Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Playable Character Races and Classes

Delterius

Arcane
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
15,956
Location
Entre a serra e o mar.
But this question goes beyond the arcane spellcasters, as the absence of memorization affects all magic users. The only parties that wouldn't be affected by this change would those limited to rogues, fighters and barbarians.

I understand that Chaos Chronicles will not use spell memorization and grant spontaneous casting to any class that can use magic, what I am advocating is the use of the sorcerer instead of the wizard as it already has spontaneous spellcasting (as a matter of fact that was the character class that introduced said concept to D&D). As for divine spellcaster, there is already an OGL variant for spontaneous casting, I see no need to re-invent the wheel.
Fact is that neither the Sorceror nor the Wizard were implemented. Rather a hybrid, just as the other spellcasters are hybrids of themselves with their respective spontaneous versions. And I think that changes things for the devs when it comes to game design.
 

mangamuscle

Literate
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
16
Fact is that neither the Sorceror nor the Wizard were implemented. Rather a hybrid, just as the other spellcasters are hybrids of themselves with their respective spontaneous versions. And I think that changes things for the devs when it comes to game design.

That is what worries me, in recent history every time game developers try to reinvent the d&d rules the end results is that it causes more troubles than those that it supposedly fixes (or the improvements are not so). The rules have been extensively play-tested and going with untested variants is can of worms they should not open; game reviewers have a field day listing such inadequacies and WCS is that CC ends DOA like Dungeons & Dragons: Daggerdale
 

Delterius

Arcane
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
15,956
Location
Entre a serra e o mar.
Now that's a entirely different discussion and I'll rather not enter it. What matters is wether the differences range from big to small. And here they are small - once the framework of TB combat was picked, whatever Coreplay has done so far isn't much worse than whatever homebrewying friends do every weekend.
 

Koschey

Arcane
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
615
Location
Germany
Rogue is pretty viable without multiclassing (and you control a party anyway, so one class does not have to be all awesome all the time) unless you are knee deep in undead / constructs.

Rogue is widely accepted as the weakest class bar none in 3.5.

Commoner?
:troll:

But seriously, that's the first time I hear this. Monk and Samurai (Complete Warrior) have a far worse reputation in my experience. Although amongst the implemented classes Rogue and Fighter would probably share the spot. Then again, the cause for the gulf between stuff like Fighter on one hand and Wizard on the other in general doesn't translate into videogames, because the Wizard's flexibility is somewhat handicapped and raw combat prowess is a little more important.
 

Grunker

RPG Codex Ghost
Patron
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
27,398
Location
Copenhagen
Rogue is pretty viable without multiclassing (and you control a party anyway, so one class does not have to be all awesome all the time) unless you are knee deep in undead / constructs.

Rogue is widely accepted as the weakest class bar none in 3.5.

Commoner?
:troll:

But seriously, that's the first time I hear this. Monk and Samurai (Complete Warrior) have a far worse reputation in my experience. Although amongst the implemented classes Rogue and Fighter would probably share the spot. Then again, the cause for the gulf between stuff like Fighter on one hand and Wizard on the other in general doesn't translate into videogames, because the Wizard's flexibility is somewhat handicapped and raw combat prowess is a little more important.

I was only speaking of Core (Samurai is not Core).

Monk is one of the strongest dips/far dips in Core.
 

Koschey

Arcane
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
615
Location
Germany
Rogue is widely accepted as the weakest class bar none in 3.5.

Commoner?
:troll:

But seriously, that's the first time I hear this. Monk and Samurai (Complete Warrior) have a far worse reputation in my experience. Although amongst the implemented classes Rogue and Fighter would probably share the spot. Then again, the cause for the gulf between stuff like Fighter on one hand and Wizard on the other in general doesn't translate into videogames, because the Wizard's flexibility is somewhat handicapped and raw combat prowess is a little more important.

I was only speaking of Core (Samurai is not Core).

