DDO isnt fun for me and NWN/NWN2 ive played for 7 years. What i am looking for along with a large number of other players is NWN2/DDO remade and improved. With awesome graphics and a flawless walkmesh and of course some kind of D&D core rules to run it all. Most of us agree it should not be the dumbed down quadruple garbage 4e though. As for me i thought that this game would be just that. And at least so far has been disappointing.
C'mon man, we know that this is not going to happen, we discussed that in the other thread. So, let's use this one to talk about what features of d&d 4e could be added/polished, to improve NW as it is. Otherwise this thread will be locked as well. ^^
C'mon man, we know that this is not going to happen, we discussed that in the other thread. So, let's use this one to talk about what features of d&d 4e could be added/polished, to improve NW as it is. Otherwise this thread will be locked as well. ^^
Ive already made a number of suggestions. Im just wondering, how? The game seems to be "locked in" to a certain state were D&D ideologies are not possible. Im with you. But how? Is it possible?
Cross classing for instance. That seems almost like a complete overhaul would need to be done to accommodate the 10rogue/40GF/10GWF builds. Just a random build there. But it seems to me that to accomplish this it would mean almost a different game design.
Making a certain class required to progress is bad design, though. Unless you're going to have checks for different classes? And then what will you do when there are seven classes and five to a party?
Actually all your suggestions are more in the line of DDO rather than NW. NW was designed to be an action MMO. So they set out from the beginning to make a button masher.
I like the idea of certain sections of a dungeon only opening if you have specific class.
As in one dungeon has an area with a mini-boss opened only via a Rogue (or Dwarf) with Detect Secret Doors and another dungeon has an area with a mini-boss opened only if a Cleric with a high enough Religion or a Wizard with a high enough Arcana skill.
In generic dungeons, we should always be able to make it to the final boss - but having an area of each dungeon offer "extra" content if you have a specific class or race would also be nice. As would, eventually, dungeons targetted to one class or race.
Seems like the Dungeon-checker can also check to be sure that a party has a "required" class if the dungeon "requires" a specific class.
Just as it already checks for gear score.
But, I think, for the most part it should just be an additional area rather than a requirement to make it to the final boss.
Ive already made a number of suggestions. Im just wondering, how? The game seems to be "locked in" to a certain state were D&D ideologies are not possible. Im with you. But how? Is it possible?
Cross classing for instance. That seems almost like a complete overhaul would need to be done to accommodate the 10rogue/40GF/10GWF builds. Just a random build there. But it seems to me that to accomplish this it would mean almost a different game design.
That's what expansions are for.
Again, like original D&D, we shouldn't be expecting cross-classing and multi-classing to happen in the first iteration.
Let's just get a handle on the base classes first - and introduce a few more (like Druid, Ranger, Warlock) before having them add more challenging management to the game.
We need a idea of what options the game is capable of providing i think. Then as a community we could better evaluate legitimate ideas that are possible to actually implement.
That's what expansions are for.
Again, like original D&D, we shouldn't be expecting cross-classing and multi-classing to happen in the first iteration.
Let's just get a handle on the base classes first - and introduce a few more (like Druid, Ranger, Warlock) before having them add more challenging management to the game.
That makes sense. Man i hope your right. If in fact more "expansions" are released that allows for more D&D capability. Then thats when we need to pool our suggestions. As it is now in its current state. The game is not able to Implement most things D&D.
In short the game has to "evolve" into something that can support a massive amount of options.
Ive already made a number of suggestions. Im just wondering, how? The game seems to be "locked in" to a certain state were D&D ideologies are not possible. Im with you. But how? Is it possible?
Cross classing for instance. That seems almost like a complete overhaul would need to be done to accommodate the 10rogue/40GF/10GWF builds. Just a random build there. But it seems to me that to accomplish this it would mean almost a different game design.
That's what expansions are for.
Again, like original D&D, we shouldn't be expecting cross-classing and multi-classing to happen in the first iteration.
Let's just get a handle on the base classes first - and introduce a few more (like Druid, Ranger, Warlock) before having them add more challenging management to the game.
We cannot ask them for any D&D feature that is not in 4E. In 4E multiclassing was revamped, I posted here a short explanation about how it works, you probably know about it as well.
What I would expect first are more paragon path, like in 4E (with encounter and daily powers). Then, more paragon paths, classes (Warlock, Ranger, etc) and class build-options (Battle Cleric, War Wizard, etc).
