I could think of one...maybe rouge and ranger. Splitting the rouge class up into a meele and ranged would even things out a bit...and for the most part rangers play far differently than rouges do...and its also seen as a 'good' archetype where rouges are more 'chatoic/neutral'.
But that's just me...I just that having 3 specialized classes that pertain to just ranged...and three for just meele (maybe share one hybrid with each class) would be better.
Here's a rouge ranger:
Here's a rouge ranger:
you are just full of wit today
I think Dragon Age needs 3 less classes.
Here are my thoughts. The problem with no classes whatsoever makes a game really really hard to balance for a dev team. The reason for this is because you would have to account for so many variable it would give anyone a headache. I'm all for choice but having no structure whatsoever for a class or lack there of is not really realistic for devs to be able to balance well. Certain builds and playstyles will end up being better than others; even with structured classes it is a lot of work to balance a game on a statistical level. Heck even having AoE abilities really makes it difficult to balance a game especially if the AoE ability area is not clearly defined for the player. Which brings me to my next point. DA:O had a very good method of determining what was to be expected for the player, but the math was wrong. I feel it is the opposite in this game; unclear to determine what you can expect but very good on a statistical level -at least I hope so.
To better prove my point let me use a possible build type without a class. Lets say the player decides to go even steven on all 5 stats and it is a non-party game to simplify things. For this example lets call them attributes. Now the lack of a strengths or weaknesses in attributes makes the ability to be prepared for any given enemy situation decent but only to a point. If there is a weakness you are only partially efficient to deal with the enemy. Yes you can exploit the weakness of the enemy, but you won't be as adept as a player who chooses to focus on say 3 out of 5 attributes and since enemies will most likely have strengths and weaknesses in their attributes you really will have no strength against him and you will likely be susceptible to his strengths. "But UGC, what if you chose to focus on the wrong stats?" This question just furthers my point that it is better to have structure in the build because if there is structure for the build then the game will be made to account for your likely build.
The argument that with too much build structure it takes the choice out of the game I say nonsense. Within the confines of 3 roles it makes it easy for you to chose how you wish to play and makes it a whole lot easier for the devs to balance the game.
As BW has implied they have worked really hard to balance this game so as to not make one particular build overpowering while giving enough flexibility for being able to focus on what you chose to focus on. My only qualm is that the AoE abilities are not clear cut enough ie. earthsharing strike. Other than that I'm looking forward to playing a balanced nightmare game.
@uniform
You use the attribute system as an example, but fact of the matter is that an active attribute system was made to support a class system. DnD is the obvious example, and in that particular ruleset, class determines what attributes do, not the other way around. For example intellect affects the amount of skills per level, but if you are a wizard, it also gives you spell slots. DA2 is the same, Agility increases critical chance, but if you are a rogue it also increases damage.
Essentially this means that in a classless system, the attribute system is a forced addition and can be ditched for something different/more appropriate. One look at bethesda's games that feature classless systems is enough to understand this. The attribute system there is passive. It only affects interaction with the world and roleplaying issues through dialogue. Can easily be replaced by a trait system. Choosing "wrong" SPECIAL stats means that you have less ways to tackle encounters and dialogue options but the combat will hardly be affected (like for example having a 5% higher critical chance due to higher luck). You don't even have to make a high strength melee character. Since strength tops at 10, you can use items to boost a base 4 to 10. Skyrim ditched it completely and made dialogue consequences linear.
DA can do something similar. Ditch it in favor of a trait system that affects roleplaying, and focus on active/passive abilities and other combat features. Stances, active aiming, whatever. Plenty of ideas to go around.
Well, I suppose priest/cleric would be useless in a suddenly heal-less Thedas.
Maybe psionicist?
No, I don't think the DA series needs another base class because I believe three base classes cover pretty much all class archetypes.
Except they gate you to a certain weapon set up.....want to play a warrior that doesnt use sword and sheilds or two handers too bad (no duel wield or single bladed warriors)
The three we have along with the specailizations are enough...they just need more flexiblity in skill/weapon selections.
Well, I suppose priest/cleric would be useless in a suddenly heal-less Thedas.
Maybe psionicist?
Clerics as in the divine magic wielders of DnD type dont exist in DA....only mages
It would benefit from having fewer classes, not more.
That is really very vague. could you elaborate?
