Class Enhancements/Action Points - Dual or Multi-Class Requirements Restrictions?

[VirginiaCreeper]

Seems to me there is a dichotomy here that means whilst we can readily frame the problem, it's much harder to address that with any sort of simplistic solution...

The best thing about the game for many is the toon building flexibility. And that is great, complex, creative, and rewarding.

But that very flexibility adds to the overarching problem of much of the stuff that make classes distinct and useful as their primary preserve, are sacrificed on the altar of "soloability".

There is the added problem of some of this stuff not depending upon class distinctiveness at all. Universal trees.

It's a tricky proposition to enhance distinctiveness without unduly impacting the build flexibility. I think there is merit in looking at capstones to provide an interesting choice, as for the majority multi classing is a no brainer, and that's not an interesting choice. That doesn't mean though that any revisions should mean that pures become the no brainer option. Like I say it's a tricky proposition to get right.

What I would say is that I think universal trees are way too powerful - again no brainers for Inq, VKF, HW etc., to the point where the actual class becomes secondary and that's the wrong way round, so that's where I'd start addressing this issue with a big nerf bat. Let the dust settle, then look at tweaking UP capstones.

After all multi classing was a good thing before they came on the scene.

If I was allowed to create a simple solution:

I would revamp the rank system that gives you action points to spend on enhancements. I wouldn't tie rank to level. I'd have a totally different set of experience points for rank and create a straightforward enhancement leveling system:

Multi-Class

• Any character could fill the enhancement tree they use if they multi-class, but they wouldn't be able to get the full benefits until level 32 (or higher if they raise the ceiling on the max level). Same for racial enhancements.
• Multi-class characters would get more skill-points assigned per level (adjusted for class and race), but skills have to be spread out more so you are more limited per skill in how many points you can put in: Thus: you can only put 1 or 2 points or less in any skill related to your classes per level, but no more, making for a character with lots of skills but who is less effective in using them.
• Multi-class characters would get to choose enhancements from the trees of any class they hold, but if they choose to go outside their main enhancement tree, they cannot get the full benefits or to the top tier of that tree.
• % of Treasure drops being useful to your character classes specifically are divided by how many classes you have. Thus if a normal drop % is 20 percent, a 3 class character has a 6.7 % chance of something useful (armor, weapons, augments, etc.).
• No limits on hirelings. In fact the more diverse the hirelings used, there may be a small benefit to skill points as the multi-class character learns more from being around them.

Single Class

• Get their full enhancement tree at level 20 or earlier
• Would have enough action points to fill all racial abilities by level 20 as well.
• Would get less skill-points per level relative to a multi-class (adjusted for class and race) up to level 20, but would have no limits on how many skill points they can put into any skill per level.
• Get extra feats related to class and race per level relative to multi-class characters.
• No penalty on treasure drops that benefit the character.
• No hirelings until character reaches level 10. Hirelings must be 10 levels or lower than the level of the player character. OR using hirelings limits skill acquisition because during adventures they are doing work and using skills that would otherwise help the player character learn more skills more quickly.

Now you can have a multi-class character that is powerful and flexible at a higher level, but is more challenging to play leading up to that point, with some benefits from a wider skill-set but less skilled at lower levels. And you have single class characters that have less skills but better with what they use and who become more powerful more quickly, but are not as well rounded.

I'm sure a lot more time and thought could go into this, it's just a suggestion, but it would level the playing field a fair bit and would create a situation where single-class characters would be more desirable at first, but would require other single-class characters with other skill-sets to get through adventures.

EDIT:
(The Multi-Tool)
I think, like in some Ed's of AD&D, it would be useful to choose to be multi-class or not when you start creating your character. And that only some races are allowed to multi-class (Humans, Half-Elves and any other Half-Race). And then, as an example, if you decided to be a Half-Elf Arcane Archer/Rogue and chose AA as your primary class, you'd get a total of 119 action points to spend - 52 Half-Elf, 67 Arcane Archer. If the level cap is 32, you'd get 3.5 action points to spend per level, 10.5 to spend at level 1 to make the math work. Or you could spread the extra 7 points over the last 7 levels so instead of 3.5 you get 4.5 per for each of those last 7 levels leading up to 32.

