A quick update on the Enhancements

[Antheal]

So are the new enhancements being released with Update 18 or when can we expect them?

[Schadrach]

take out the tree limit
put back the 1 pre per class limit
lower the ap costs

or... make it so the the tree tiers uses pt spent total on all trees rather than on specific trees

multi classing is suppose to be versatile, the way it is right now they're just starved for AP to even get back what they had before the new system

Err, isn't the point of removing the one pre per class limit and the prereqs being points/tree rather than total points to make single classing look better by allowing heavier investment in your one class to get benefits that multiclass characters won't be able to afford in combination because they'll have to spread their points out more?

You know, instead of being able to cherry-pick the best parts of three classes?

Also, wouldn't reinstating the 1 PrE per class limit in this system literally force people to multiclass or just not spend all their points, especially if costs were dropped like you want?

What is that phrase "Jack of all trades; Master of none"? Isn't that exactly what a multiclass character should be? While the single classed character has better and easier access to the best parts of his, well, single class?

Here are some suggestions then:

Concerning trees:

- Get rid of the AP's per tree and instead use the current "x amount" of AP's used in general.

This would keep multiclassing as, in essence, being able to cherry pick the best parts of each class you play with no real downside. I get the feeling that they're trying to encourage exactly the opposite -- to make there be a benefit to a single class character to counterbalance the benefits of multiclassing.

- Either get rid of the 3 trees limit or increase it to 4 for multi-classing. Right now it's impossible to get 3 classes with the current limit.

You can sink points into three trees without a problem, and get mid-tier stuff in each without a problem. You just can't get all the best stuff from all trees for each class. Want to invest points in Battle Engineer, Mechanic, and Deepwood Stalker? Go for it, nothing stops you. The idea that you can't also go into, say, Arcane Archer or get everything worth getting from three trees is kinda the point.

They literally are trying to avoid letting multiclass characters get all the best parts of three classes because that doesn't just make them more flexible, it makes them manifestly better than single class characters. That's also the reason they dropped the 1 PrE per class limit, in order to make a single classed character able to invest more heavily into that one class than most multiclass builds can even consider.

- Consider the following: 1 racial tree, 1 single class tree where:
a) Racial tree (no changes other than lower AP costs)
b) Class Tree: All Class/PrE options go here. No dumb divisions into other trees. We choose what "path" we want to go or not to go.
As an example for organization, place all "general" skills on the left of the window, PrE/Specials on the right of the window and differentiate the sides with both icon color and a color gradient on the background.

With the goal of letting a Rogue/Ranger/Artificer get all the best enhancements out of Arcanotechnician, Battle Engineer, Arcane Archer, Deepwood Stalker, Tempest, etc?

- Get rid of this dumb idea of shoving general and core skills into separate trees (Favored Enemy is a great example of this). See example above of SINGLE TREE.

I could see separating out the truly generic stuff into some kind of "class" tree, or having it count towards all of its classes' trees or something.

Concerning Core Enhancements (Horizontal Bar):

- Get rid of the requirement to take them all
- Get rid of the requirement to get them from left to right.

This, because not all of us want all of those enhancements.

So, are you talking about dropping the level requirements in a given class for them, or just letting you skip some? The only problem I could see with the latter would be cases where some of them are upgraded versions of others, like Battle Engineer. The former is just back to letting multiclass characters cherry pick the best pieces of each class.

Concerning the changes to skills and Spellcraft:

- Get rid of it unless you intend to:
a) Make those an optional extra that we can get if we so wish.

OR

b) Give us more skill points to use.
c) Make Spellcraft NOT INT based. Actually, don't base it on stats AT ALL.

I may be missing something here, but in what way isn't it optional? Are they doing some kind of systemwide nerf of all spellcasting so that you need the spell power provided by the skill to keep up with where you currently are?

What I think I'd prefer would be class-specific spell power from skills instead of spell power with specific effects from them. Or putting spellcraft on your primary casting stat (either for which class you took first or have the most levels of).

[EllisDee37]

You can sink points into three trees without a problem, and get mid-tier stuff in each without a problem. You just can't get all the best stuff from all trees for each class. Want to invest points in Battle Engineer, Mechanic, and Deepwood Stalker? Go for it, nothing stops you. The idea that you can't also go into, say, Arcane Archer or get everything worth getting from three trees is kinda the point.

