test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Do not add new classes to Neverwinter, add new Paragon Paths for exisiting classes
lltsnwn
Member, Neverwinter Beta Users Posts: 787 Bounty Hunter
If Cryptic adds a new class to Neverwinter that has the same group role as an existing class such as tank, healer, DPS they will be balanced against each others abilities. In order to create artificial differences between the balanced classes of the same group role Cryptic will cripple or remove useful abilities from both in an effort to create illusionary differences.
Unless Cryptic adds a completely new unique group function (which it most likely will NOT do) to Neverwinter that will function completely different than the existing classes, adding a new class is a terrible idea. Neverwinter's group size if five characters and if you create a new class either that class would be completely optional (which would be viewed as useless by the players) or required (and would by necessity replace an existing class from the group).
If you add a new tank, healer, etc class you don't add any variety, you simply create the illusion of such and cripple both. New Neverwinter classes are a bad idea...
All of the posts complaining about not having a new class added to Neverwinter will multiply in number by the posts made comparing the so called different classes that have the same group role. This is a doomed strategy...
New Neverwinter Paragon Paths for existing classes are the way to go.
Unless Cryptic adds a completely new unique group function (which it most likely will NOT do) to Neverwinter that will function completely different than the existing classes, adding a new class is a terrible idea. Neverwinter's group size if five characters and if you create a new class either that class would be completely optional (which would be viewed as useless by the players) or required (and would by necessity replace an existing class from the group).
If you add a new tank, healer, etc class you don't add any variety, you simply create the illusion of such and cripple both. New Neverwinter classes are a bad idea...
All of the posts complaining about not having a new class added to Neverwinter will multiply in number by the posts made comparing the so called different classes that have the same group role. This is a doomed strategy...
New Neverwinter Paragon Paths for existing classes are the way to go.
Post edited by lltsnwn on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
In fact, I doubt we'll ever get more paragon paths. They already have trouble balancing the ones we have now.
And how long do you think this game is going to last, realistically?
No, another class is definitely more realistic. I don't even need it soon. Just eventually.
You can add all of the neat new features that you can dream up through Paragon Paths without starting the Class Warfare between group roles... This a doomed strategy that has repeated time after time... Why would you set yourself for failure?
I would like to see a another healer class introduced to ease the dependance on DC.
Don't say I didn't warn you...
“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Sir Winston Churchill
You will not increase the number of players who want to play healers by adding a new healer class...
What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men.
D&D is about class variety. More classes AND Paragon paths are needed.
Except more paragon paths would have the same issue. For example, the Radiant Servant paragon path for Clerics allows you to pick up some more damage while the Warpriest paragon path gives Clerics extra tankiness. The current Guardian Fighter paragon path increases defense, any new ones they get are sure to give them more damage and/or control. You seem to be under the impression that future paragon paths are just going to provide more ways of filling the classes' current roles, when in reality they let you branch out in various ways.
Also, 4th edition D&D isn't MEANT to be a game where there's only one specific class for each "role." There are many different classes that can be tanks, there are many different leaders, controllers, and strikers. Variety is a good thing. I find things get boring when every group has the exact same classes all the time because you only have one option to fill different necessary roles.
Why yes....yes you would.
Some people don't play Cleric because they don't like the class mechanics.
Maybe someone would play a different healing class with different mechanics...I.E. Druid.
Add new Paragon paths, and add new classes.
If you have two classes that fit the same group "role" then people are going to take the one that does the job the best. Paragon paths are added on value and can be taken as player preference over a completely different group role. Adding more classes just muddies the waters and makes Cryptic's job harder with no value added.
Forgot to reply to that post of theirs as well. I agree with you, I enjoy healing but I don't really like the the playstyle of the current DC. However, I'll be much more willing to play a healer when/if we get a Battle Cleric that's equipped to heal from the front lines.
If you're going to argue that players will min/max over classes and deny the "inferior" option then you have to apply the same argument to paragon paths. If DCs get a paragon path that adds damage then it either makes them competitive with other damage classes who are then denied group spots, or it isn't competitive with other damage classes and no one uses that path. It's the exact same "problem." There's no reason to assume that a worse class would be denied a group spot but a cleric who speced for inferior damage options would be welcomed simply as "player preference."
edit: Heck, people already feel GFs deal a lot of damage. What do you think will happen when/if they get a paragon path that gives them even more damage options? You don't think they will further infringe on DPS group spots the same way a new striker class would?