You could also spend those action points on any enhancement tree associated with your Classes, but that would prevent your getting to the top tiers in any tree. If you choose two classes you can only ever put half your action-points per level into your non-primary tree. If you are three classes you can only ever put one third of your action points into any non-primary tree. And so on.

(The Sniper)
Single class characters would get the same number of action points if they were a single-class Half-Elf Arcane Archer - 119 - but they would get to spend 6 per level so both their Half-Elf Racial Tree and AA Class Tree would be filled by level 20. And again, they would be much more skilled characters and have more powerful spells, attacks, checks etc. but they might not have the variety of spells a multi would have (depending on how they build) and they wouldn't have the variety of skills etc.

 

[Jack Jarvis Esquire]

I lie the fact you've had a go at a considered solution.

I'm not so sure I like the Idea of multi classing being de facto more powerful at cap though. I'd prefer that to be a more difficult/interesting choice.

And I'm not sure it's an even trade in terms of relatively how easy it is to level, when levelling its self is pretty easy and can also be largely bypassed with Otto's boxes (which I myself have used extensively).

But then, I guess for most classes that's where we are today anyway. With multi classes and heavy leans into universal trees being the meta.

 

[GrizzlyOso]

I don't think requiring diverse groups according to class to complete an adventure would be ignored or become irrelevant. I'm not suggesting only quests with that type of grouping. I'm also suggesting quests that adapt like a DM would to make a more rich experience for a diverse group of 4+ characters where it adapts to who is joining to make the adventure more relevant to their abilities but has a requirement that, say, you have to have 4+ separate classes (or are different enough) in order to start the adventure together. In an adventure where every character class has a lot of work to do to get through to the end, everyone would feel pretty satisfied once the adventure was completed and it would bond players as well. Unfortunately most online games have become too flat - lacking depth - and your comments here are why companies don't do much creatively like the used to and why everything is all FPS style games where everything is about how much you can kill. If you want to see why DDO is flat-lining, well it's because there is little creativity in the development of unique experiences within the world where D&D as a in-person game is skyrocketing across the globe. Unfortunately it's a victim of its industry at this point.

I don't know about the SWL's puzzles - but again, if it relies more on the character you developed and less on your own intelligence, that would make more sense. This is about role-playing after all. Maybe I'm dumb as a brick but want to be a genius. This is where I think DDO gets it wrong in another way: My character's intelligence makes no difference in solving a puzzle of any kind in DDO. It's my own intelligence - often requiring me to google the adventure and see what I can figure out.

But that's not role playing. If my character has an incredibly high intelligence, then you roll. Maybe one of your skills is puzzle solving. So you roll. you develop your character. And if you can't get through the adventure because your skills aren't high enough, you build yourself up until they are or find a potion to help or whatever. It's like they throw an orgre at me and then require me to, at my desktop take my own physical strength as the number that determins what STR bonus I might have when fighting the thing. Again, people like puzzles, I get it, but that's why we roll the dice. That's why it's a gamble. That's why it's fun. And that's why we need other people, like we do in basically all other aspects of real life, to help us get through. We can't do it on our own and we don't live in a vacuum.

Now, if my INT is high enough and my character figures things out, then there could be a section where it challenges the player to throw switches and turn valves which is easier or harder depending on your ability scores.

Somehow DDO misses that basic essential part of roleplaying.

Did you completely miss bg3? Go play that. Also, it did really well. Almost like people respond to quality.

 

[Bjond]

Did you completely miss bg3? Go play that. Also, it did really well. Almost like people respond to quality.

BG3 was absolutely stellar. I'd hate that system in an MMO, but it was v.nice solo and I could see it working quite well for small group RP, too.

 

[VirginiaCreeper]

I lie the fact you've had a go at a considered solution.

I'm not so sure I like the Idea of multi classing being de facto more powerful at cap though. I'd prefer that to be a more difficult/interesting choice.

And I'm not sure it's an even trade in terms of relatively how easy it is to level, when levelling its self is pretty easy and can also be largely bypassed with Otto's boxes (which I myself have used extensively).

But then, I guess for most classes that's where we are today anyway. With multi classes and heavy leans into universal trees being the meta.