The problem is that they arbitrarily put core class features into random trees, meaning that if you want access to all the core class enhancements, you can ONLY take enhancements from the three trees of your class. This is a nerf to multiclassing.

Sounds like you're a fan of this, but it is objectively bad for the game by reducing build flexibility because build flexibility is one of the biggest draws of the game.

I may be missing something here, but in what way isn't it optional? Are they doing some kind of systemwide nerf of all spellcasting so that you need the spell power provided by the skill to keep up with where you currently are?

Yes, that is exactly what they are doing. How did you miss this?

[Schadrach]

The problem is that they arbitrarily put core class features into random trees, meaning that if you want access to all the core class enhancements, you can ONLY take enhancements from the three trees of your class. This is a nerf to multiclassing.

I don't doubt that it's a nerf to multiclassing, relative to single classing at the very least. I'm just saying that that's the *intent*.

Or let me put it this way. Assume for a moment that single class characters being lackluster compared to multiclass characters because the former lose versatility but typically don't really gain much to make up for it *is not desireable*. Provide a solution that won't get described as "nerfing multiclass characters", but doesn't make a single classed character generally a poor choice compared to his multiclassed bretheren.

Sounds like you're a fan of this, but it is objectively bad for the game by reducing build flexibility because build flexibility is one of the biggest draws of the game.

Define build flexibility. Too many people in this thread seem to define build flexibility as "being able to be very versatile through multiclassing while paying out very little in potency by doing so; being able to get the best parts of multiple classes."

That's the reason so many people want the AP requirements to stay total AP spent -- so they can cherry-pick among trees instead of having to invest in a given classes' trees to get benefits for that class.

I'll agree with you that the way the generic class benefits are broken up isn't ideal, but they serve the same general goal -- trying to make people invest in a class to get all the benefits associated with that class instead of cherry picking.

They want splashing to be a meaningful trade off compared to a single class character, not an easy road to extra power. Or to put it simply, why play a straight Artificer or a straight Deepwood Sniper Ranger or a straight Mechanic Rogue when something like 7/7/6 gets you the best of all three?

Yes, that is exactly what they are doing. How did you miss this?

They are removing the generic +spell power enhancements per spell type, adding skills that grant spell power, and making virtually every caster tree grant spell power for spending points in it (with the notable exception of Battle Engineer which has a pants-on-head stupid mechanic in which you are expected to charge but not use your rune arm). This is only really a big deal for multiclass builds who want spell power but don't want to invest significant AP in caster stuff.

Personally, if anything I'd change how they were doing the spell power skill thing to make it grant spell power for a specific classes' spells rather than a specific spell type, and then make each caster class be on a skill using their respective primary ability score. Or just grant spell power equal to class level + 3 + ability mod for each classes' spells, but that's even *worse* for the multiclassers.

[EllisDee37]

Provide a solution that won't get described as "nerfing multiclass characters", but doesn't make a single classed character generally a poor choice compared to his multiclassed bretheren.

Increase the power of capstones, and maybe even the level 18 tier 3 prestige enhancements.

That's the reason so many people want the AP requirements to stay total AP spent -- so they can cherry-pick among trees instead of having to invest in a given classes' trees to get benefits for that class.

You seem to be implying that this cherry-picking would be bad. That's exactly what build flexibility is, and this is a core strength of DDO as it has existed for years and years. Reduce flexibility at your peril, because people then start to compare DDO to Neverwinter on grounds other than character building, and that's very bad for DDO.

They want splashing to be a meaningful trade off compared to a single class character, not an easy road to extra power. Or to put it simply, why play a straight Artificer or a straight Deepwood Sniper Ranger or a straight Mechanic Rogue when something like 7/7/6 gets you the best of all three?

Good! 7/7/6 sounds cool and fun.

They are removing the generic +spell power enhancements per spell type, adding skills that grant spell power, and making virtually every caster tree grant spell power for spending points in it (with the notable exception of Battle Engineer which has a pants-on-head stupid mechanic in which you are expected to charge but not use your rune arm). This is only really a big deal for multiclass builds who want spell power but don't want to invest significant AP in caster stuff.

