|
Class redundancy?
Posted: 29 Feb 2004 07:32 AM |
Hello all,
I'm posting this for a very particular reason. As most of you know a pixie and a panther familiar have rogue levels and hence can disarm traps and open locks.
Yesterday I got a tell (name withheld to protect the innocent ) in which was stated that a certain room in a certain place had been looted and if I had done that. Being OOC I told yes, meaning that the player's character doesn't know even if the player does. Then came the statement that pixies should be modified so that they no longer can pick locks or remove traps because that makes the use of a rogue no longer necessary.
I disagree with that however. A rogue when in a party is always around, the familiar has to be summoned. In another thread the severe penalties for losing a familiar were discussed (xp loss, hp loss), so every wizard and sorceror knows that running constantly around with your familiar is to invite doom. So at most I use my familiar to unlock one door and disarm one or two traps. Then she's unsummoned again. If we happen to come upon a new locked door, which I can't open myself, or a trapped chest then that's bad luck. Rogues aren't always around and my character hardly trusts them anyway.
So yes a high level wizard will have a high level familiar which can open locks, but he had to get there in the first place. And by no means is this an all time solution. My familiar gets summoned for 30secs maximum when everything in the area is safe, while rogues can simply do their thing for as long as they please. Furthermore if you want to scout an area safely, get a rogue or ranger. I will not fly around with X' familiar to see what a new area is about.
Your gripes, comments? |
Luther McIath: I see, so [X is] the right person in the wrong place with the wrong people at the wrong time.
[Fictrix] ... And can speak French, like both! Wait, I mean Elven. |
|
  |
|
|
Re: Class redundancy?
Posted: 29 Feb 2004 07:57 AM |
well I believe that if Knock and Disarm spells were modified so rouges will have some kinda importence.. I think the familiers should be modified as well.
if we allready started - why stopping in the middle?
and btw, I never knew panther can disarm/unlock .. I know they can sneak attack, but unlock/disarm as well ? doesnt seem to logical to me..
but I have a question -
that familier of yours, that pixie.
does she has a name? does she has her own history?
when I think about familiers I think about someone that keep going along the side of your char.
if someone can 'allow' himself to go with his summoned elemental at his side (which is not 'close' to him by any mean) - how come he doesnt go around with his familier/companion?
if you have a dog - will you leave him at home when you come back once a week? once every two weeks? I believe you would go around with him.
(dont mention Tom and Brandi here - cuz I cant move Brandi, even tho it was fun if I could *to the builders/scripters* - could be nice to have pets around)
but seriously - if someone goes around with his elemental/dire wolf/ dire bear/ badger/etc why shouldnt he go with his familier? would seem more logical that he will go around and talk to his familier than go around and shut up. the only reason I can find .. and I am not pointing any fingers - is that the wizard will lose xp and hp.. I find that rather ooc reason.
again not blaming anyone - but maybe there's a way to solve this?
I dont think that certain familiers should be around all the time.. and that some others will only be around when the wizard need to open a lock.. sry but I find it as an abuse of the game mechanics.
only throwing ideas and my opinion so we can have some brain storming ;)
Dens |
You are more than welcome to ignore my spelling mistakes =p |
|
|
|
|
Re: Class redundancy?
Posted: 29 Feb 2004 08:41 AM |
Ok let me throw another question at you then:
Will clerics be modified so that they will no longer be better fighters than pure fighters? A buffed up cleric makes having a fighter around often pretty pointless. With a wizard backing them up even more, they are a force to reckon with. Will clerics be stripped of their spells because they can do that?
About the panther: I think it can only disarm traps, but that's also valid for animal companions of rangers (druids as well? I have no clue if they can get a panther). So that was an oversight. My apologies. It cannot open locks.
About the familiar: yes she does have a name and I actually have been roleplaying her and with her (even to the point where I was alone and was typing back and forth between my familiar and myself; and yes I had fun). She's a little pest though and only makes fun of X, so he doesn't call upon her all that much. Mostly it's giggling at him, but well you get the point.