Then, the may add the multiclassing feature, but as it works in d&d4e (an imcomplete but fun version of course) not in the previous versions of d&d.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"The harder the game, the better."
0
Options
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
edited June 2013
Multi-classing is not an easy task due to the way the game works...
It's the same reason you can't swap to a bow. It's simply not very feasible to implement with the action combat power based mechanics.
On top of that multi-classing is good for one thing and one thing only: overpowered as hell builds.
Third Edition created this ridiculous craze with multi-classing and made it so multi-classing was a pure on requirement. I love Third Edition but this was a major issue which created stupidly over-powered characters which could only be confronted by making stupidly overpowered creatures. That's inflation and any economist could tell you inflation is bad for everything in the long term.
Which is why multi-classing was actually outright removed from Fourth Edition until players, such as the ones in this thread, whined so much at wizards that they added it back but still broke it down to the more balanced positions we see in First and Second Edition.
So a bit of a History Lesson: there were two types of "Multi-class" support in First and Second Edition and were ALL restricted by race.
Dual Classing - Restricted to Humans Only. A character could level to a certain point and then give up their first classes abilities completely until they outleveled their original class. Essentially it starts you over from the beginning. Very difficult!
Multi-Classing was similar to what we now call Hybrid Classing which is that based on your race you could choose a certain race restricted class combinations to level from level one at a much slower experience progression. Fighter/Wizard, Wizard/Thief or the much coveted Fighter/Mage/Thief which was restricted to half-elves only.
These restrictions went away in Third Edition and thus Wizards of the Coast shot themselves in the foot and made a completely unbalanced min-max system. While it was enjoyable it was a complete and utter nightmare which resulted in requiring balancing on min-max playstyles and this is, while enjoyable to some, not ideal.
Third Edition multi-classing is gone and unlikely to ever return. It was and always will be a mistake. A catastophe which proves that what players like is not always a good thing.
If multi-class support was added to the game you would be talking years down the road, not months, because even Fourth Edition Multi-classing is filled with overpowered nonsense which would completely trivialize Neverwinter.
Imagine Rogues using entangle and stun chains. If half the time invested into requesting multi-classing was spent considering the adverse side effects it wouldn't be up for debate as to why it isn't here or at least isn't here yet. It's a balancing nightmare and frankly would have to be very much restricted.
I'm sorry if this sounds harsh but it is first and foremost the truth. Consider the problems which multi-classing brings into the game because wanting without considering the implications is what caused Third Edition to be the best and worst edition at the same time.
lwetMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited June 2013
I'm a long time Baldur's Gate and Planescape:Torment player, some of the best D&D games to date imo.
- Dialogues that the player can FAIL, as in Planescape, where almost every dialogue has good/bad/neutral outcomes.
- Rogues disabling traps should give XP, there is no incentive to do it right now.
- More competing adventurer party encounters.
- Doing Epic Dungeons with less than 5 players.
- Being able to use non-class gear, with penalties.
- Unique gear that is better than set gear (BG rarely had set bonuses, but in NW it's ok as long as sets don't trump everything).
- "Slay the beholders guarding the cave and get an eye for my recipe" instead of "Slay 10 beholders".
Multi-classing is not an easy task due to the way the game works...
It's the same reason you can't swap to a bow. It's simply not very feasible to implement with the action combat power based mechanics.
On top of that multiclassing is good for one thing and one thing only: overpowered as hell builds.
Third edition created this rediculous craze with multi-classing and made it so multi-classing was a pure on requirement. I love third edition but this was a major issue which created stupidly over-powered characters which could only be confronted by making stupidly overpowered creatures. That's inflation and that's bad.
Which is why multi-classing was actually outright removed from Fourth Edition until players, such as the ones in this thread, whined so much at wizards that they added it back but still broke it down to the more balanced positions we see in First and Second Edition.
So a bit of a History Lesson there were two types of "Multi-class" support in First and Second Edition and were ALL restricted by race.
Dual Classing - Restricted to Humans Only. A character could level to a certain point and then give up their first classes abilities completely until they outleveled their original class. Essentially it starts you over from the beginning. Very difficult!
Multi-Classing was similar to what we now call Hybrid Classing which is that based on your race you could choose a certain race restricted class combinations to level from level one at a much slower experience progression. Fighter/Wizard, Wizard/Thief or the much coveted Fighter/Mage/Thief which was restricted to half-elves only.
These restrictions went away in third edition and thus Wizards of the Coast shot themselves in the foot and made a completely unbalanced min-max system. While it was enjoyable it was a complete and utter nightmare which resulted in requiring balancing on min-max playstyles and this is, while enjoyable to some, not ideal.