Look, I get it, you hate multi-classing and cling to the idea that pure classes should be clearly better than multiclassing. The problem is that this would be objectively bad for the game.

Personally, if anything I'd change how they were doing the spell power skill thing to make it grant spell power for a specific classes' spells rather than a specific spell type, and then make each caster class be on a skill using their respective primary ability score. Or just grant spell power equal to class level + 3 + ability mod for each classes' spells, but that's even *worse* for the multiclassers.

How about we just get our spell power lines back, and players can CHOOSE which spell power lines (and how much of them) they want to take? This has worked great for years, and allows neat custom builds.

Everyone getting a generic potency value so all spells are the same for everyone is a ridiculous solution to completely made up and artificial problem presented by the question "which tree should the elemental lines go in?" It's the single greatest evidence why the three tree system itself is so bad for the game.

To illustrate how poor the proposed design change is, consider a pure wizard elf who decided to play elf for the extra spell penetration. Pure wizard, mind you; none of that dirty multiclassing. Every point the elven wizard puts into elven spell penetration takes away spell power. You should be able to get full spell power AND full elven spell penetration. You can on live, and have been able to for years. Making even a pure class choose between spell power and other casting attributes is flat-out stupid.

[Hutoth]

Provide a solution that won't get described as "nerfing multiclass characters", but doesn't make a single classed character generally a poor choice compared to his multiclassed bretheren.

From my pov under the current regime, the pure class or multi class argument is irrelevant. Currently pure classes are NOT automatically a worse choice than multi-class, especially for a new player.

But if you change it so that a good player can no longer find new and exciting ways to mix up classes to squeeze more juice out of those 20 levels, then you have hurt the game.

Ask yourself this: hypothetically, if pure-classing was ALWAYS worse than multi-classing, would this be better or worse for players than the opposite: with pure classing ALWAYS better than multi-classing?

[Schadrach]

Increase the power of capstones, and maybe even the level 18 tier 3 prestige enhancements.

13 prestige enhancements don't have 3 ranks to begin with (and one has 5 - Archmage), in fact one of the reasons that I picked the example I did below is that none of it's PrE's have 3 ranks -- two are single rank only (Battle Engineer and Deepwood Sniper) and the third (Mechanic) has a lackluster second rank giving it's most important benefit (Int to crossbow damage) in the first rank. It's not really alone in that trait -- a *lot* of PrE's give some of their most important benefits in the first rank, if there even are later ranks.

I suppose what you said would work, but it would mean bringing all PrE's up to three ranks and making the later ranks give increasingly good comparative benefits (literally tier 2 PrEs would have to be noticeably better in what they gain you than tier 1 PrEs, and tier 3s better still, and we are talking about marginal differences not absolute ones), which knowing MMO player logic will be interpreted as a nerf to multiclass characters (because there are nice things they can't have because it involves investing in a single class).

The downside to the capstones is that you don't get to benefit from them until you are in epic content, which means that folks who plan on going through some TRs still derive no benefit.

You seem to be implying that this cherry-picking would be bad. That's exactly what build flexibility is, and this is a core strength of DDO as it has existed for years and years. Reduce flexibility at your peril, because people then start to compare DDO to Neverwinter on grounds other than character building, and that's very bad for DDO.

So, build flexibility = having everything to gain and practically nothing to lose by muticlassing? Seriously, there has to be a meaningful trade off for multiclassing, or multiclassing is just plain a better choice. Ask yourself this: "By multiclassing, I gain ________ and lose out on __________." Now, look at what you put in the blanks, do they seem to be of similar value? If they aren't, then there is a problem.

Good! 7/7/6 sounds cool and fun.

It doesn't matter whether or not 7/7/6 sounds fun to you or not. The problem is that going 7/7/6 is objectively better than 20 in any of the three.

If we used your suggestion above, we'd have to add a second rank to Battle Engineer and Deepwood Sniper and a third rank to all three, and buff Mechanic II so that Mechanic II is an at least equal choice for your crossbow wielding Rogue as going for one of the others.

Look, I get it, you hate multi-classing and cling to the idea that pure classes should be clearly better than multiclassing. The problem is that this would be objectively bad for the game.