I consider my familiar on a small pocket demi-plane where she is, until I summon her.
Why not run around in dangerous areas with the familiar out? Because it is just that: dangerous. Would you willingly put your best friend, a soul mate, in the line of fire? Or would you summon forth some force of magic (elemental, or what not) to do that in its stead? To me it rather seems obvious you'd choose for the latter and not the familiar. And when you go exploring and battling thing, I really don't have the time to type things for my familiar as I am too busy directing the elementals or casting spells myself. Combat is not the best way to spend time with your familiar.
And then of course there is the backlash. I'm not even talking about the xp, but the hp loss is pretty much an IC thing. A sudden decrease of your lifepoints seems a pretty important thing to consider IMHO. Saying, oh well it's only hitpoints is totally OOC. You have a living link with your familiar, apparently even stronger than a ranger with his companion, as those don't suffer the same penalties as wizards. I'm not asking for a change, I'm merely saying that this is an IC consequence.
Just my 2 cents ;) |
Luther McIath: I see, so [X is] the right person in the wrong place with the wrong people at the wrong time.
[Fictrix] ... And can speak French, like both! Wait, I mean Elven. |
|
|
|
|
Re: Class redundancy?
Posted: 29 Feb 2004 08:55 AM |
As Builders, the problem we have with NWN is as follows:
It is primarily designed as a One Player campaign, and not really as a multiplayer experience. This means that there -is- crossover between classes, because without which people couldn't complete the single player as their favourite class.
The last thing we want to be doing is concentrating on removing this/altering that/nerfing such and such...... it'll take ages and lead to complaints. Besides which I don't really enjoy NWN for it's game mechanics but rather the people you can RP with in game :)
Rogues might complain that mages can pick locks, mages might complain that rogues can cast from spell scrolls, clerics and mages might complain about people finding items with spells on them, fighters might complain about clerics or a Sorceror's summons etc etc etc....
This also crosses over into another thread... being the Immunity item one. We are careful when it comes to things such as Huge Damage reduction/resist items, and others that unbalance gameplay immediately (such as perma-haste).
There will always be this crossover, no matter what we do..... For me personally, I don't really care much about it, I prefer focusing on the Roleplay.
Enough waffle..... hope you "catch my drift" ;)
- Ara |
Vives Screenshots!
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Class redundancy?
Posted: 29 Feb 2004 09:04 AM |
| Caught it and keeping it ;) |
Luther McIath: I see, so [X is] the right person in the wrong place with the wrong people at the wrong time.
[Fictrix] ... And can speak French, like both! Wait, I mean Elven. |
|
|
|
|
Re: Class redundancy?
Posted: 29 Feb 2004 09:57 AM |
Not sure if this is still the case, but Rogues have always been the fastest progressing skill class (especially if they still get XP per coinage - not really updated fully with 3rd Ed).
Also, Mages have to be a little bit strategic. Do they pick this spell or that. Especially wizards. So it is a little far fetched to say that a Knock spell makes a Rogue redundant. If that is the only skill you believe they have then your playing the wrong Class. A rogue can do this -all- the time, as many times as they like. A Mage has to choose and once they have cast their spells that is pretty much it for them.
Everyone has their strengths and weaknesses. Fighters can fight very well and indefinately. All other classes have other abilities which once exhausted have to resort to their limited fighting abilities. The limit varies.
Personally, I think that the limit on the Knock spell (which I am not entirely sure how that works) is rather saddening. A mage that is just there for the purposes of blowing things up is a tad boring and does not really make for good RPing.
Just my 2pence. |
Never argue with an idiot.
They drag you down to their level
and then beat you with experience.
Akril
Quinellieth. 20th Circle of the Order of the Ring |
|
|
|
|
Re: Class redundancy?
