test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Options
Are all class builds the same?
Archived Post
Member Posts: 5,050,278 Bounty Hunter
I just watched a developer interview & demo video from PAX East and I'm wondering do we even have any choices in developing or building our characters or are all Wizards for example going to use the same powers, weapons, ect? Have we seen anything about selecting feats or changing weapons?
For example, as a Rogue do I have to always use two daggers or can I pick up a crossbow? Does every rogue get the same daily power or can we choose from different options and "slot" the one you want to use for that adventure? Is there any info out there about selecting feats?
From the interviews I've seen, it seems like aside from choice of race, all characters of the same class will be mostly identical.
For example, as a Rogue do I have to always use two daggers or can I pick up a crossbow? Does every rogue get the same daily power or can we choose from different options and "slot" the one you want to use for that adventure? Is there any info out there about selecting feats?
From the interviews I've seen, it seems like aside from choice of race, all characters of the same class will be mostly identical.
Post edited by Archived Post on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
We have ambiguos information: in some preview seems there are pre-build class like trick rogue, controll wizard and so on; in other seems that every class can follow some sort of path-build.
For feats we only know that they are in game.
Well I have only studied PHB1 for 4e, and I list the builds for 5 paths below(2 each):-
FTR: Great weapon fighter, guardian fighter
ROG: Brawny rog, trickster rog
RNGR: Archer RGR, 2bladedRGR
CLR: Battle/devoted
WIZ: Control/war
I don't know if they added more later.
If game is following 4e mechanics closely, these would perhaps be same.
The multi-classing/ hybrid might be handled different in game than pnp i think. Already there are lot of differences, though imo they are all good and well thought.
I am not sure they have in any way addressed that yet. If you look at the PHBs there are lots of skills/spells per each level. The ability to customize is very nice in 4e actually. You could have a Controller Wizard have different spells from another Controller Wizard. I really hope this holds true for NW.
One of the things I am looking forward to learning is if we will have many skills/spells per level up to chose from and if we are going to go Core rules, Essentials or both. I really hope for both as then we would have the best flexibility.
I believe that there are many skills per level and that is why they kept the bar short so as not to overwhelm the players during combat. One thing to note is that 3 lvls in game are equal to 1 lvl in pnp 4e. So the same number of skills gained will be after 3 lvls. dont know how they will implement it though.
EDIT: one more thing. It seems that the skills used in the game are different from pnp 4e. e.g. for rogue I couldn't find any low lvl melee multiple creature attack in PHB1 as shown in game. (has there been any other addendum or have they picked it from updates?)
I think you should be able to. There is a way to multiclass also (or called hybrid in 4e?) apart from all the customization in class itself.
However, customization would be done bit differently than we are used to.
And would be easy to understand for newcomers also if i am right.
Just a quick glance:
There is a daily power called Downward Spiral that attacks each enemy in the burst you can see.
Hit: 1[W] + Dexterity modifier damage
Effect: Knock target prone.
POWERS on the other hand is what we use to attack (at will enc. daily,) and have certain defenses or contingencies triggered (utility.) Magic missile and shield are both attack and utility powers.
Again (from other threads,) you stay one class and can get another trained skill and a minor power on the same recharge times as "daily" powers when you take a Multiclass feat. Additional spent feats allow you to "swap" powers from the MC in exchange for the old class powers. Hybrid class takes two classes and gives you restricted abilities and defenses from both classes as one "combined" class. Taking hybrid feats can "unlock" a class power from one of the two classes that was restricted from the hybrid combo, but is often only allowed one feat per tier.
In my humble opinion, 4th edition is a game designed to woo the MMO generation and younger folks into the RPG market. You have things like At-Will powers (3 sec cooldown), Encounter powers (1 minute cooldown) and Daily powers (10 minute cooldown).
4th edition also diverges from previous editions with a very restrictive multiclassing system. As time has gone on, WotC realized this was a mistake and began introducing more permissive multiclassing rules. However, it is still far more difficult in 4th to make a character with the abilities of more than one class than it has been in almost any previous edition beyond D&D Basic.
