Let's Talk: Enhancements!

[MrWicae]

Pure classes gain nothing but the ability to have more a some extra pre abilities with no choice in them and lose access to high level enhancements they would normally have access to. They lose sole access to capstones.

If I don't need to go pure for a capstone and lose access to high level enhancments I would have still had under the current system and cannot afford to spend a lot of AP in several trees and and can change to better trees for my build by multiclassing what is my incentive for remaining a pure class?

This is assuming that they throw level requirements right out of the window. If you are not a level 20 fighter maybe you wont have access to the cap stone unless you meet requirements.

[Chai]

Pure classes gain nothing but the ability to have more a some extra pre abilities with no choice in them and lose access to high level enhancements they would normally have access to. They lose sole access to capstones.

If I don't need to go pure for a capstone and lose access to high level enhancments I would have still had under the current system and cannot afford to spend a lot of AP in several trees and and can change to better trees for my build by multiclassing what is my incentive for remaining a pure class?

Lets let the players decide whats "better" on a player by player basis. In order to do this, there cannot be more arbitrary limitations placed on the system. The more limitations placed into the system, the more the system pushes players toward specific build options, and the more cookie cutter characters we end up with.

They made a statement that customization options are the bread and butter of this game, but then are planning a system that places arbitrary limitations on building that are not part of the current system.

DDO has a chance to use this revamp to correct alot of errors in balancing the game and lift restrictions, however it is moving toward DDO becomming a game where players are only allowed to build within specific boundries, more restricting than the current system. This could end up the best thing that ever happened to this game, or it could end up an SWG-esque disaster. The more they restrict building options arbitrarily, the more it looks like the latter.

[Lence]

Skill (enhancement) trees are so WoW....yuck. My concern being when worthless stuff gets thrown below something I want to actually have.

D&D is about building the character I want, not what some developer thinks I want or thinks should be forced onto me. That my concern with this. If you force me to take some dumb enhancement that has 0 value to my build to get something I do want...well...congrats on not knowing how the game "should" be and steering it more in some joke direction that it should be going away from, not towards (ie sucky tree based games like WoW).

Plus, this sounds like it will kill multi-class more than single class toons which is terrible if all of a sudden my build is limited to some abstract 3 tree system that might have nothing to do with my build.

I don't want your forced opinions of what I need or have to take...I like the freedom I have with my builds.

[MrWicae]

Skill (enhancement) trees are so WoW....yuck. My concern being when worthless stuff gets thrown below something I want to actually have.

D&D is about building the character I want, not what some developer thinks I want or thinks should be forced onto me. That my concern with this. If you force me to take some dumb enhancement that has 0 value to my build to get something I do want...well...congrats on not knowing how the game "should" be and steering it more in some joke direction that it should be going away from, not towards (ie sucky tree based games like WoW).

Plus, this sounds like it will kill multi-class more than single class toons which is terrible if all of a sudden my build is limited to some abstract 3 tree system that might have nothing to do with my build.

I don't want your forced opinions of what I need or have to take...I like the freedom I have with my builds.

I agree fully with this post. Sure the current system is ugly but forcing us into a prepackaged build is infinitely worse!

[Vormaerin]

They made a statement that customization options are the bread and butter of this game, but then are planning a system that places arbitrary limitations on building that are not part of the current system.

There are arbitrary restrictions in the current system, too. They are going to change what the restrictions are, not stop restricting builds entirely. Its impossible to say right now which system will have the greater restrictions overall.

[AylinIsAwesome]

A part of the difficulty of making racial PrEs identical to class PrEs is that it will lead to some combinations in favor of specific classes.

A stalwart defender and a defender of siberys are mostly on par atm, with each having its own strengths and weaknesses. If the stalwart PrE can be taken as a racial PrE, a dwarf / WF / human (if SD is one of their PrEs) DoS will have a much higher defense than any Stalwart defender, who won't be able to stack his enhancements with another defensive racial PrE.

This is why I think the racial PrEs should be independant from class PrEs. It would also add a nice dimension to the game, as these racial PrEs could be used with a wide variety of classes (just like DD3.5 Prestige classes).

Of course, this would require working on a lot of additional sets of enhancements, but I think it's worth it. And I'm sure you could get a lot of good ideas from players.

I don't think that a Dwarf/Warforged/Human/Half-Elf Paladin with both SD and DoS would be that powerful.