@uniform
You use the attribute system as an example, but fact of the matter is that an active attribute system was made to support a class system. DnD is the obvious example, and in that particular ruleset, class determines what attributes do, not the other way around. For example intellect affects the amount of skills per level, but if you are a wizard, it also gives you spell slots. DA2 is the same, Agility increases critical chance, but if you are a rogue it also increases damage.
Essentially this means that in a classless system, the attribute system is a forced addition and can be ditched for something different/more appropriate. One look at bethesda's games that feature classless systems is enough to understand this. The attribute system there is passive. It only affects interaction with the world and roleplaying issues through dialogue. Can easily be replaced by a trait system. Choosing "wrong" SPECIAL stats means that you have less ways to tackle encounters and dialogue options but the combat will hardly be affected (like for example having a 5% higher critical chance due to higher luck). You don't even have to make a high strength melee character. Since strength tops at 10, you can use items to boost a base 4 to 10. Skyrim ditched it completely and made dialogue consequences linear.
DA can do something similar. Ditch it in favor of a trait system that affects roleplaying, and focus on active/passive abilities and other combat features. Stances, active aiming, whatever. Plenty of ideas to go around.
I don't know if you are trying to outright disagree with me because you don't really counteract my point. All RPGs are statistical games based on math with elements vicariously living out a character or characters' stories. Even in Skyrim you still have base stats of health stamina and magika along with a multiplier for various skills with talents that are associated with that skill. Furthermore there are still classes in Skyrim, they are just more subtle and varied, but still being implemented seem through the different types of armour and clothing that you wear. IMO one of the key differences that make Skyrim seem less obviously class based is that you have both stamina and makica, and other than the great lore that is within DA series games I would be all for implementing this possible change in play.
If we're going to get technical I never said that the attributes I mentioned in my example were the same ones as in the DA series games, I simply used a known name of a group of statistics that people would be familiar with. This is further seen in the fact that I used 5 as a number to tell how many stats we were dealing with. I suppose I could have used 3 or 7 just as easily.
I personally believe that taking classes out of a multiple player controlled based game is a mistake. I believe this because with the current system it gives players a direction for players to progress in, gives variety of play, and is easier to pin down what abilities and passives are likely to complement certain stats as well as making it an easier game to balance for the developers because it add a framework to deal with.
Perhaps what people are suggesting for a no class game can work, but that is far beyond the scope of the DA series games.
Also, If DA ever goes to active aiming, that is when I quit playing DA. And, the way I play Skyrim, the classes are much more clearly defined for the player. I use mods for that so I guess that makes me a cheater 
My intention wasn't to counter your point. Is to bring to your attention an example of attributes used in a classless system and how it doesn't actually affect the balance of builds and gameplay because your argument was about balance.
I can't counter your point without hard numbers and information because this discussion is just theoretical but if you are going to use this particular example to showcase your point, then I think it's a good idea to use games that already implement these features as a point of comparison.
I also think your assessment of Skyrim is upside down. In fact, there are 4 ways to gain damage reduction in the game and every single of them is enough to reach the maximum physical damage reduction attainable which is 80%. Alteration, Blocking, Heavy armor and Light Armor (the last may need some help from blacksmithing). You can literally have maximum protection wearing rags. On the other hand, the 3 resources, I'd argue that it's the only indicator that the game has a caster/meatshield/specialist distinction and that's because you have to specialize for the majority of builds. The game forces you to increase your magicka pool if you want to be an all around caster, and gives you a hard time if you specialize in styles that require power attacks without raising your stamina. But still that's not a class system. It's concept based within the confines of the game. You can be captain america if you like. Dress in blue clothes, get alteration for the superserum effects and a shield, spec in deadly/power bash and oneshot dragons with it.
But Fallout is the game comparable to the example you gave. I mentioned Skyrim as indicative of the trend I'm describing.
I don't think it needs another class. I would rather decrease the classes to two. Mage and non-Mage because Mage is bound to the story/lore. This should be the main decision at the beginning and after that everything could be handled via specialisations. There is no difference between Warrior and Rogue that can't be compensated through training. It would make the character development a little bit more open and allow for hybrids which aren't possible with the current system. Also these terrible weapon restrictions introduced with DA II would've been gone. (Yes, this a disguised dual wield warrior rant 
).