Posted: 29 Feb 2004 10:48 AM |
well I agree that you dont want your soulmate in the line of fire..
and if you got a good IC reason - then I understand.. but most ppl never summon their familiers.
not when it is dangerous nor when it is safe..
and if you do have a soulmate.. wont you want to spend at least some times with him while you are with friends? or will you just call him to open the door when it's lock is stuck? ;)
and aye, I completely agree with Ara - it takes time to change things..
but I think that if something might be pretty serious it should be changed..
I rather disagree about the immunity items.. because you can just change them.. making them 1 use a day or so..
Dens |
You are more than welcome to ignore my spelling mistakes =p |
|
|
|
|
Re: Class redundancy?
Posted: 29 Feb 2004 10:52 AM |
Well, I had not realized that the Knock spell had been neutered since I haven't tried it. I know when I played AD&D CRPG long ago, SP with a party of four, I always had a rogue as well as a mage. The mage used a Knock spell if the rogue failed. If that failed, the fighter tried to bash the thing. The cleric cast bless and then waded into battle one rank behind the fighter. After the battle he healed everyone. The mage and the rogue stayed in the rear, the rogue shooting a bow. The mage almost always went down first. During rest, the fighter was the one who defended if the party was attacked. The team worked well together and all classes were present.
In NWN, as Arathon said, a single player can do it all with no companions by design of Bioware. It seems sometimes that's almost the only way everyone plays, because of that. As a result, I hardly if ever see clerics blessing their party even though this is one spell they can throw on an entire party that benefits everyone. Instead, they buff and either run into melee in the front ranks or start casting like mages. Which they do depends on whether they've developed melee or magic higher. Maybe the biggest problem is that these so-called parties we are forming are usually just gangs of single-players? With no long-term benefits to true co-operation with complete strangers, so why waste the effort? A depressing thought, but perhaps true. |
Dieties preserve us from the evil chaotics named Lag, Crash, and Server Reset.
PCs: Loli Dankirk (Ftr 18/Brd 8.5 @ 1777 hrs) left Vives for Origins; Gnora Gnombody (Sor 5 @ 54 hrs) and Amanda Stark (Wiz 3 @ ~10 hrs) left Vives for Feline Providence. |
|
|
|
|
Re: Class redundancy?
Posted: 29 Feb 2004 11:48 AM |
well I agree that you dont want your soulmate in the line of fire..
and if you got a good IC reason - then I understand.. but most ppl never summon their familiers.
not when it is dangerous nor when it is safe..
and if you do have a soulmate.. wont you want to spend at least some times with him while you are with friends? or will you just call him to open the door when it's lock is stuck? ;)
*SNIP*
Well like I said I have summoned my familiar in safe surroundings, even to the point to roleplay with it (only the familiar and me). You have no idea how insane it is to actually talk to your own self :P
Of course from a rp point of view they are two different characters, it's just silly that you type everything in for the two. ;)
So once again: yes I have been and will be using Kyria for roleplaying purposes. Even the things I summon have their roleplay value, well except for a fire elemental who can't say much more than *woosh* or any elemental for that kind, but the hound archon is an excellent tool for roleplay. As was Phibrizzo's succubus for instance.
And by the way, when a lock is stuck I usually do it myself (yup got open lock and even got an IC reason for it, so it was not to get xp fast; it's somewhere in my posts; in short: he got interested in mechanical devices thanks to Shaz'jen and open lock is the closest to that, together with thinkering). ;) |
Luther McIath: I see, so [X is] the right person in the wrong place with the wrong people at the wrong time.
[Fictrix] ... And can speak French, like both! Wait, I mean Elven. |
|
|
|
|
Re: Class redundancy?
Posted: 29 Feb 2004 12:04 PM |
| I testify, PD has role-played Kyria. She served drinks to Loli and other guests, and then flew into the bookcase and tipped books out. In a fit of jealous mischief perhaps? Or maybe I remember that part wrong. And yes, you leave your companion where it is safe, if you care about it. I had a dog I truly loved. I did not take him into danger he could not handle. Also, I have killed animals that never hurt me. I ate them afterwards, and their skins are in my closet. |
Dieties preserve us from the evil chaotics named Lag, Crash, and Server Reset.