The multi-class wouldn't be more powerful at cap in my example - they would have access to the full enhancement tree if they used their action points properly, but they would be a lot weaker in the skills department and I would guess most players would never get the benefits of the top-tier of their enhancements tree because they are grabbing skills they want from other trees from other classes, not just their main class - but they would have more skills to choose from and use.

Single-class would have less skills to use but would be much more effective and skilled in using them.

Overall, the multi-class in my example at capped top level would be less "powerful" and would take a lot longer to get up to an equal power with single-class characters, but would have a much more diverse skillset and enhancement selection. They would generally be better for soloing, especially to start.

Single-class characters would be more powerful overall and much more quickly as they would fill their race and class enhancement trees by level 20, and would be very successful with skill checks throughout, but would not be the multi-tool characters that multi-class are and would have a much harder time completing adventures without help. This is because, as an example, a Warlock can't pick a lock or disable traps or fight waves of hordes in close combat, or heal themselves, and so on.

They would be MUCH more desirable in raids and well-organized and rounded groups.

I guess having more balance between multi/solo would also require some re-tooling adventures to accentuate those drawbacks and benefits, but that's just some tinkering and not a full code overhaul.

Good point about Otto's boxes. I guess in my example I'd have to restrict them or make them less useful to balance things out a bit more.

 

[VirginiaCreeper]

Did you completely miss bg3? Go play that. Also, it did really well. Almost like people respond to quality.

I miss a lot. I'm a solo parent with two jobs and don't have a lot of time to game these days. DDO is nostalgic so I put time into it but can see it's a pretty pale representation of the RPG. I still like it in some ways though. I'll take a look at bg3. Thanks for the heads-up.

 

[GrizzlyOso]

I miss a lot. I'm a solo parent with two jobs and don't have a lot of time to game these days. DDO is nostalgic so I put time into it but can see it's a pretty pale representation of the RPG. I still like it in some ways though. I'll take a look at bg3. Thanks for the heads-up.

It’s a game changer in terms of selling a quality game and not being on the micro transaction band wagon.

Hopefully it shifts other shill producers to do the same , especially around here.

I’ve recommended it to everyone I know and gotten many people to buy it. Zero for Ddo.

 

[Ying]

I'd like to see DDO make just 1 big adventure pack with multiple dungeons, open worlds, towns, etc. where to get through it you have to create a balanced party and where hirelings just won't do the trick or are prevented from being used.

The closest thing to that is the Astral Ambush quest chain. Hirelings cannot carry you through. The quests are so difficult that you're highly encouraged to have a full party.

Somehow DDO misses that basic essential part of roleplaying.

DDO is never going to enforce roleplaying. If you want to RP, join a guild that encourages it and only play with them. They do exist.

Thus D&D is a lot more elaborate in nature than I think you give it credit for.

DDO is not D&D. Trying to equate the two will only lead to disappointment. You have to enjoy each in their native medium.

 

[VirginiaCreeper]

The closest thing to that is the Astral Ambush quest chain. Hirelings cannot carry you through. The quests are so difficult that you're highly encouraged to have a full party.

DDO is never going to enforce roleplaying. If you want to RP, join a guild that encourages it and only play with them. They do exist.

DDO is not D&D. Trying to equate the two will only lead to disappointment. You have to enjoy each in their native medium.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll take a look should time allow.

Also good to know that guilds exist that encourage RP and better grouping for adventures. It would be helpful if you have suggestions on how to find them other than randomly messaging every guild I come across.

I know DDO is not D&D - otherwise this thread would not exist. But I don't agree that I have to only enjoy the product in front of me and can never criticize it in hopes of improving it. If that was the case, there would be no need for DDO Forums. Criticism is the basis for the evolution of any game, tech, etc. It's how new games get developed to fill a niche that players realize was missing and wanted. Not saying that I'm in the majority by any means. Most computer games today imo are simply designed to take up our time more than be highly entertaining and challenging. And I see I'm not the only one that questions enhancement trees and how skills are used in the game so...

Not disappointed. Just getting into the game.

 

[Ying]

Also good to know that guilds exist that encourage RP and better grouping for adventures. It would be helpful if you have suggestions on how to find them other than randomly messaging every guild I come across.

Post on your server forum, or ask in the DDO Discord.