Third Edition multi-classing is gone and unlikely to ever return. It was and always will be a mistake. A catastophe which proves that what players like is not always a good thing.
If multi-class support was added to the game you would be talking years down the road, not months, because even Fourth Edition Multi-classing is filled with overpowered nonsense which would completely trivialize Neverwinter.
Imagine Rogues using entangle and stun chains. If half the time invested into requesting multi-classing was spent considering the adverse side effects it wouldn't be up for debate as to why it isn't here or at least isn't here yet. It's a balancing nightmare and frankly would have to be very much restricted.
I'm sorry if this sounds harsh but it is first and foremost the truth. Consider the problems which multi-classing brings into the game because wanting without considering the implications is what caused third edition to be the best and worst edition at the same time.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, I partly agree with you. Certainly multiclassing would be problematic to improve if this game would be running the 3rd or 3.5 versions. I've played NWN since it was released in 2002, single player but mainly in multiplayer and in the best full pvp servers; In NWN they addapted the 3rd d&d version into the game and bioware stated that it was not ever going to be balanced for PvP, and I can tell that it was not balanced for PvE either. Eventhough, in multiplayer, the DM's managed to balance things out to create a very well balanced gameplay depending on the characteristics of the server; I used to play in Action Full PvP servers for a lot of time and I can tell that it was the best PvP I've ever played.
NW is based on 4e which revamped multiclassing, as you said, multiclassing may still be a better than not going multiclass in D&D4e, but there is when cryptic has to figure out the way to reduce that difference. Multiclassing is one of the most awesome features of d&d, in my opinion, and I think that it would be a blast to have it in NW.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
"The harder the game, the better."
0
Options
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
Butt kicking for goodness isn't the same without minature giant space hamsters.
I don't think Bioware would be very happy with giving up the rights to that one though.
Multi-classing is not an easy task due to the way the game works...
It's the same reason you can't swap to a bow. It's simply not very feasible to implement with the action combat power based mechanics.
On top of that multi-classing is good for one thing and one thing only: overpowered as hell builds.
Third Edition created this ridiculous craze with multi-classing and made it so multi-classing was a pure on requirement. I love Third Edition but this was a major issue which created stupidly over-powered characters which could only be confronted by making stupidly overpowered creatures. That's inflation and any economist could tell you inflation is bad for everything in the long term.
Which is why multi-classing was actually outright removed from Fourth Edition until players, such as the ones in this thread, whined so much at wizards that they added it back but still broke it down to the more balanced positions we see in First and Second Edition.
So a bit of a History Lesson: there were two types of "Multi-class" support in First and Second Edition and were ALL restricted by race.
Dual Classing - Restricted to Humans Only. A character could level to a certain point and then give up their first classes abilities completely until they outleveled their original class. Essentially it starts you over from the beginning. Very difficult!
Multi-Classing was similar to what we now call Hybrid Classing which is that based on your race you could choose a certain race restricted class combinations to level from level one at a much slower experience progression. Fighter/Wizard, Wizard/Thief or the much coveted Fighter/Mage/Thief which was restricted to half-elves only.
These restrictions went away in Third Edition and thus Wizards of the Coast shot themselves in the foot and made a completely unbalanced min-max system. While it was enjoyable it was a complete and utter nightmare which resulted in requiring balancing on min-max playstyles and this is, while enjoyable to some, not ideal.
Third Edition multi-classing is gone and unlikely to ever return. It was and always will be a mistake. A catastophe which proves that what players like is not always a good thing.
If multi-class support was added to the game you would be talking years down the road, not months, because even Fourth Edition Multi-classing is filled with overpowered nonsense which would completely trivialize Neverwinter.
Imagine Rogues using entangle and stun chains. If half the time invested into requesting multi-classing was spent considering the adverse side effects it wouldn't be up for debate as to why it isn't here or at least isn't here yet. It's a balancing nightmare and frankly would have to be very much restricted.
I'm sorry if this sounds harsh but it is first and foremost the truth. Consider the problems which multi-classing brings into the game because wanting without considering the implications is what caused Third Edition to be the best and worst edition at the same time.
Well actually "Dual" Classing in 2nd Edition wasn't as hard as you think it is, and its A LOT more powerful than people think it is. LOL.
0
Options
avendi0Member, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian UsersPosts: 9Arc User
edited June 2013
More character customization options for every aspect. visual and story-wise.