PCs: Loli Dankirk (Ftr 18/Brd 8.5 @ 1777 hrs) left Vives for Origins; Gnora Gnombody (Sor 5 @ 54 hrs) and Amanda Stark (Wiz 3 @ ~10 hrs) left Vives for Feline Providence. |
|
|
|
|
Re: Class redundancy?
Posted: 29 Feb 2004 12:54 PM |
My thanks slink.
And I do stand by that same statement. If something is so precious to you that it is part of your soul (that's a what a familiar is IMHO) then you don't tell her to go fight giants or demons. So aye, I use her to get past traps and locks, but that is not the sole purpose. :)
Will rogues get replaced by pixies or panthers? No, they will not. Am I complaining that rogues can use all magical items a mage can and even more plus scrolls etc? No I am not. If a pixie is going to be adjusted, then please start adjusting all other classes as well. |
Luther McIath: I see, so [X is] the right person in the wrong place with the wrong people at the wrong time.
[Fictrix] ... And can speak French, like both! Wait, I mean Elven. |
|
|
|
|
Re: Class redundancy?
Posted: 29 Feb 2004 02:13 PM |
| just wondering where people got the idea that mages couldnt open locks or at least shouldnt. |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Class redundancy?
Posted: 29 Feb 2004 04:48 PM |
| I don't know, yesterday it was the first time I used Silma -sweeet fey familiar- for a purpose... |
Frodo : What are we holding on to, Sam?
Sam : That there’s some good in this world, Mr. Frodo. And it’s worth fighting for.
-The Two Towers |
|
|
|
|
Re: Class redundancy?
Posted: 29 Feb 2004 08:09 PM |
Panthers cannot open locks. They cannot disarm. They don't even hide. They get sneak attack.
My personal opinion is that the pixie familar should be left alone. The Mage should be able to use his familiar wisely, after securing an area. Then again, I am suprised and unhappy to hear that knock and disarm don't work...I don't understand that, since there is *a lot* more to a rogue than opening locks and disarming traps, I cannot see how they are threatened to be made redundant.
Also, I don't think a pixie familiar is ever going to be as good at opening locks and disarming traps as a PC rogue.
Sometimes I think its best to just leave things alone. If you follow some of the logic used in "balancing classes" it seems you might reach things like..."well, the pixie shouldn't be able to hide and scout, because that removes the importance of rangers" and "the wolf shouldn't knockdown, because that reduces the role of monks." I mean, if a mage can get to the area where the trapped chest is, then she deserves to be able to open it...
Too many modifications in the name of "balancing" often just, well, unbalance in another way.
The pixie should be just left alone...I see zero chance of rogues becoming redundant.
-Narenia |
-Narenia
Main PC: Dina Islme |
|
|
|
|
Re: Class redundancy?
Posted: 01 Mar 2004 06:59 AM |
I was not pointing fingers at you Dias -
I was just saying that there are ppl that use their familiers -only- when they need their skills..
and I agree Narenia - too many balancing will cause unbalance..
but I am just trying to throw ideas here -
because I think maybe there are things that should be changed.. not sure which - but this is why we got a disscussion ;)
Dens |
You are more than welcome to ignore my spelling mistakes =p |
|
|
|
|
Re: Class redundancy?
Posted: 01 Mar 2004 09:32 AM |
And neither did I think that Dens
Yes the forums are exactly here to discuss things in a civil matter. And that is why I wrote the post in the first place, to hear your ideas, pros and contras. I didn't start it so I could flame ;)
But it is as Narenia says and I've seen this in pnp D&D. I used to read the ENWorld forums and the WotC ones where the same was discussed but for the pen and paper version. If you're rewriting too many things for a certain class, other things will get unbalanced. Don't fix until it's broken, right?