No, I'm not saying that single class characters should be clearly better, I *am* saying that multiclass characters shouldn't be, and that at present they are.

Ask yourself this -- would you be happier with changes where Battle Engineer II was added and had at least as much marginal benefit to a crossbow wielder with Battle Engineer I as Mechanic I, and Battle Engineer III even moreso, or would you complain that someone with Battle Engineer III or Mechanic III was better with a repeater than someone with Battle Engineer I, Mechanic I, and Deepwood Sniper I?

Look at the evolution of pen and paper d20 from 3E to 3.5E to Pathfinder (2E and back and 4E and forward are entirely different beasts built on sometimes very different principles) -- what has happened each time? They made dipping into classes be less of a valid strategy, largely by either placing better goodies deeper into the class to encourage investment or by moving goodies from early in the class deeper in to make dipping less appealing.

Imagine for example that along your lines, they took the three PrEs that I've been using as an example and gave them each three ranks, but moved Endless Fusillade, Sniper Shot, and +Int to damage to the second rank of their respective PrEs, and made the third ranks all nice (marginal benefit similar to the first ranks). Would you still complain that you are being denied "build flexibility", since the best pieces of each PrE can no longer be gotten in combination?

From my pov under the current regime, the pure class or multi class argument is irrelevant. Currently pure classes are NOT automatically a worse choice than multi-class, especially for a new player.

By which you mean a player that doesn't understand the mechanics of the game. Because as soon as he gets a grasp on them, something like the 7/7/6 setup I described above is simply better than going 20 Artificer, or 20 Rogue, or 20 Ranger. In no small part due to a combination of cherry picking and getting access to more PrEs and better abilities from them (since a lot of PrEs give important stuff up front, and a single classed character can only have one because he's not multiclassed). That's really the biggest benefit to the new system for single classed characters -- access to as many PrEs at once as a multiclassed character (assuming they fill out the three trees per class minimum thing).

[EllisDee37]

By which you mean a player that doesn't understand the mechanics of the game. Because as soon as he gets a grasp on them, something like the 7/7/6 setup I described above is simply better than going 20 Artificer, or 20 Rogue, or 20 Ranger. In no small part due to a combination of cherry picking and getting access to more PrEs and better abilities from them (since a lot of PrEs give important stuff up front, and a single classed character can only have one because he's not multiclassed). That's really the biggest benefit to the new system for single classed characters -- access to as many PrEs at once as a multiclassed character (assuming they fill out the three trees per class minimum thing).

A 7/7/6 build currently on live has access to three tier 1 prestiges, which is the same access they have on alpha. Prestiges on alpha still require 6 class levels for tier 1, 12 for tier 2 and 18 for tier 3. Surely you know this already.

I'm not seeing your point, unless you're saying that a 7/7/6 artie/ranger/rogue right now on live is better than any 20 artie, ranger or rogue you can roll up. If so, I think you're nuts.

On re-read, it appears you're specifically referring to Battle Engineer, Mechanic, and Deepwood Stalker, as prestiges, being better when combined together (tier 1 for all three) than any one of them is at tier 3. Clearly, the fix for that is to fix those three prestiges, not burn down the whole system. I'll take a tier 3 assassin over your 7/7/6 combo any day.

[Dylvish]

I see valid points to both sides of the argument, and it really boils down at the end of the day to that word which keeps Dev's up at night.... balance. Its tough to accomplish in a game like this.

I agree that both pure class and multi-class should have no definite clear advantage over the other. I also agree that currently this is the case less often than not. However, this is due to a particular few abilities being so easy to get, more than anything else.

Evasion, Trapping, and Pally saves are probably at the top of that list.

I personally think Evasion should be put to level 6 for monk and rogue, same with the Paladin Cha + saves (forget the name atm), and Trapping should have a cap based on the trapping class level. Will this ever happen? Doubtful. But I think it would be a step in the right direction.

There is a reason you rarely see pure bards, Arties, Rangers (10k monkchers), and to a lesser degree Sorcs (2 pally/sorc), Wizards (2 rogue/wiz) and a couple of others. There are a few extremely powerful feats game-wise that are simply too easy to get with very little investment compared to what you lose.