More of the deities, and maybe even some way to get special cosmetic armor or equipment based on the different deities. EXAMPLE: The acolyte of kelemvor companion's final tier of gear is amazing looking. I'd love to see more of this for players too. It's great for RP too!
I understand the point of view of ambisinister and i can partially agree that is hard doing that for the balance of the game but is anyway correct to improve in some ways the character customization with some skills sure and also introducing the alignment at least to limit or get acces to some special weapons or powers too and if the hybrid class is not possible give us a new very special ability for each paragon paths(3) due to diversificate/distinguish the character not only in the substance i mean feats/numbers/gear score instead in what we can do in comparison of another charachter of the same class! (no motherlanguage)
HI all
The Unseen Knight
0
Options
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
Well actually "Dual" Classing in 2nd Edition wasn't as hard as you think it is, and its A LOT more powerful than people think it is. LOL.
It's not extremely hard but in that day in age everybody was in a group. Imagine in Neverwinter you are a level 25 starting over again as a level one. Yeah without a party I don't think it would be entirely possible but Fourth Edition Rules for Dual Classing are quite different, thankfully.
In fact those asking for it should probably look it up. It is NOTHING like Third Edition.
Third Edition multi-classing is more akin to "Hybrid Classing" in Fourth Edition except that you have to declare the hybridization at level one.
Also all multi-classing is overpowered in some way. However the difference between Third Edition and the rest of the Editions Muli-class power is like day and night. Multi-classing as a whole in D&D is out of balance which is why they tried to remove it but First, Second and Fourth do a far better job of controlling multi-class power than Third Edition.
With that being said, my wishes:
Skill Checks
More non-combat skills and more ways to use them
improved Traps
Activated Items
Activated Spell-like Abilities
The ability to purchase default Weapon Appearances (Scimitars/axes...etc)
Expanded Deity Selections
Dieties Effecting possible power selections
Light Sources
Vision Impairment
Alternate Starting Locations
Oh the list could go on. There's so many great features from D&D which need a bit more love here but the game is at a great starting point.
also introducing the alignment at least to limit or get acces to
Alignment is unofficially removed from Fourth Edition. It has absolutely no function whatsoever past saying "I'm this alignment" on your character sheet. Not a single mechanic within Fourth Edition checks for alignment.
It's only on character sheets as a legacy effect.
And with a bit of consideration it's honesty better off that way despite the cries from the fans. Game of Thrones does an excellent job of tearing up the elementary school idea of good and evil that is present in D&D and throwing it back in your face.
The good characters are often the evil characters. The evil characters are often the good characters. The truly good characters die and the truly evil characters are invisible forever.
The alignment system, despite becoming a player in D&D Next, was better off removed from the game and left as a roleplay only mechanic.
doctorcomicsMember, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Guardian Users, Silverstars, Neverwinter Knight of the Feywild UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited June 2013
Racial powers that occupy a slot on the power bar. Example: Dragonborn with breath weapon, Eladrin with teleport. These racial powers would become simply another option that you could slot as an encounter power, regardless of class.
Ritual spells that aren't used in combat. Magic in MMOs means "combat," but the fun thing about spells was your ability to do things outside the box. How about clairvoyance spells that let you peek into other rooms, long distance teleport spells that let you cross zones, and so on.
Raise the population cap on Adventure Zones. Most of these have a cap of 20 people, and that includes the local tavern: the Fallen a tower tavern, the entire Orc zone, all has a cap of 20. It's very hard to do social events and RP in zones this small. Raise the population cap, put the taverns into separate instances like the Mask, or both. The social aspects of these taverns are wasted at present.
bioshrikeMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 4,729Arc User
edited June 2013
Some enemies read magical scrolls in combat - that'd be a neat thing to introduce.
I'd like a profession that makes potions.
Weaponsmithing would be nice.
If we're not going to get a "battle cleric", then how about some more mace skins for guardian fighter, and some more cleric-like plate armor designs.
It'd be cool if some enemies surrender when they're very low on health, and we could then interact with them - this would lead to a small instanced mission - these could be small randomly generated and level-appropriate quests in the same zone as the enemy you just defeated.
