss the details in my threads when I've made my final decisions.

Bards will stay relevant. Pure bards.

I am expecting pure 20 bard spellsinger / warchanter / kensai (insert other racial PRE here) will be the big thing, and class splits like 16/2/2 to become "flavor builds" - a term I dont necessarily favor, but due to the ginormous differences in tree access between the pure and multiclass, is justified.

[Failedlegend]

Not interested in discussing it with you anymore Chai. Gave my outlook. You can agree or disagree. Have no more questions or answers for ya. If you want to see how bards stay relevant in 2012/2013, just watch my thread. I am expecting a big boost for Mississippee and a big boost in Genghis.

I'll discuss the details in my threads when I've made my final decisions.

Actually you really haven't you've really only disagreed with eveyrone else without actually giving any reasons let alone possible suggestions, told people we can't give proper feedback until we get more info despite the fact that the devs asked for feedback.

Your either trolling or just need attention cause honestly if we took all your posts out of this thread along with your supporters most of what would be left would be useful feedback for the devs.

Leslie's Stance: Trust the Devs, everything you say is wrong and I'm always right despite not actually making any suggestions or feeback.

Yeah I'm sure the devs find that REAL useful.

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

And why aren't you ready to offer your opinion? Do you truly feel that both possible outcomes are completely, absolutely, equally likely? If you feel that either is even slightly more likely than the other, then why are you choosing to withhold potentially valuable feedback? I just don't get it... Why is sitting on your hands more helpful than engaging in discussion?

Because I'd rather be fairly certain before I speak. I'm fairly certain Chai is completely incorrect about multi-class bards. I'm fairly certain how Genghis and the Emerald build will operate (and yes I agree enhancements are vitally integral, but with the wrong stats and gear and class split, those #s just arent as luscious). 20 monk to me is a mystery. So is 20 Bard. You know why? Because it all comes down to how Turbine is going to define game balance. That will make enhancements PrEs and costs fluctuate. I can easily envision how they can underpower and overpower multis and pures, so really I dont feel like its very effective to say "multis are blown out of the water, or pures are blown out of the water". Beyond that, I'm waiting for the entire system (specifically the enhancements and tree structure/access) to be announced before I start breaking down pros and cons of one build vs another build in a public forum.

[Chai]

there will be less reason than there was before the change if they limit each character to 3 trees. no not NO reasons, just LESS. less is bad. idc how you spin it, having less will hurt the utility and flavor of many multiclass builds. the whole point here is too show that the 3 tree limit hurts some folks while helping none. there is no reason for it.

Exactly.

If they left the 3 tree limitation out of the plan what I outlined would still be a good pure build - spellsinger-warchanter-racial PRE. However...class splits like the ghengis would also still be optimal, because the sacrifice to being able to go all the way up each bard tree is made up for by the combat abilities gained in the enhancement lines of the splash classes. A three tree limitation makes that class split far less attractive than pure looks, because in order to use the splash class enhancements you have to sacrifice one of the bard trees, or the full racial tree.

Not having an arbitrary three tree limitation is a win win situation to both scenarios, and it is still limited by level split as well as total number of points one can spend.

[Silverleafeon]

I would also imagine that taking regular levels in a class after level 20 would result in extra heroic action points~4 per level.

[-Mojo-]

I realize not everyone will be interested in this sort of thing, but for those who are, here's an updated mockup of the race panel of the new enhancement UI.

Sorry so simplistic with this post but for the record, I think this Mock looks AWSOME!
if it is anything like this then Kudos...

[LeslieWest_GuitarGod]

if we took all your posts out of this thread along with your supporters most of what would be left would be useful feedback for the devs.

Said like a true patriot of his own opinion.

Your side has contributed, and so has ours. Who contributed more? I think its equal all the way around. We all stated what we want and dont want to happen. We all stated what we think will happen. Some of us believe "its already done" and some of us believe "theres a lot more to be decided." Some are willing to adapt to change and some fear change with their lives.

Bottom line is you simply disagree with our side. And that I'm ok with.

[kingfisher]

Not having an arbitrary three tree limitation is a win win situation to both scenarios, and it is still limited by level split as well as total number of points one can spend.

yep, and i really dont understand why some folks want to argue FOR this at all. makes no sense to me, unless you take into consideration previous posts where some stated that they believed multi's needed a nerf. then all the arguing for a 3 tree limit makes perfect sense. helps no one, hurts some, but hey all the other mmo's do it so why dont we? give me a break.