I am not a developer, so I do not have a simple answer, and I do not envy the Devs on this upcoming enhancement pass. They are going to both make some people happy, and some very upset. I just hope when it all shakes out, and the additional patches are done, that it is an improvement, and not a detriment.

~Dyvout

[Ironclans_evil_twin]

Do not need or want balance, balance is sameness with cosmetic differences. D&D has spent 40 years scoffing at the idea of balance and the rock paper scissors gameplay it brings with it. It's been incredibly successful, it never once had balance.

I want fun and variety and lots or characters that can fill a role through skill and clever build. I do not want tank, DPS, heals.

In short I want DDO to stick to the nearly organic level of complexity that flexible choices at every turn gives it. More choices, not less choices. This preview contained 6 to 7 new restrictions on how you spend AP's compared to old systems 3 and the one relaxed restriction (only 5th level required to get tier III PrE's) has zero change of making it to live. Sadly the new tree system could easily have the EXACT SAME RESTRICTIONS as the old, with new user friendly UI but they went another path and decided that players need a more guided pathway and less choices., and I see no reason besides pride and folly to have gone that way.

[EllisDee37]

one relaxed restriction (only 5th level required to get tier III PrE's)

People keep referencing this but it isn't true. On alpha, you need 6 class levels for tier 1 prestige, 12 class levels for tier 2, and 18 class levels for tier 3, just like live. Prestiges are the bottom row, not the top.

This is just a minor clarification, though; I completely agree with your larger point.

[Dylvish]

Do not need or want balance, balance is sameness with cosmetic differences. D&D has spent 40 years scoffing at the idea of balance and the rock paper scissors gameplay it brings with it. It's been incredibly successful, it never once had balance.

I want fun and variety and lots or characters that can fill a role through skill and clever build. I do not want tank, DPS, heals.

In short I want DDO to stick to the nearly organic level of complexity that flexible choices at every turn gives it. More choices, not less choices. This preview contained 6 to 7 new restrictions on how you spend AP's compared to old systems 3 and the one relaxed restriction (only 5th level required to get tier III PrE's) has zero change of making it to live. Sadly the new tree system could easily have the EXACT SAME RESTRICTIONS as the old, with new user friendly UI but they went another path and decided that players need a more guided pathway and less choices., and I see no reason besides pride and folly to have gone that way.

While you call it 'more choices' I do not see this game as having those choices the way you say. I see three basic player types. The new players, concept players, and the min/maxers. The min/maxers tend to have the same builds, hand picked from a few classes mixed together. There is no 'nearly organic level of complexity'. There is simply the mix that gives the highest numbers, which tends to break down into about 6 or 7 builds total, with a VERY rare experimenter on his 6th life and gear to support some odd build. The concept players may go with mixed classes, often like to go with pure classes, and make them work, albeit with less performance levels compared to the mixed class builds as a general rule. The new players pick a class, and go with preset paths, then later realize these paths are usually far from optimal and begin to go either with the concept or min/max direction.

Do I agree with some of the restrictions they are adding in? No, not at all. I must have missed some notes, because I did not see them giving less choices (other than the utterly unintelligent and baffling forced-to-healbot changes I have seen them do to clerics). Could you point me to where those notes are, or give me the abbreviated (and preferably unbiased rather than 'this sux that sux) version? I may even jump on board with you on the anger wagon if they are as bad as you say.

~Dyvout

[EllisDee37]

I must have missed some notes, because I did not see them giving less choices (other than the utterly unintelligent and baffling forced-to-healbot changes I have seen them do to clerics). Could you point me to where those notes are, or give me the abbreviated (and preferably unbiased rather than 'this sux that sux) version? I may even jump on board with you on the anger wagon if they are as bad as you say.

"Points spent in tree" is a significant reduction in choice. On live, you pick and choose which enhancements you want with very few prerequisite points to worry about. On alpha, you pick and choose your trees and then your points get spent in that tree simply to unlock the higher tiers. Many points get thrown away on stuff you don't want and wouldn't otherwise take, but solely to meet "points spent in tree" prereqs. The end result is a system where you get far fewer meaningful choices than on live.

The three tree limit is also a significant reduction in choice. This one should be self-evident, but I can go into detail if you like.