<::::::::::::::)xxxo <::::::::::::::)xxxo <::::::::::::)xxxxxxxx(:::::::::::> oxxx(::::::::::::::> oxxx(::::::::::::::> "Is it better to be feared or respected? I say, is it too much to ask for both?" -Tony Stark Official NW_Legit_Community Forums
0
Options
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
As the game sits now, you don't start as an actual base class. You're starting as the first "prestige" class option. Normally taking a "prestige" class in 4th edition requires you to choose to go into either the first list available at earlier levels or the second list available at a much higher level.
more talent trees and class specializations
More puzzles
In-depth traps
Max level exploration areas
I think the foundy is a great d&d element already in game that can be expanded. To quote the cliche "the possibilities are infinite!". In this case they really are! With the options available now whole campaigns can already be created. But it can aways use improvements. However people should have in mind when requesting features for the Foundry that it should be approached with the "lets create adventures" mindset, and not the "let's mod Nerverwinter" mindset.
Alignment could be added, however it would remain a purely descriptive roleplaying tool, so consider you can already add it to your character sheet, just write it down in the history tab!
The problem with this is that if you cannot control the quality of loot based on the module (foundry quest), or hell, even have an option to create your own loot/armors, then it's rather moot. Now, if they let you create custom armor sets for completion of say, "x" amount of related foundry quests, then, wow, that would be amazing.
0
Options
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
The problem with this is that if you cannot control the quality of loot based on the module (foundry quest), or hell, even have an option to create your own loot/armors, then it's rather moot. Now, if they let you create custom armor sets for completion of say, "x" amount of related foundry quests, then, wow, that would be amazing.
If they allowed this then two big issues get posed:
1) Players are constantly looking for ways to abuse the Foundry to break the game balance. If you can give out items it would be abused. Players being able to dictate rewards is something which can't be given to an MMO. A few bad apples will ruin everything for everyone I am afraid.
On the bright side Cryptic has taken some truly great content created in Star Trek Online and polished it up as semi-official content so I hope we can see the same sort of action here.
2) Appearance is one thing you're going to end up paying to change as part of the Free to Play Model. They can't simply allow players to create item visuals that they can give away for free in Foundry Content without losing money. However I'd love to see them allow us to use the Foundry Creator to make a visual costume players can use for a fee.
bioshrikeMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 4,729Arc User
edited June 2013
What if there was a system where players could associate their foundry quests with a particular area or zone within the regular single player game - random enemies could drop a clue which, when interacted with, triggers a message for the player to speak w/ a Harper contact in said zone, and automatically starts said quest. There would probably have to be some sort of review process for this, however...
<::::::::::::::)xxxo <::::::::::::::)xxxo <::::::::::::)xxxxxxxx(:::::::::::> oxxx(::::::::::::::> oxxx(::::::::::::::> "Is it better to be feared or respected? I say, is it too much to ask for both?" -Tony Stark Official NW_Legit_Community Forums
I want a paladin class..while we are brain storming. Give the clerics +1 to undead and turn ability.
Edit: I guess that could come later with say sub classes and good/evil/neutral.
Multi-classing is not an easy task due to the way the game works...
It's the same reason you can't swap to a bow. It's simply not very feasible to implement with the action combat power based mechanics.
On top of that multi-classing is good for one thing and one thing only: overpowered as hell builds.
Third Edition created this ridiculous craze with multi-classing and made it so multi-classing was a pure on requirement. I love Third Edition but this was a major issue which created stupidly over-powered characters which could only be confronted by making stupidly overpowered creatures. That's inflation and any economist could tell you inflation is bad for everything in the long term.
Which is why multi-classing was actually outright removed from Fourth Edition until players, such as the ones in this thread, whined so much at wizards that they added it back but still broke it down to the more balanced positions we see in First and Second Edition.
So a bit of a History Lesson: there were two types of "Multi-class" support in First and Second Edition and were ALL restricted by race.
Dual Classing - Restricted to Humans Only. A character could level to a certain point and then give up their first classes abilities completely until they outleveled their original class. Essentially it starts you over from the beginning. Very difficult!
Multi-Classing was similar to what we now call Hybrid Classing which is that based on your race you could choose a certain race restricted class combinations to level from level one at a much slower experience progression. Fighter/Wizard, Wizard/Thief or the much coveted Fighter/Mage/Thief which was restricted to half-elves only.
These restrictions went away in Third Edition and thus Wizards of the Coast shot themselves in the foot and made a completely unbalanced min-max system. While it was enjoyable it was a complete and utter nightmare which resulted in requiring balancing on min-max playstyles and this is, while enjoyable to some, not ideal.
Third Edition multi-classing is gone and unlikely to ever return. It was and always will be a mistake. A catastophe which proves that what players like is not always a good thing.