You sir are a cherry picker; a good debater, but a cherry picker nonetheless. You pick information that is favorable for your argument (which you do a lot of I might add) without really ever acknowledging the complete package of what has been said.
My intention wasn't to counter your point. Is to bring to your attention an example of attributes used in a classless system and how it doesn't actually affect the balance of builds and gameplay because your argument was about balance.
I'll come back to that one.
I can't counter your point without hard numbers and information because this discussion is just theoretical but if you are going to use this particular example to showcase your point, then I think it's a good idea to use games that already implement these features as a point of comparison.
So basically you're saying "I can't disagree with you because its theoretical, but why don't we use an example of my choosing as a point of reference."
I would object to that but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't go along with it. Here's a suggestion: how about next time why don't we use the point of reference that was initially brought up first which was exactly the kind of thing where you potentially could counter my point because it was based on math.
I also think your assessment of Skyrim is upside down. In fact, there are 4 ways to gain damage reduction in the game and every single of them is enough to reach the maximum physical damage reduction attainable which is 80%. Alteration, Blocking, Heavy armor and Light Armor (the last may need some help from blacksmithing).
Yes the game has 4 ways to reduce physical damage.Also I'd like to hear how this sort of thing happens all over the place in Skyrim over different skills Plus 3/4 are not mage spells, 2 of them being from the combat class. Its looking like a class system already.
You can literally have maximum protection wearing rags.
You can, but then you would be a mage.
On the other hand, the 3 resources, I'd argue that it's the only indicator that the game has a caster/meatshield/specialist distinction and that's because you have to specialize for the majority of builds.
Which is... damage reduction?
The game forces you to increase your magicka pool if you want to be an all around caster, and gives you a hard time if you specialize in styles that require power attacks without raising your stamina. But still that's not a class system. It's concept based within the confines of the game. You can be captain america if you like. Dress in blue clothes, get alteration for the superserum effects and a shield, spec in deadly/power bash and oneshot dragons with it.
You're point is that you can play a specific style and still manage to one hit KO one of the most powerful enemies in the game with an ability that is not even meant for dealing damage. That seems pretty broken to me.
All in all I guess Skyrim is pretty much a kind of hybrid kinda-sorta no class with classes game. To be fair I didn't really find combat all that interesting without mods. I actually think that mods are what makes that game great more than anything else in that game.
But Fallout is the game comparable to the example you gave. I mentioned Skyrim as indicative of the trend I'm describing.
I think I've indulged in your line of examples for long enough. What do you say we go by mine now? I originally gave a very simplified version of how combat works that was still true to the feel of RPG combat. Why don't we use that one next.
That is really very vague. could you elaborate?
The Warrior/Rogue distinction is entirely artificial, and there's no need for it. All it does is create unnecessary restrictions in character design.
I'd have Mages and Non-Mages and stop it there.
The Warrior/Rogue distinction is entirely artificial, and there's no need for it. All it does is create unnecessary restrictions in character design.
I'd have Mages and Non-Mages and stop it there.
At that point, you may as well go classless. Have Fallout-style traits that are only available at character creation, and simply have "mage" or "magical potential" be one of them. You could easily work it so that only someone who has the trait can access the spell trees.
Personally, I'd rather have more weapon ranges for the existing classes, rather than an entirely new one. I can't think of any style that you couldn't incorporate into the existing classes.
Spears/polearms? Give it a talent tree and pop in warrior class.
Barehanded/knuckles? Rogue or warrior. Possibly even mage (bare-handed powered by force magic?)
Throwing knives/shuriken etc? Rogue.
Any additional magic could be mage, obviously.
While I kinda like the idea of a Warlock (mage/warrior hybrid thingy)....
I dunno, how would that class fit into the lore of DA? As for what I'd rather see: an alternate weapon for mages. Warriors get sword/board or 2h, rogues get double daggers or bow, but mages are stuck to the same dratted staff. It's maddening. (I'd love to see something crazy, like a flail).
3 more specializations for MP maybe? I don't think a new class is going to fit in with the existing mechanics.
Personally, I'd rather have more weapon ranges for the existing classes, rather than an entirely new one. I can't think of any style that you couldn't incorporate into the existing classes.
Spears/polearms? Give it a talent tree and pop in warrior class.
Barehanded/knuckles? Rogue or warrior. Possibly even mage (bare-handed powered by force magic?)