First, that's going to be a pretty hefty AP requirement (60 APs to get to the current level 3 in both, not including racial enhancements and enhancements in other trees), so that character's ability to spread out into say the KotC line will be limited. Plus, getting SD 3 would provide that character with a whopping +3 AC, +6 intim, and some extra DR when using a shield (assuming things will be the same). Unless the other enhancements in the other available trees are just strictly inferior, I'm not sure it would be worth it to sink that many APs into it. (On the other hand, getting the DoS capstone and perhaps some of the lower-level SD benefits might be worthwhile). Fighter SDs will still have a lot more feats to play with though, and unless I'm mistaken can get to a higher AC than Paladins can at the moment anyway (especially if we take for granted that both are in the same quest/raid).

Plus there's also the possibility of Human pure Fighters with both SD and DoS (again, depending on AP costs and the actual enhancements), so I think that's pretty fair.

[Vormaerin]

That my concern with this. If you force me to take some dumb enhancement that has 0 value to my build to get something I do want...

The current system is ALL about this exact thing right now. Buying worthless feats (spring attack), worthless enhancements (Fighter Critical Accuracy), and so on to get the ones you do want. Changing this is exactly what they want to do. However, if they drop the existing restrictions, they will have to be replaced by something else.

It can be complicated, enhancement by enhancement restrictions or it can be broader based, simpler set like the tree structure could prove to be.

[AylinIsAwesome]

Skill (enhancement) trees are so WoW....yuck. My concern being when worthless stuff gets thrown below something I want to actually have.

D&D is about building the character I want, not what some developer thinks I want or thinks should be forced onto me. That my concern with this. If you force me to take some dumb enhancement that has 0 value to my build to get something I do want...well...congrats on not knowing how the game "should" be and steering it more in some joke direction that it should be going away from, not towards (ie sucky tree based games like WoW).

Plus, this sounds like it will kill multi-class more than single class toons which is terrible if all of a sudden my build is limited to some abstract 3 tree system that might have nothing to do with my build.

I don't want your forced opinions of what I need or have to take...I like the freedom I have with my builds.

Lence, I'm not sure what game you've been playing for the past 6 years, but you are aware that Fighter Critical Accuracy 3 is completely useless to a Kensai fighter, Improved Heal 2 is completely useless to a Radiant Servant Cleric, Favoured Soul Smiting 3 is completely useless to an Angel of Vengence FvS, that the Aura of Courage enhancements are completely useless to a KotC Paladin...(the list goes on and on)...yet we're required to take them now, right? At least in the new proposed system a Paladin would be able to get the KotC 3 benefits while being able to choose which enhancements in the KotC s/he wants to take to qualify for the PrE with. That I like the best about the new system.

[Lence]

The current system is ALL about this exact thing right now. Buying worthless feats (spring attack), worthless enhancements (Fighter Critical Accuracy), and so on to get the ones you do want. Changing this is exactly what they want to do. However, if they drop the existing restrictions, they will have to be replaced by something else.

It can be complicated, enhancement by enhancement restrictions or it can be broader based, simpler set like the tree structure could prove to be.

The restrictions now are pretty limited compared to any 3 tree structure I have ever seen...and I have seen ALOT of them. Tree structures always end with every game acting the same, looking the same, playing the same, with every character built the same...its completely token of a cookie cutter game.

I am not saying that this is how it will be...I am just saying this has been the same with every tree system game I have ever seen with the exception of 1 game. Historically speaking, unless they have some creative approach to this and not just jumping on the clone WoW bandwagon, its generally a bad idea and not in line with anything D&D or anything DDO has been so far to date.

There would definitely need to me more definitive answers on how this would work and details before a definite opinion could be made one way or another.

[Failedlegend]

There would definitely need to me more definitive answers on how this would work and details before a definite opinion could be made one way or another.

Yeah I think everyone pretty much has made their opinions and ideas for improvement known...at least as far as much as we can with the current information (As the supporters of the current mock-up keep pointing out) it would be nice to know what the Devs think about it so far.

Also any possible (subject to change) changes or even just stuff they liked from our feedback and if there IS any chance of Multiclass PrEs, REAL racial PrEs, Extra Tabs for Multi's, Racial PrEs being part of racial tab,The "Favored PrE" System, A Sample Tree..not a mockup a ACTUAL (subject to change) example of the tree and its contents, anything really.

[Chai]

There are arbitrary restrictions in the current system, too. They are going to change what the restrictions are, not stop restricting builds entirely. Its impossible to say right now which system will have the greater restrictions overall.