Of course NWN is a far stretch from pen and paper and as was previously stated it was made so that one could play on his own (with or without the help from henchmen). |
Luther McIath: I see, so [X is] the right person in the wrong place with the wrong people at the wrong time.
[Fictrix] ... And can speak French, like both! Wait, I mean Elven. |
|
|
|
|
Re: Class redundancy?
Posted: 01 Mar 2004 01:13 PM |
As I see it. Wizards in Vives because of a lack of plentiful magic items are already way more powerful then fighter and rogue types. Having a familiar that has rogue levels isn't really fair at all.
Its like a fighter getting a familiar that casts heal spells. Or a rogue that has a companion that buffs him. IMO pixie familiars really shouldn't be. If wizard henchman weren't able to picklocks I really can't see how it would unbalance the wizard class. If anything, it would make them more balanced. |
I do what the voices in my head tell me too. |
|
|
|
|
Re: Class redundancy?
Posted: 01 Mar 2004 02:33 PM |
If wizard henchman weren't able to picklocks I really can't see how it would unbalance the wizard class. If anything, it would make them more balanced.
Fine suggestion. But where does it stop? Before suggesting changes, look at all the classes and figure out where they are unablanced and change that as well.
Hmmm, a rangers companion can do a sneak attack. get rid of that because it cheapens the value of a thief.
Hmmm, monks get spell resistance. get rid of that because it cheapens the value of a mage
Hmmm, mages and clerics can summon fighting companions. get rid of that because it cheapens the value of a fighter.
The problem is, at what point do you draw the line? Are things really that unbalanced? Does it really matter that much?
Personally, I find the balance more than acceptable. The 3e rules are the best overall rules yet, and NWN's modifications are not overwhelmingly unbalancing.
- Paul |
Purpose in life: finding better ways of allowing players to kill themselves. Repeatedly.
--
"...Cause he mixes it with love
And makes the world taste good."
--
<@James42> Lawful good isn't in your vocabulary, it's on your menu.
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Class redundancy?
Posted: 01 Mar 2004 03:19 PM |
Rogues, eeh, level quickly?
*falls over laughing*
But then, maybe I'm just not playing them 'right'. After all, my rogue has, at level 20, the grand total of...wait for it...67 HP. And the only reason he ever got to that level is because he's a CPC and therefore needs some level of survival-bility so he can run...err, I mean, walk gracefully...across the world to raise your arse ;)
But yes, I can agree that sometimes it can feel pretty useless to be a rogue. But I think that falls into the same category as feeling useless to be a level 5 around a group of level 18-20's. Rogue's will always be useful. If not for the sneak attack, it's for their massive skill pool; if not that, it's the Improved Evasion saving against an Empowered Fireball and HiPS that raises your...arse. :D |
- Who needs Epic Levels when you have Epic Eyebrows? |
|
|
|
|
Re: Class redundancy?
Posted: 01 Mar 2004 03:26 PM |
For better or worse, 3E DnD abolished the concept of class.
PC's are not ~classes~, PC's are ~characters~.
I have played with an amazing RP'er on another world who played a pure wizard, who spent all his time in a loincloth challenging people to bareknuckle boxing.
Seen a gnomish barbarian who communed with spirit animals and told fascinating fables.
Kayel's a Fighting Dunbrook, and a member of the Brandibuck Irregular Militia.
One of the most well-developed PC's I've ever seen was a LE halfling monk who's vows mandated that he beg for all his gold, who intimidated/beat the other beggars until they became the most feared and respected "Mendicant's Guild" around. He spent 90% of his time either talking, or else actually standing on a corner in a major town begging from other PC's as they came by.
I've seen bards who were businessmen, bards who were bartenders, even a bard who used Photoshop to make ingame screenshots look like handpainted portraits, who made it all the way to lvl 6 on a very "treadmilled" server with NO FIGHTING at all.