Throwing knives/shuriken etc? Rogue.
Any additional magic could be mage, obviously.
According to one of the previous videos (E3/Pax Demo) Rogues do have access to an ability where they throw a knife.
Personally, I always find the idea of throwing knives to be silly. There is no guarantee that the knife will actually hit pointy-end first, and even if it does it does not have enough force to puncture armor. The best application of a throwing knife would be against someone completely unarmored so that at least they could go "OW! That hurt!" when they get hit by the hilt. Of course the downside is that said person would then be able to pick up the knife and use it against you, but that's what you get for being silly enough to toss a knife.
Shurikens are even more laughable as they're not even deadly unless you get a lucky shot into a person's eye. On the plus side they don't have a hilt so at least you'll be able to inflict some sort of cut on the poor sod that is unfortunate enough to not be wearing armor. 
3 more specializations for MP maybe? I don't think a new class is going to fit in with the existing mechanics.
Warrior - Dread knight: Armed with flail and shield. Specialises in AoE.Rouge - Fencer: Armed with a rapier. Distracts and debuffs with dizzying flourishes.Mage - Mystic: Uses hands, no staff. Uses mana to launch telekinetic attacks, is an expert at hand-to-hand combat.
Flails are notoriously hard to animate correctly.
I sincerely hope that the fencer is holding some sort of shield in order to actually block any attacks from bigger weapons.
I'll laugh if that mage ends up breaking his/her hands on plate armor.
You sir are a cherry picker; a good debater, but a cherry picker nonetheless. You pick information that is favorable for your argument (which you do a lot of I might add) without really ever acknowledging the complete package of what has been said.
You give a vague scenario of a game, and your argument is that this is problematic for the balance of the game. How can I possibly work on a counterargument when your explanation is that the jack of all trades may be inferior to the build that specializes in 3/5 for a particular fight. I need to know what these stats do, what other abilities exist in the game. I only know of a single game that features a concept based system and the attributes affects the build a lot, Original Sin, but every skill you pick at the character creation explains in GREAT detail what effect attributes have on it. If you decide to not pick the right attribute then that's the obviously wrong decision without any need for debate. It's even highlighted with big numbers saying that "According to your x stat, the skill has y% chance of succeeding". Also attributes are useless for any other kind of interaction in the game.
For every other that comes to mind it just doesn't matter. You can go jack and still be effective. Not as effective as an optimized build, but that's true for any game, with classes or classless. If there is a classless game that if you go jack you can't beat the game on default without any indication that you did something wrong, then that's a bad implementation. But I sincerely can't think of such a game. If you can by all means make a reference.
I honestly don't understand how your example works. It assumes that the stats are the only thing that is important and work a certain way. To illustrate what I mean, let me simplify it even more. If a class has 2 stats and decides to focus on both of them, will it have problems against an equal power enemy that focuses on only one? The answer varies, it depends on what these stats are. If they are offense and defense, they may be equal. If they are offense melee and offense ranged then most likely the enemy will have an advantage especially if there is no way to avoid his damage through a certain gameplay feature. Will the jack be better at dealing with most common enemies than the specialized? Depends. If by specializing means that most enemies die very fast, then it can work better than a jack.
You say that in your example the jack deals better with most common scenarios. How so? What is the quality of the jack that makes him better again most scenarios? If I don't know the quality then I can't know why this same reason makes him weaker against a certain encounter.
Let's take examples of games with a classless system. In Shadows of Mordor a specialized character deals better with common enemies and an all around character deals better with bosses because enemies just die to overwhelming damage but bosses have immunities. So if you focus only in archery, then you won't be able to use it against a boss immune to archery and these are common.
Skyrim and Fallout are the same. A specialized sneak attacker with lighter armor and a high damage/low dps weapon melts common enemies like butter. But for the scripted fights where he can't use stealth, his specialization is useless. It would be better if he was all around and could switch to heavier armor and a higher dps weapon.
In Original Sin depends on the abilities you bring. There are a few clear cut abilities that deal with common enemies which don't work on bosses that well. High damage per turn and flooding the battlespace with summons works for every kind of encounter. Wasteland 2 high damage per turn is paramount. The real difference comes in form of armored vs unarmored enemies. It depends on the encounter. This is true for bosses and common enemies and it's the closest one to your example.