Actually no its not impossible to tell which system will have the greater restrictions, because from the details they have already given us we can clearly see that the three tree restriction is clearly more limiting than the current system. Myself and others have already provided numerous concrete examples of stuff we can build now that we cannot in the new planned system with its arbitrary three tree restriction.

Yes, we are operating on the information they provided to us which is subject to change, but using that as an excuse to not be able to provide feedback, we could say that in any thread on any topic, because the entire game is always subject to change. Its too generic of an excuse and too easy to use it as a blanket clause to waive away any arguement whatsoever.

Instead we take the information we have on the current system, and compare it to the information they have provided us in this thread, and when we do, we see the new system is more limiting. DDO will look more like WOW, EQ2, Asherons Call, Diablo, etc than it did in the past once this goes live. Once the optimizers get their hands on it, they will flesh out what the 4 or 5 accepted cookie cutter builds are for specific roles, and everything else will get relegated to being a "flavor build".

Let the players decide in '12. Arbitrary limitation is arbitrary.

[Vormaerin]

The restrictions now are pretty limited compared to any 3 tree structure I have ever seen...and I have seen ALOT of them. Tree structures always end with every game acting the same, looking the same, playing the same, with every character built the same...its completely token of a cookie cutter game.

The reason tree systems tend to create cookie cutters is because in most games they exist to allow speccing in different roles. My warrior is specced to tank or specced to DPS and you don't really have enough choices to do a hybrid that's effective.

DDO's system is entirely different for two reasons. First, you can go pretty far up two trees. Second, multiclassing exists. So My Fighter/Paladin/Monk has "pick 3 of 9", not just "have these three".

The only reason you'd have cookie cutters out of that system is if the trees themselves were imbalanced for some reason.

[Vormaerin]

Actually no its not impossible to tell which system will have the greater restrictions, because from the details they have already given us we can clearly see that the three tree restriction is clearly more limiting than the current system. Myself and others have already provided numerous concrete examples of stuff we can build now that we cannot in the new planned system with its arbitrary three tree restriction.

Sort of. You can tell me what you probably can't build in the new system that you can build now. But you can't tell me anything yet about what you can build in the new system that you can't build now.

Multiclass characters are going to lose the ability to pick some of the enhancements they have now. That /could/ be bad if what we get in return isn't good enough. No one has a problem expressing concern about that.

But the insistence that you are absolutely going to be less effective/flexible/whatever than you are now is overstating your case by a lot.

[kingfisher]

Each different gaming table I would sit at would show another prime example of Oberoni fallacy coming into play. People house rule things in and out to fit what they were willing and not willing to allow.

Usually when I would do this it would be for a specific reason. Those reasons would have things to do with current lore, current locale, setting, available trainers, etc. It usually didnt have to do with "Im not going to allow this because its too powerful" or "I dont like optimized multiclasses because I deem them unrealistic" - but every once in a while that decision needed to be made.

The one thing I do like when games get this concept correct is the pure choice is a safe choice. A new player with little to no D&D knowledge can log on and roll up a pure 20 single class toon and still have an effective character. On the converse someone with a decent understanding of the class mechanics and how they interact can decide what type of character they want, then build for it through mixing and matching of abilities in an optimized fashion.

The point here is to allow the players to decide. Having one more powerful than the other will just push the majority of players - especially the optimizers - to the obviously more powerful incarnations. Ruling something out Oberoni style because we dont like it or we feel it should be one way is just setting limitations into place that all will not agree with. D&D (and DDO) is not a game that is played one way. Turbine has a vested interest in satisfying alot of different playstyles and preferences. If they were to put measures into place that insure pure builds will be more powerful or disallow too many options, optimizers who enjoyed multiclassing would be put off by that, as well as the cost associated with straightening out their builds they have created and geared over the years. Sure they could use a TR, but forcing that time committment onto someone who has a number of alts on their account just to make their builds viable would not be a good move to make.



I disagree that it would be the only reason. Versitility is not a munchkin character. The 12/6/2 helves angel is a versitility build that simply does more than a pure fighter. Theres nothing munchkin about it however. Splashing a couple levels of fighter does not make a munchkin character, and its done quite as bit with other melee classes. I understand your preference to pure builds and splashes, but not everyone plays the same style you play. To disallow builders from being able to build a certain way simply due to personal preference is not a good business decision.

Even if the "munchkin toon builders" are lined up eagerly waiting to see all these new options and how they interact, their ability to build a "munchkin toon" doesnt impact your ability to have fun playing a pure toon or splashed toon. There should be no limitations to the system due to personal preference, because the player has the ability to excersise their own personal preference within a wider set of game parameters.