If multi-class support was added to the game you would be talking years down the road, not months, because even Fourth Edition Multi-classing is filled with overpowered nonsense which would completely trivialize Neverwinter.
Imagine Rogues using entangle and stun chains. If half the time invested into requesting multi-classing was spent considering the adverse side effects it wouldn't be up for debate as to why it isn't here or at least isn't here yet. It's a balancing nightmare and frankly would have to be very much restricted.
I'm sorry if this sounds harsh but it is first and foremost the truth. Consider the problems which multi-classing brings into the game because wanting without considering the implications is what caused Third Edition to be the best and worst edition at the same time.
Some good things here - my picks that would not break the action MMO format:
Skill selection and checks - allow us to choose our trained skills, add a wider variety of non-combat skills, and implement a wider variety of applications than just skill nodes (like the situations where Dungeoneering checks opens a secret door or similar). I'm also not sure any of them should have a 100% or 0% success rate. Make it a 95% for trained checks, medium success for untrained with a skill kit (you could add different quality kits in too if you wanted), and 5% for untrained checks without a kit - this would feel a lot more like a d20 system. Multiple failures should prevent future attempts, and failures should accrue across the party to encourage party members with trained skills to make the attempts.
Non-combat magic - ritual magic should be possible outside of combat (raise dead, teleport to Protector's Enclave for example). Ritual components should be cheaper for the appropriate class to use than scrolls.
Weapon type customisation - an NPC smith that can take a Longsword and turn it into a Dwarven Hammer with exactly the same stats. Similarly, holy symbols should be customisable to be visibly appropriate to deity or wizard implements to not be limited to orbs. This would of course cost money - perhaps AD for a single item change, or Zen to unlock a weapon appearance permanently on a character.
More puzzles and non-combat quests generally, perhaps giving non-XP rewards such as zone completion but not required for XP progression if balance is an issue.
Active racial powers that can be slotted as encounters
Magic items with active powers that can be slotted, more iconically named D&D wondrous items, weapons and armours.
Deity selection changing the flavour of Divine class powers. More deities available.
More power selection/variety generally so that all members of a given class don't feel so cookie cutter. I personally don't really believe PvP balance is worth striving for since D&D classes by their very nature are meant to fulfill different roles and have very different strengths and weaknesses, so this variety in PvE is more important to me than PvP balance considerations but I realise that's probably not the view of the devs/publishers/other players.
Comments
C'mon man, we know that this is not going to happen, we discussed that in the other thread. So, let's use this one to talk about what features of d&d 4e could be added/polished, to improve NW as it is. Otherwise this thread will be locked as well. ^^
Back to topic:
Well, 4e multiclassing (Multiclass-feats, Swap-feats, Paragon multiclass) would add more variables to the balance equation for sure. :P
"The harder the game, the better."
Would be very kool. And how about a dwarf GF without an axe..... lol. Ridiculous.
Longsword literally dragging on the ground since im only 4ft tall. Funny stuff.
Ive already made a number of suggestions. Im just wondering, how? The game seems to be "locked in" to a certain state were D&D ideologies are not possible. Im with you. But how? Is it possible?
Cross classing for instance. That seems almost like a complete overhaul would need to be done to accommodate the 10rogue/40GF/10GWF builds. Just a random build there. But it seems to me that to accomplish this it would mean almost a different game design.
As in one dungeon has an area with a mini-boss opened only via a Rogue (or Dwarf) with Detect Secret Doors and another dungeon has an area with a mini-boss opened only if a Cleric with a high enough Religion or a Wizard with a high enough Arcana skill.
In generic dungeons, we should always be able to make it to the final boss - but having an area of each dungeon offer "extra" content if you have a specific class or race would also be nice. As would, eventually, dungeons targetted to one class or race.
Seems like the Dungeon-checker can also check to be sure that a party has a "required" class if the dungeon "requires" a specific class.
Just as it already checks for gear score.
But, I think, for the most part it should just be an additional area rather than a requirement to make it to the final boss.
Again, like original D&D, we shouldn't be expecting cross-classing and multi-classing to happen in the first iteration.
Let's just get a handle on the base classes first - and introduce a few more (like Druid, Ranger, Warlock) before having them add more challenging management to the game.
That makes sense. Man i hope your right. If in fact more "expansions" are released that allows for more D&D capability. Then thats when we need to pool our suggestions. As it is now in its current state. The game is not able to Implement most things D&D.
In short the game has to "evolve" into something that can support a massive amount of options.