The connection between all these games is that basic attributes and choices you make at character creation, while can affect the experience, are obviously secondary to the skills and gear that your characters acquire during the gameplay. The only way to know how to best specialize is by playing the game and taking note of what works and what doesn't. Sneak may have it's shortcomings in Skyrim, but if you identify them (like for example dealing with dragons), and level archery then you can deal with it. In original sin, having a party that sacrifices durability for raw damage per turn has obvious weakness against encounters where the combined damage isn't enough to deal with the enemies before they come close. Go to the vendor and get some summoning spells. Voila.
I'm not making excuses to avoid talking about your example. I need clarity. That's why I make references to games that already have these particular features. Cause I can use their numbers and features as a platform to base my argument.
Do you know any game that works the way you describe? Cause I don't. And even if we accept this example as valid, then what is the problem of having some builds being stronger than others. This is true for EVERY POSSIBLE GAME in existence. Hell people did whatever builds in DAO for roleplaying purposes that weren't capable of even beating normal and it's supposed to have some semblance of structure. A guy made a rogue that wielded a shield. That's it. Ask those people what would they prefer, a structured system or a completely free one to do whatever they like? After all Dragon Age games were never balanced. I don't think that they will start being balanced now just because the devs said so.
I said fallout is the example that is more relevant because you focused on Skyrim. Skyrim doesn't feature anything that you described in your example. I also explained why I think that the oversimplified system you presented doesn't have to be so because a lot of games that feature classless systems move away from stats and attributes other than the very basic ones like health and action resources or keep them only for roleplaying purposes, disconnected from the actual combat
I feel this goes in circles. Bottom line, if you can give me an instance where your example is valid, either with made up numbers of using another game as an example, I'm more than happy to discuss it. But I can't discuss it if the only mechanics presents are some vague stats and the player can choose to be jack or specialized. It just doesn't work that why. This is your assumption, that an all around build works well in most situations. This is false and every example I brought up reinforces this. If this is cherry picking then so be it but honestly, I don't know many more classless systems that were released these past few years and most other games with the concept either use alternate mechanics (fps for example, deus ex/farcry) or use a modified d20 system. Only Jade Empire has a classless system and still doesn't work the way your example does.
That would be a significant further step. I wouldn't object to that, but it doesn't appear to be a popular suggestion.At that point, you may as well go classless. Have Fallout-style traits that are only available at character creation, and simply have "mage" or "magical potential" be one of them. You could easily work it so that only someone who has the trait can access the spell trees.
It doesn't need another class, it needs more diversity between the existing ones. More archetypes, or specializations if you prefer.
According to one of the previous videos (E3/Pax Demo) Rogues do have access to an ability where they throw a knife.
Personally, I always find the idea of throwing knives to be silly. There is no guarantee that the knife will actually hit pointy-end first, and even if it does it does not have enough force to puncture armor. The best application of a throwing knife would be against someone completely unarmored so that at least they could go "OW! That hurt!" when they get hit by the hilt. Of course the downside is that said person would then be able to pick up the knife and use it against you, but that's what you get for being silly enough to toss a knife.
Shurikens are even more laughable as they're not even deadly unless you get a lucky shot into a person's eye. On the plus side they don't have a hilt so at least you'll be able to inflict some sort of cut on the poor sod that is unfortunate enough to not be wearing armor.
Flails are notoriously hard to animate correctly.
I sincerely hope that the fencer is holding some sort of shield in order to actually block any attacks from bigger weapons.
I'll laugh if that mage ends up breaking his/her hands on plate armor.
This is a fantasy game, with magic, demons, spirits, dragons & dwarves. I would't get too carried away with why something in particular would be foolhardy or unrealistic.
Flails ... just a spiked ball on a chain. Yes considerably harder to animate than a rigid blade but it's hardly a massive technical challenge in this day and age.
The whole point of a fencer is to have one hand free for balance. If you attacked a fencer with a heavy blow from a large weapon then they would simply dodge the attack using their finesse and superior footwork. That would leave the aggressor wide open for a counter-attack.
My idea was that the mage had his fists and feet shrouded in a telekinetic energy ... again, don't want to pour into realism too much as this isn't really the sort of setting we're in. The main challenge is keeping any new classes within the lore of the game.
Retour en haut