Bottom line: Someone who chooses to limit vertical progression in order to take more lateral progression should be able to do so. A trade off is already being made. Limiting lateral progression through the UI is arbitrary, and hampers multiclassing because the vertical progression sacrifice is made to gain nothing laterally. Being "munchkin" or "cookie cutter" should have nothing to do with it.

Perfect. This is exactly why the 3 tree limit is a nerf to multiclassing. Well said chai.

[Aashrym]

This is assuming that they throw level requirements right out of the window. If you are not a level 20 fighter maybe you wont have access to the cap stone unless you meet requirements.

It's already been stated the that race unlocks use character level instead of class levels. There was a suggestion to change that but no word from the devs on any changes yet from the original mock up. It's not an assumption when the dev's tell us that is how it works.

That means the limitation is with the actual PrE's available through the unlock system. That has the potential to be a nice perk and incentive for some multiclasses or it has the potential to almost completely destroy pure classes if it goes too far.

[Chai]

Sort of. You can tell me what you probably can't build in the new system that you can build now. But you can't tell me anything yet about what you can build in the new system that you can't build now.

Multiclass characters are going to lose the ability to pick some of the enhancements they have now. That /could/ be bad if what we get in return isn't good enough. No one has a problem expressing concern about that.

But the insistence that you are absolutely going to be less effective/flexible/whatever than you are now is overstating your case by a lot.

Someone has an account with X number of currently built toons that are multiclassed in such a way that they are limited so they cant be built to be more effective using the new system. That means the class split has to be changed, which is either: at least 2 LRs, or 1 TR. The third option is to abandon the toon they played and geared over years of play. The player is now committed to spending time, money, or both, to fix their multiple toons on their account - all due to a changed system with a limitation in place that did not exist previously when the toon was built.

In this situation it doesnt matter that there are better options in the new system. If someone cant use their free enhancement respec to create something equal or better than what they were playing previously, then they are relegated to being worse off than they were previous to the change due to a class tree limitation that did_not_exist at the time the character was built and played. Its either that or pay money and spend more time LRing or TRing to fix the class split.

If Turbine wants to change their game, fine, but it shouldnt cost players a dime to redo their toons simply because of the limitations put in place that did not exist previous to the change, which were the conditions the toons were built and played in. If that means LRing 10 characters out of 8 levels each to pure, who is fronting that cost?

Overstating? Not at all. I am showing you the possible dilema many players will face for many toons on their account if this goes live in such a way that limits multiclassing - solely because those players built and played toons in an era of the game that wa smore multiclass friendly.

Are you going to tell those players to stop complaining, because hey, you can build something better now than you had before. It will just cost you ~8 dollars per toon. If you do, please alert me beforehand so I can buy up all the stock in popcorn on the market and become a billionaire overnight. Im just sayin'

[Failedlegend]

It's already been stated the that race unlocks use character level instead of class levels. There was a suggestion to change that but no word from the devs on any changes yet from the original mock up.

Well there hasn't really be any info given since that initial burst

Anyways what would be the point of a racial PrE if its based on Class Lvl if your ALREADY that class you may as well just go with the actual class PrE...actually wait yes this is an AWESOME idea it will make Racial PrEs that are just copies of Class PrEs useless thus forcing them to switch to ACTUAL Racial PrEs...Aash your BRILLIANT!!!

[Vormaerin]

Are you going to tell those players to stop complaining, because hey, you can build something better now than you had before. It will just cost you ~8 dollars per toon. If you do, please alert me beforehand so I can buy up all the stock in popcorn on the market and become a billionaire overnight. Im just sayin'

We've been through this before. Only now we at least have LRs and the possibility that Turbine *might* give a time limited token or something. Which was literally impossible before. The first time they altered the enhancement system, you were SOL. You were pretty SOL the second time, too, when they added PrEs and capstones to your poor 17/3 build that used to be good...

Your argument is "nothing can ever change, because the game has been out for a while," in effect. If they can't add limitations that don't currently exist, then they are severely limited in their ability to relax existing limitations. I'm pretty sure they don't want to see someone with 8 tier 1 PrEs, for example. That may not prove to be particularly effective, but the point is that it becomes increasingly difficult to avoid overpowered combinations the more parts you have in motion.

[Chai]

We've been through this before. Only now we at least have LRs and the possibility that Turbine *might* give a time limited token or something. Which was literally impossible before. The first time they altered the enhancement system, you were SOL. You were pretty SOL the second time, too, when they added PrEs and capstones to your poor 17/3 build that used to be good...