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
The Paragon paths are well off I expect. In the short term I would think new classes would come first.
If your group requires a healer then you are FORCED to take a DC to fit the spot regardless of which paragon path the player prefers. If you have two healer classes then Cryptic is forced to balance both the game and the two classes together in a tangled mess. The nerf to Astral Shield for example was painful for DCs but necessary and because there is only ONE healer class groups are forced to adapt to the change. If there was a second healer class DCs would be blacklisted and put on the sideline.
I see that you are approaching this from a very mechanical standpoint and that’s entirely reasonable and one might ever call it “correct” but the place where you are missing the tail-hook with the rest of the dissenters can be summed up in a word.
Vanity.
I think Neverwinter will indeed get more healers if they were to release, lets say, a druid class that healed. Because some people would want to play a druid class, not for its mechanical brilliance but for its flavor as a druid. So too they would not shun it because it lacked something the Devoted Cleric did better. You might, but a less technically oriented gamer that liked the druid for more aesthetic reasons would likely return to that class.
Plenty of people played the GWF even when it was a pile of unfortunate decisions. They wanted the flavor of the GWF.
Yes, you definitely have a point with the added complexity taxing the already frayed Fisher-Price skills of the development team and the elitist dungeon-stompers will be insisting on min-maxed cookie-cutter builds and class conformity.
But the future does not hold a wasteland of empty class categories. It holds a plethora of class categories that some people will complain about (I.E. Shadowknights)
I can't help it I'm a mechanical minded person
Would those who want classes X, Y, Z be equally satisfied if I took an existing class and replaced the descriptive words with one that would fit an illusionary choice?
For example take star wars online: You have two factions Sith and Republic with four classes on each side balanced against each other. For example...
Republic Jedi Knight
Sith Warrior
Both have near identical abilities with completely cosmetic differences, yet are two "different" classes? Do we just reskin classes to give people the illusion of choice?
Why would anyone play a rogue if you can do nearly the same damage from range? Being in melee is more difficult as you have to move around more, expose yourself to more area effect damage, etc. Seriously why would anyone play a rogue?
All I'm hearing that you don't care if damage classes have further competition as long as DCs/GFs get to keep having a monopoly on their respective roles. Sorry, once we get more options you're going to have to rely on your own ability as a player to get a group, not your class selection.
edit:
And it's hilarious that you just used TOR as an example. There are 3 tanks and 3 healers in that game. Your mirror class comparison made no sense at all. Also, each side has 8 classes not four.
My point was because there wasn't multiple classes that fit the healer group role Cryptic could make game balance changes for the good of Neverwinter without the added complexity of trying then balance each of the healer classes against each other. It adds a completely unnecessary level of complexity to game balance when changes are needed to the game without any value added.
As I pointed out in my edit, your TOR example pretty much defeats your point. Each side in TOR has 3 tanking options, Jedi Guardians / Sith Juggarnauts, Jedi Shadow / Sith Assassin, Vanguard / Powertech. Same for healing, there are 3 options to take the healing role. Yet the game manages it fine; each class has its own place while players have the benefit of having different playstyle options among each role. Just about every MMO or even game out there offers this choice. Going by your logic we shouldn't even have a GWF because one damage (rogue) or tank option is enough.
TOR must have made some changes since I played it last... When I played there were eight classes total, four on each faction (Republic & Sith) Trooper/Bounty Hunter, Smuggler/Imperial Agent, Jedi Knight/Sith Warrior and Jedi Counsular/Sith Inquisitor. The four classes were cosmetic clones of each other.
The game has always been this way. Each base classes splits into one of 2 advanced classes, each of which has 3 talent trees. The only way you could have missed this is if you never got a character to level 10.
I used TOR as an example of creating cosmetic differences to classes (Jedi Knight/Sith Warrior) that are clones of each other not about having classes fit multiple group roles. I am sorry if I was confusing in that point. If vanity is all people are looking for then by all means clone the classes give them a different outfit, spell descriptions, particle effects, etc.
This is going completely off point since I was talking about cosmetic differences between same classes (Jedi Knight/Sith Warrior) not the mechanics of TOR class advancement system. It's about vanity or cosmetic artificial differences satisfying players need for more classes.