We cannot ask them for any D&D feature that is not in 4E. In 4E multiclassing was revamped, I posted here a short explanation about how it works, you probably know about it as well.
What I would expect first are more paragon path, like in 4E (with encounter and daily powers). Then, more paragon paths, classes (Warlock, Ranger, etc) and class build-options (Battle Cleric, War Wizard, etc).
Then, the may add the multiclassing feature, but as it works in d&d4e (an imcomplete but fun version of course) not in the previous versions of d&d.
"The harder the game, the better."
It's the same reason you can't swap to a bow. It's simply not very feasible to implement with the action combat power based mechanics.
On top of that multi-classing is good for one thing and one thing only: overpowered as hell builds.
Third Edition created this ridiculous craze with multi-classing and made it so multi-classing was a pure on requirement. I love Third Edition but this was a major issue which created stupidly over-powered characters which could only be confronted by making stupidly overpowered creatures. That's inflation and any economist could tell you inflation is bad for everything in the long term.
Which is why multi-classing was actually outright removed from Fourth Edition until players, such as the ones in this thread, whined so much at wizards that they added it back but still broke it down to the more balanced positions we see in First and Second Edition.
So a bit of a History Lesson: there were two types of "Multi-class" support in First and Second Edition and were ALL restricted by race.
Dual Classing - Restricted to Humans Only. A character could level to a certain point and then give up their first classes abilities completely until they outleveled their original class. Essentially it starts you over from the beginning. Very difficult!
Multi-Classing was similar to what we now call Hybrid Classing which is that based on your race you could choose a certain race restricted class combinations to level from level one at a much slower experience progression. Fighter/Wizard, Wizard/Thief or the much coveted Fighter/Mage/Thief which was restricted to half-elves only.
These restrictions went away in Third Edition and thus Wizards of the Coast shot themselves in the foot and made a completely unbalanced min-max system. While it was enjoyable it was a complete and utter nightmare which resulted in requiring balancing on min-max playstyles and this is, while enjoyable to some, not ideal.
Third Edition multi-classing is gone and unlikely to ever return. It was and always will be a mistake. A catastophe which proves that what players like is not always a good thing.
If multi-class support was added to the game you would be talking years down the road, not months, because even Fourth Edition Multi-classing is filled with overpowered nonsense which would completely trivialize Neverwinter.
Imagine Rogues using entangle and stun chains. If half the time invested into requesting multi-classing was spent considering the adverse side effects it wouldn't be up for debate as to why it isn't here or at least isn't here yet. It's a balancing nightmare and frankly would have to be very much restricted.
I'm sorry if this sounds harsh but it is first and foremost the truth. Consider the problems which multi-classing brings into the game because wanting without considering the implications is what caused Third Edition to be the best and worst edition at the same time.
- Dialogues that the player can FAIL, as in Planescape, where almost every dialogue has good/bad/neutral outcomes.
- Rogues disabling traps should give XP, there is no incentive to do it right now.
- More competing adventurer party encounters.
- Doing Epic Dungeons with less than 5 players.
- Being able to use non-class gear, with penalties.
- Unique gear that is better than set gear (BG rarely had set bonuses, but in NW it's ok as long as sets don't trump everything).
- "Slay the beholders guarding the cave and get an eye for my recipe" instead of "Slay 10 beholders".
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, I partly agree with you. Certainly multiclassing would be problematic to improve if this game would be running the 3rd or 3.5 versions. I've played NWN since it was released in 2002, single player but mainly in multiplayer and in the best full pvp servers; In NWN they addapted the 3rd d&d version into the game and bioware stated that it was not ever going to be balanced for PvP, and I can tell that it was not balanced for PvE either. Eventhough, in multiplayer, the DM's managed to balance things out to create a very well balanced gameplay depending on the characteristics of the server; I used to play in Action Full PvP servers for a lot of time and I can tell that it was the best PvP I've ever played.
NW is based on 4e which revamped multiclassing, as you said, multiclassing may still be a better than not going multiclass in D&D4e, but there is when cryptic has to figure out the way to reduce that difference. Multiclassing is one of the most awesome features of d&d, in my opinion, and I think that it would be a blast to have it in NW.
"The harder the game, the better."
If only, if only.
Butt kicking for goodness isn't the same without minature giant space hamsters.
I don't think Bioware would be very happy with giving up the rights to that one though.
Well actually "Dual" Classing in 2nd Edition wasn't as hard as you think it is, and its A LOT more powerful than people think it is. LOL.