Your argument is "nothing can ever change, because the game has been out for a while," in effect. If they can't add limitations that don't currently exist, then they are severely limited in their ability to relax existing limitations. I'm pretty sure they don't want to see someone with 8 tier 1 PrEs, for example. That may not prove to be particularly effective, but the point is that it becomes increasingly difficult to avoid overpowered combinations the more parts you have in motion.

I dont bank my feedback on what *might happen, and "we simply dont know." I am basing my feedback on already provided information.


This particularly is incorrect.

Your argument is "nothing can ever change, because the game has been out for a while," in effect.

You saying this is my argument, is like me saying that your stance is: "Its OK for Turbine to screw up thousands of builds on hundreds of accounts simply because they did so in the past." Is it correct to be that absolute when interpreting someone elses viewpoint? I dont believe it is.

And then to do it over a simple arbitrary game mechanic, put into the game for no other reason than "because we said so?" This suggests there is a reason for this to occur, but it isnt game balance. Doesnt matter how many good options you put in from of me, im only walking away with 80 points worth. The REAL POINT I AM MAKING is the players, not the system, THE PLAYERS should be able to decide which options are good for their playstyle, within the class split they chose. This is how it is now, why limit this in the future?

[Maelwyn]

The new enhancement revision seems like a good idea. Of course, only time will tell. But, I do like how MadFloyd and the Devs have introduced this to us, and I hope they continue to keep us informed, as well as listen to our ideas. I've been skimming through this thread (at nearly 120 pages...sigh). Lots of good info, but I'm still left with tons of questions and thoughts.

The racial PrE idea for each race is a good one. The idea of taking the Tempest PrE from the human racial tree (for more Dex and better DPS and Shield AC) on my existing Sentinel-marked human 18 Pally/2 Monk Dual-wield Evasion Tank sounds great!...especially, if she'll have 2 more feats to spend (with Dragonmark Feat spending changes that have been suggested) is sooooo awesome! I'm seeing all kinds of ideas of how to increase my AC on this toon. Even taking Improved Uncanny Dodge via Acrobat PrE could prove incredibly useful on a tank--imagine 10 clickies of +6 stacking AC bonus for 30 seconds each, on an AC tank?! Wow! Anyway, I can't wait to see how this all looks when it is finalized and ready to go live! Could it even be possible to stack SD and DoS stances in this design of Racial PrEs and Class PrEs (e.g. Dwarven Defender + DoS from 18 or even 20 Pally)? Tier 3 on each would be +12 to Str and Con. Seems, OP, for sure. Hmmm.

However, I would ask that, if possible, could you make the racial PrEs for each race unique, and not just a carbon copy of existing class PrEs (e.g. don't make Dwarven Defender exactly like Stalwart Defender, nor WF Juggernaut exactly like Frenzied Beserker, or what have you)??? Perhaps this is too lofty a request, that would require too much time to develop. If so, I can understand if this is not the way the PrE/Enhancement pass goes.

While on the topic of racial PrEs, could you please update the Arcane Archer so that there could be a synergy with Arcane classes (i.e. add choices of Ability modifers to the 'to hit' bonus, like Intelligence for Wizards, Charisma for Sorcerers, similar to the Zen Archery Feat, without being forced to take a Feat)? See, the idea is that Arcane Archers draw power from Arcane sources, not Divine. I mean, they are ARCANE Archers, right? Not Divine. So, it has always seemed silly to me that you could play an Elven Cleric/Monk or FvS Arcane Archer that used Zen Archery to gain a Wisdom bonus 'to hit', but could not get the same kind of 'to hit' bonus from the primary stat of a true Arcane class like Wizard or Sorcerer. I mean, why are they even called Arcane Archers in DDO then? My suggestion would be to keep the Divine Archer situation the same, but make them spend the feat on Zen Archery, however allowing the Wizard and Sorcerer to save a Feat by only spending 1 or 2 APs to gain their respective primary stat bonus (e.g. Int or Chr) to their 'to hit' bonus. IMO, this makes a lot of sense, and much more sense than the idea that a Divine 'Arcane' Archer is Arcane at all. What I'm suggesting is, make it very beneficial and synergistic for an Arcane class to take Arcane Archer as a PrE. I just makes sense.

So, Devs, please make sure that the changes you make to PrEs, classes, and enhancements make sense, okay? If Artificers get UMD skill AP enhancements, then any class that has UMD as a class skill should get the same option (i.e. Bards and Rogues). Just some food for thought, while you are giving Enhancements a well-deserved make-over.