[Dylvish]

"Points spent in tree" is a significant reduction in choice. On live, you pick and choose which enhancements you want with very few prerequisite points to worry about. On alpha, you pick and choose your trees and then your points get spent in that tree simply to unlock the higher tiers. Many points get thrown away on stuff you don't want and wouldn't otherwise take, but solely to meet "points spent in tree" prereqs. The end result is a system where you get far fewer meaningful choices than on live.

The three tree limit is also a significant reduction in choice. This one should be self-evident, but I can go into detail if you like.

The 'Points in Tree' I saw the same as its current 'must have X points spent' for a skill, just with a simpler format, which I think is needed. The 3 tree split however, I am VERY divided on currently. Part of me likes the concept, in particular with all of the extra goodies they have added in for racial etc, while the other part agrees with you that it throws in limitations that could be harmful. I need to get more info on that one and am waiting for them to publish more notes or updates before I decide which way off the fence.

I am hoping that at the end of the day it adds more options, not less (ex: with the deeper racial bonuses, like drow poisons, other combinations than just class can be mixed in). I am a bit old school, been gaming since the 70's, and I will admit I tend to prefer my pure classes most of the time, but I do not want Pures or Mixed to be dominating the other. Rather I want both to be viable and competetive, leaving options for everyone. I do like roles, but I do NOT like pigeonholed roles. Just because 2 people are tanks does not mean when they are grouped one should not be able to break out a 2hander and at least be ok dps. Same with healer playing wanna-be nuker in a pinch or when solo.

Any word on when the next round of notes on / proposed updates on Lammania enhancements are?

~Dyv

[Dylvish]

As a side note, I am happy they are suddenly so active with the game as a whole the past year or so. Been around since 2007, and the Dev's have for the most part been ghosts, never addressing much in the way of the many issues the game has had.

[Flavilandile]

The 'Points in Tree' I saw the same as its current 'must have X points spent' for a skill, just with a simpler format, which I think is needed.

It's totally different...
Right now we have must have X points spent, wherever the points have been spent.

So right now if you spend points in Racial Toughness, Racial Stat, Energy of whatever they count towards your must have X points spent.
With the points Spent in Tree, the points you spend in your racial tree will not count towards getting the 20 point thing you want in the Cleric Hjealbot tree.
You will have to waste points into padding stuff you don't want ( usually 10 to 16 points ) to reach the things you want to use in the tree...
While before you could spend those padding points in other useful stuff not directly related ( like racial stuff or other class things )

[EllisDee37]

The 'Points in Tree' I saw the same as its current 'must have X points spent' for a skill, just with a simpler format, which I think is needed.

"Points spent in tree" and "total points spent" are vastly different in terms of allowing build diversity. The former strangles it, while the latter fosters it.

[Dylvish]

"Points spent in tree" and "total points spent" are vastly different in terms of allowing build diversity. The former strangles it, while the latter fosters it.

Yep, I am aware of this, and noted it in my above post when I said I was not sure I agreed with their choice of putting it towards the 3 tree split. While I see the potential problem of unlocking all 3 trees based on total points spent as well (I believe someone up above accurately called it 'cherry picking'), going the total opposite and isolating the trees altogether has its problems as well.
The Dev's track record in the past has been both very good and very bad in regards to some of their changes. I am HOPING they surprise the hell out of us and they come up with something that makes both camps happy (hey, what can I say, I'm an optimist).

Any word on when the next batch of updates / changes are due on Lammania? As the time gets closer, I itch to get my fingers on it more in order to try and get some feedback going to them and if lucky, get them to seriously watch the numbers in play before making anything final.

~Dyv

[Flavilandile]

While I see the potential problem of unlocking all 3 trees based on total points spent as well (I believe someone up above accurately called it 'cherry picking'),

There's no problem if they do like right now, by using the level required as a gating towards higher stuff.

Any word on when the next batch of updates / changes are due on Lammania?

End of June.

[EllisDee37]

While I see the potential problem of unlocking all 3 trees based on total points spent as well (I believe someone up above accurately called it 'cherry picking')

I find that argument (as stated upthread) odd because that's how enhancements currently work on live, and have for years, and yet it seems to be referenced as self-evidently overpowered. Does not compute.