One could argue the system is also incredibly simplistic compared to 3rd edition due to the disappearance of Vancian magic (and therefore a severe reduction in resource management) and the very short skill list. Whether this is a good thing or not is up to the individual though. Some like it, some (like me) do not. Saving throws have been altered so that the player no longer rolls to save, but has a save class, much like armor class, which is a static defense against certain attacks. This might be the most intuitive change to the system.
All in all, I have to say that I don't find much that is very enjoyable about it. Combat seems to offer more options, until you realize that (like most MMOs) there are only a few powers that really have much use. I find 4th edition combat quite boring compared to almost every other edition of D&D. Finally, I have to say that aside from the fact that the game still allows for dungeons and dragons to be present, it just doesn't feel like D&D anymore. The class system is too strict. The powers are a novel concept, but fail to bring anything particularly useful to the game. And resource management, a hallmark of all D&D games up to now, is seriously lacking.
Im interested in how this will all play out, but I recommend to Cryptic to get cracking on this forum and build a kick <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> website that explains the differences of pre-4.0e and 4.0e. They really need to explain and "sell" these new 4.0e rules in detail, because it comes as no surprise, the D&D audience LIKES TO READ!
If Cryptic just rolls out of the gate with an arcade version of D&D, based on D&D rules that hey don't recognize nor understand, many of these old timers will run away from this game far faster than they gathered.
On a side note, did you know back when he was alive i saw him more than a few times along with Maurice Vachon aka Mad Dog Vachon in my village
While that might be your opinion, I strongly disagree with it. Though the rules could fit in an MMO setting, they still don't cater to the MMO player. The rules set up reminds me more of 2nd edition with more clarification and streamlining than an MMO which is all cooldowns and mana requirements. What 4th edition did was try to level the playing field between the melee and caster classes which were hugely imbalanced. Early levels casters sucked, later levels melee sucked, there was no middle ground.
4th edition differs from 3rd edition and it's munchkin wet dream multi-classing system. First and Second edition multi-clasing were very restrictive and quite punishing to actually do. Only the demihuman races could actually multi-class more than one class at a time, and they had to divide any XP they earned up between every class, and they were level capped at lower levels in those classes, thus you would never see some above level 9 or 12 in some cases. Ontop of that 1st and 2nd editions each class had a different Xp curve so each class did not advance at the same rate. Humans in 1st and 2nd could multi-class, but if they did, they retained the hit points and such of their previous class, but could not access it until their new class reached that level (thus they started at level 1 all over again).
3rd edition, multi-classing is a nightmare. A multi-classed character, instead of being a jack of all trades was infinitely more powerful than a dedicated character in one class. This killed balance on so many levels. In fact it became preferable to multi-class just to have a competing chance than to actually be a specialist, which was actually detrimental to your character growth.
One could argue that third edition was overly complicated just to be complicated as well. furthermore, the old saving throws (reflex, fort and such) are defenses. Saving throws still exist in the game, but are actual just rolls instead of being modified by a character, thus less likely to be munchkined up and thus ruining carefully laid out encounters.
This I will strongly disagree with as well. There is nothing limiting in 4th edition any more than you would be in 3rd, 2nd or 1st. It's up to the imagination of the players and the DM.
I don't know what it will solve. People that hate 4e hate it and most never gave it a second glance, let alone an actual playthrough. Explaining it really won't change their mind at this point.
I would disagree with that to, I played the ever living hell out of the DnD arcade game as a kid.
I'll comment on this statement, but not on the rest, because there is no right and wrong, only opinions. You know mine and I know yours. I will simply direct you to the utter demolition of sales of 4.0, and why they are so eager to get 5.0 done.