More of the deities, and maybe even some way to get special cosmetic armor or equipment based on the different deities. EXAMPLE: The acolyte of kelemvor companion's final tier of gear is amazing looking. I'd love to see more of this for players too. It's great for RP too!
HI all
It's not extremely hard but in that day in age everybody was in a group. Imagine in Neverwinter you are a level 25 starting over again as a level one. Yeah without a party I don't think it would be entirely possible but Fourth Edition Rules for Dual Classing are quite different, thankfully.
In fact those asking for it should probably look it up. It is NOTHING like Third Edition.
Third Edition multi-classing is more akin to "Hybrid Classing" in Fourth Edition except that you have to declare the hybridization at level one.
Also all multi-classing is overpowered in some way. However the difference between Third Edition and the rest of the Editions Muli-class power is like day and night. Multi-classing as a whole in D&D is out of balance which is why they tried to remove it but First, Second and Fourth do a far better job of controlling multi-class power than Third Edition.
With that being said, my wishes:
Skill Checks
More non-combat skills and more ways to use them
improved Traps
Activated Items
Activated Spell-like Abilities
The ability to purchase default Weapon Appearances (Scimitars/axes...etc)
Expanded Deity Selections
Dieties Effecting possible power selections
Light Sources
Vision Impairment
Alternate Starting Locations
Oh the list could go on. There's so many great features from D&D which need a bit more love here but the game is at a great starting point.
Alignment is unofficially removed from Fourth Edition. It has absolutely no function whatsoever past saying "I'm this alignment" on your character sheet. Not a single mechanic within Fourth Edition checks for alignment.
It's only on character sheets as a legacy effect.
And with a bit of consideration it's honesty better off that way despite the cries from the fans. Game of Thrones does an excellent job of tearing up the elementary school idea of good and evil that is present in D&D and throwing it back in your face.
The good characters are often the evil characters. The evil characters are often the good characters. The truly good characters die and the truly evil characters are invisible forever.
The alignment system, despite becoming a player in D&D Next, was better off removed from the game and left as a roleplay only mechanic.
Ritual spells that aren't used in combat. Magic in MMOs means "combat," but the fun thing about spells was your ability to do things outside the box. How about clairvoyance spells that let you peek into other rooms, long distance teleport spells that let you cross zones, and so on.
Raise the population cap on Adventure Zones. Most of these have a cap of 20 people, and that includes the local tavern: the Fallen a tower tavern, the entire Orc zone, all has a cap of 20. It's very hard to do social events and RP in zones this small. Raise the population cap, put the taverns into separate instances like the Mask, or both. The social aspects of these taverns are wasted at present.
Seven Against Thay: An RP-Focused Guild for all Races and Classes
I'd like a profession that makes potions.
Weaponsmithing would be nice.
If we're not going to get a "battle cleric", then how about some more mace skins for guardian fighter, and some more cleric-like plate armor designs.
It'd be cool if some enemies surrender when they're very low on health, and we could then interact with them - this would lead to a small instanced mission - these could be small randomly generated and level-appropriate quests in the same zone as the enemy you just defeated.
"Is it better to be feared or respected? I say, is it too much to ask for both?" -Tony Stark
Official NW_Legit_Community Forums
Agreed with everything Dr Comics.
more talent trees and class specializations
More puzzles
In-depth traps
Max level exploration areas
The problem with this is that if you cannot control the quality of loot based on the module (foundry quest), or hell, even have an option to create your own loot/armors, then it's rather moot. Now, if they let you create custom armor sets for completion of say, "x" amount of related foundry quests, then, wow, that would be amazing.
If they allowed this then two big issues get posed:
1) Players are constantly looking for ways to abuse the Foundry to break the game balance. If you can give out items it would be abused. Players being able to dictate rewards is something which can't be given to an MMO. A few bad apples will ruin everything for everyone I am afraid.
On the bright side Cryptic has taken some truly great content created in Star Trek Online and polished it up as semi-official content so I hope we can see the same sort of action here.
2) Appearance is one thing you're going to end up paying to change as part of the Free to Play Model. They can't simply allow players to create item visuals that they can give away for free in Foundry Content without losing money. However I'd love to see them allow us to use the Foundry Creator to make a visual costume players can use for a fee.
"Is it better to be feared or respected? I say, is it too much to ask for both?" -Tony Stark
Official NW_Legit_Community Forums
Edit: I guess that could come later with say sub classes and good/evil/neutral.
Eloquently stated and very very true.