Not a single skill in the list is forbidden to a PC, provided they have the attributes/class-mix. And not a single ACTION is forbidden to a PC ingame, provided they are well played by a clever player with a decent IC reason to do it.
Why can't a fighter sneak into a dragon's lair? Why can't a neophyte priest pick the lock on the "Forbidden Reading Room"? Why can't a rogue summon, and consort with, a demon?
Just because person A can perform an action, why does it follow that person B is made less of a "viable" PC by that action? What's a "viable" PC anyhow?
-- Figleaf |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Class redundancy?
Posted: 01 Mar 2004 06:01 PM |
you want to balance things out, then go by the book. a pixy isnt exactly a regular familair option, i realy cant see a dm allowing that in there. while thats changed how about the fact that a halfing can wear fullplate and run with no movement speed adjustments. how about most of the wizard spells require range attacks to hit, making casters alot less effective. fighters are made a lot less effective because the plate slows them down, along with the time it takes to put it on.
why not just leave it alone or at least make like it was suppose to be in the first place. this is all based on d&d and the more that is changed from d&d, everything falls into unbalance. |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Class redundancy?
Posted: 02 Mar 2004 02:20 AM |
this is all based on d&d and the more that is changed from d&d, everything falls into unbalance.
I really remember getting XP for spellcasting in 3E... oh, and my character had to have fire opal to make a flameburst longsword!
Vives isn't DnD. Much as I hate to admit it. It's based on DnD, but, in the end, a lot's been changed from DnD.
-Barnas |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Class redundancy?
Posted: 02 Mar 2004 04:02 AM |
Indeed, you want things to more closely resemble pen and paper D&D? Then use the HCR (Hard Core Rules), where summonings last 1 round per level (in other words: in NWN you summon something and before it can do anything it disappears), where you need to get rations and water for each day, where for the first 7 months of play you can take on a badger, perhaps the dire variety and that's it.
I've been on such a world. Thank you, but I'll pass this time. Yes it's not just the pixie. Take those summoned critters (which both arcane and divine magic users can summon). Well look here, I have my own portable warrior with me! Why would I need a fighter at all? A hound archon is a tough opponent, I ran around with one for ages. Did I stop wandering around with fighters? Not really. I usually try to send the summoned creature first, so it takes the brunt of the enemy's attack and then other fighters can wade it to help or finish it off. It's called tactics.
Take other spells for example: Mage armour in NWN consists of 4 AC benefits (armour, deflection, natural and dodge). In pnp it's armour and doesn't stack with existing things such as bracers, etc.
Gate: in NWN it summons a balor. In pnp you have the choice between using the gate to go somewhere or to summon a critter (and not necessarily an evil fiend).
My point: like Barnas said, NWN is based on pnp but that's as far as it goes.
IMHO a pixie is about as unbalancing as an elder elemental. Get rid of one, then get rid of the other. |
Luther McIath: I see, so [X is] the right person in the wrong place with the wrong people at the wrong time.
[Fictrix] ... And can speak French, like both! Wait, I mean Elven. |
|
|
|
|
Re: Class redundancy?
Posted: 02 Mar 2004 04:45 AM |
*saves rant on gate*
Though perhaps a kind builder might put in a Solar option for Gate so that good clerics don't just summon evil things...
-Barnas |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Class redundancy?
Posted: 02 Mar 2004 06:00 AM |
Well. I'm pretty much in favour of classes being dependent on other classes to a point. With immunity items extemely rare and not a whole heck of alot of nice items availible for fighters and monks, they are pretty dependent on casters for buffs/protections.
Casters are pretty independent though still. A caster with a buffed up summons has little in the way of a weakness.
The knock spell was disabled for mages to make them more dependent on rogues. A logical step is removing pets that can disable traps and open locks. I'd also personally like to see summons lasting rounds or even a turn per caster level not hours.
P.S. One of those books that lets casters choose their summons would be pretty neat. :P |
I do what the voices in my head tell me too. |
|
|
|