Now onto this comment. What clear descriptions of the 4.0e terms and rules that this game will produce is to open up the gates to those who played and prefer the OTHER editions of D&D. To blindly assume that those who like 4.0e will play Neverwinter and those who "hated" 4.0e won't would be a suicidal approach for PW and Cryptic to take this game. It will also show that PW and Cryptic is serious about bringing new players to the D&D brand...
You happen to be typing to someone who despised what WotC did to the game I grew up playing, but I'm still here! Why do you ask? Because I'm well versed in playing every official D&D RPG game since Pool of Radiance from SSI on a Commodore 64. (By the way, God Bless Jack Tramiel, the father of the Commodore 64, who just passed!
However, MMO's can bring like minded players and the not so like minded people together. D&D has brought people together for decades. 4.0e was sold partly on the premise that it would assimilate great with MMO computer gaming.
Well now is the time for WotC to prove why they did what they did... and that what they did was worth it. A Cryptic WotC wiki style website would be a way to explain much of the mechanics, and get folks interested into the game, before they download it and as a reference for years later. Most importantly, I would think, is another chance to bring more of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd edition players back to their chairs (if not table..). (The truth of the matter is far more left the table then moved on to 4.0e) So I have a positive outlook for this game, even though I have a negative opinion of 4.0e. And I hate to say it, I wont be the only one who feels this way.
can't claim 4e is like an MMO than say it won't work in a video game cause it's 4e. When people like the above make well worded arguments then it's believable. I was dead-set against 4e until I played it. I was surprised as anybody. I recommend people give it a few sessions before deciding if it's their game or not. All anybody's asking is to remember it's a different edition and treat it as if it's new.
Besides that, I can respect somebody who loves or hates it after trying it, and not spew rhetoric as much as I was guilty of.
Wow, I know what you went through! I met Andre twice in person, and saw both Andre and Maurice many times, thanks to my dad taking me to the legendary Madison Square Garden in NYC every month for years. Great times...
Now, while I agree that DnD brings people together, it doesn't bring a huge calling of people together at any one time, and the convention areas I never personally entered because, well, last thing I want is people staring over my shoulder or watching me outside of the people I have watching me while I DM. I don't like feeling like I am being scrutinized when I am just trying to have people enjoy themselves and hopefully delivering a good story to boot. I prefer 2nd edition myself, but as 4th is the current edition and it does still remind me more of the 2nd edition rules I enjoy it. 3rd edition actually made me quit DnD outright.
Unfortunately, you are highly optimistic on what an MMO can do. While it will bring people together, MMO land has actually been suffering from a glut of what I call game genie players; people who prefer to be handed everything on a silver platter with little actual challenge or even feeling of accomplishment or reward. The actual encounter to most computer gamers these days no longer matters. The feeling of accomplishment is pushed aside for the phat lewtz at the end and little credence is actually given to strategy or challenge, so the feeling of days gone by for MMOs (been playing MMOs for 15 years now) and what I experienced during my days as a 2nd edition DnD gamer (I feel old now) just aren't going to be emulated to those expectations largely because the player base itself wants instant satisfaction (something a traditional table top game can't provide either due to time allotments or the fact that the DM just doesn't give stuff away and actually makes players earn their loot).
Many MMO players tend to blame casuals for this, which I heartily disagree, though many of the game genie players (typically players that use cheat codes, god mode, or any other thing to make the game easy or a breeze) typically hide out and call themselves casuals. Now while some casuals say it is unfair that they can't get to the same levels as people who have time to devote, this has produced a lop sided view point of the entire probably of the MMO market, where challenge has slowly been swept out of the equation for instant gratification and loot, which results in long term playability actually being diminished.
Personally, I think death penalties and such should be in the game, and coddling of players needs to be pulled back from. If they want to make a true DnD experience, then things need to be deadly and dangerous in the game. Wave of easily dispensed baddies has me wary, but since it was a demo and they are often powered up so people can easily kill anything in the way, I will leave this to beta, which I hope I can enter and provide my two bits. Again, this is the first time, since the last computer D&D game I played (Ravenloft™ 2) actually excited me. I was never even this interested in BioWare's NWN, which was horrendously marred by the 3rd edition rule set.
I don't discredit people's reasons for enjoyment for certain systems, but you can't exactly deny the reasons people like say they enjoy those systems may not be the exact reason why they enjoy it, and while many people say 3rd had more RP potential, I will strongly disagree with that since I never consider throwing dice anything remotely close to what I consider RP. But, this is also an age where hating something is more in vogue than actually liking it for what it is.
Ranger needs the Beastmaster
Unfortunately the "everybody wins" attitude coupled with the instant gratification "genie" as you put it and "instant access" of recent social media (not all social media just recent trends over the last few years,) has stripped many a person and player of understanding how to earn something in the competitive and gaming world alike. The people who do this should not call themselves "casual" gamers and border on (if not are) lazy and undisciplined gamers who need to learn how to achieve or ask for help to learn how if needed.
Then again, having people on for 20 hours a day and complaining there's not enough content should not be their benchmark either. People need to find a balance in their lives and shouldn't expect those responsible for these games to drop everything and pump out endless content if this is pretty much all they do.
But to many of us casual and role-playing and hardcore gamers (or other types,) who just want to play and have fun, offer help and aid instead of writing off these "other" gamers as a lost cause. The hardest thing for us to do is admit our faults, and offering help to those who will accept it is truly the right thing to do. Sorry if this got too serious or judgmental there.
Yeah, beast companions with rangers have been around for a very long time in several editions. While I didn't play strategic the Review one (back in the first D&D days) I did with AD&D in 1978 (1st ed) and can confirm they had "followers" that were "animal companions."
Druids were about a year earlier 1977 (they existed in other forms but as NPC's only.) Unlike rangers, they had elemental (not animal) companions. While I remember monks (and how like monks, druids had to defeat others of their class to advance,) I did not play druids, the closest being me taking the class after a third class or second dual class for the (original after strategic rebview) Bard Class
As for something more recent, look up Fey Beast Tamer under 4th edition themes. It's really interesting and makes ANY class have an interesting and useful animal companion! I personally prefer the Young Owlbear option, but several choices do exist.
They were companions but the DM was encouraged to not let the player run rough shod over them. I would consider them more or less someone that could be helpful and there were rules if the player mistreated the companion or didn't respect the companion they would lose them. Hence why I don't generally look at a ranger as a pet class as much as a character who gets a mild boon, like the paladin and his sacred mount.
As far as druid, druid became a base class of first edition and then second edition quite early on. Monks were exceptionally OP in first edition. They still slightly are in 3rd edition, but no where near as bad as a first edition monk was.
I miss my 1st edition Monk. *sigh*
And my 1st Edition Bard. Now that was a hard class to do.
QFT *sighs too*
Oh! there are pragon paths, including wizards who like to fight, or who just want to do AoE etc...
I was more hoping to get feedback from people who went to PAX and/or devs about how Cryptic is implimenting character creation / leveling.
From what I have seen there is one pre-built "path" for each class. So every rogue you meet will be a trickster rogue and every wizard will be a control wizard. It doesn't even look like you can choose different weapons. You might upgrade to better weapons but a rogue will always carry dual daggers for example. No crossbow, no short sword & shield, ect. We also know there are no skills.
I know you will have more powers than you can slot at one time but I'm really thinking this looks like a very "arcade" hack n slash game. Do we even get to assign ability scores or is that "pre-built" also?
Much of the fun of DnD is planning and building your character. It is starting to look like this will be very watered down and every class you play will be 99% the same as everyone else who plays that class.
I don't think this is true. Developers have simply shown one part of the thing. A lot of stuff has not been shown in demo. In the end we have almost no to scarcely rare information about class build. But all the builds are not the same it seems from interview, that you can customize your character.
So wait to form an opinion till beta starts
"get him Ollie!"
"Squaaaaak!"