Monk is one of the strongest dips/far dips in Core.

Sure, but the context here was no multiclassing. And without multiclassing the monk is pretty lackluster because he is both unfocused and not very customizable. The class features are basically either from a random grab bag or at odds with each other. The Rogue has a good skill list, many skill points and situational explosive damage. But even with dips, it's mostly because other classes can make better use of monk class features than the monk. Not exactly the hallmark of a strong class.
 

mangamuscle

Literate
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
16
Now that's a entirely different discussion and I'll rather not enter it. What matters is wether the differences range from big to small. And here they are small - once the framework of TB combat was picked, whatever Coreplay has done so far isn't much worse than whatever homebrewying friends do every weekend.

Yeah, but people do not play homebrew D&D over the weekend for profit, that makes a whole world of difference. Lets face it, ATM people aren't in for CC because of the plot (which has been a selling point of some established franchises) nor because of the ground breaking graphics, people are here because they expect it to be balanced fun; if the wizard at release date is overpowered EVERY review is going to talk about that, no ands ifs or buts.
 

Delterius

Arcane
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
15,956
Location
Entre a serra e o mar.
First of all, this is a party based game. Balance isn't about class equality. Even if this is a combat-focused game, different classes should serve different purposes within combat. This means that, individually, there will be classes that are more powerful than others. That pretty much unavoidable. But as a group, lack of variety should limit the fun, not because the group's raw power is lesser, rather because the potential array of tactics is more limited.

Really, people don't actually care if one class/combination is overpowered. If anything, being overpowered in the IE games was a pre-requisite for the elaborate mage duels people love so much in BG2.


Another thing entirely is: are spellcasters more powerful or more versatile? The latter may lead to the former, certainly, but my experience with more recent D&D adaptations is that, given the game is limited to combat, much of the spellbook is actually redundant. Sorcerers are the better casters specifically because a combat caster is what you can be. Given this single role, you'll want tactical (short-term) versatility, given that a more bountiful spellbook isn't such a blessing.
 

mangamuscle

Literate
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
16
Delterius In game years AD&D, Baldur's Gate and the Infinity Engine are ancient, you can't gauge how good is a modern game by comparing them to ancient games, people have come to expect better (otherwise people would still yearn for the conclusion of Swordquest).

Also, take a look at the sorcerer/wizard spell list in NWN plus the spells added by the PRC (click on the left where is says spells) and tell me again that "a more bountiful spellbook isn't such a blessing. "
 

Delterius

Arcane
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
15,956
Location
Entre a serra e o mar.
As I said earlier in this thread, what knowledge I have of 3rd ed comes from NwN. As such I remain unconvinced that troves of those spells aren't redundant.
 

mangamuscle

Literate
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
16
Nor I will try to convince you that the complete spell list is worthwhile, you are simply part of a minority (I mean, there are people that vote libertarian).
 

GarfunkeL

Racism Expert
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
15,463
Location
Insert clever insult here
people are here because they expect it to be balanced fun; if the wizard at release date is overpowered EVERY review is going to talk about that, no ands ifs or buts.
balanced fun

Burn the retarded newfag before more of his ilk climbs up from the cesspool of Bioware Social. And stop speaking as if you're the Chosen One who speaks for all CRPG-fans, moron. Because you're not.

I don't want balance in my SP game. Balance is for competitive MP games.
 

CappenVarra

phase-based phantasmist
Patron
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
2,912
Location
Ardamai
Spontaneous spellcasting for all classes worked well enough in KoTC, so I don't see why it should cause issues in CC. Changing class mechanics to fit your computer implementation is to be expected. Now to see if they'll be as good at it as Pierre was (on a smaller scale, only having 3 classes surely helped)...
 
Self-Ejected

HobGoblin42

Self-Ejected
Patron
Developer
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
2,417
Location
Munich
Codex 2013 Codex USB, 2014
people are here because they expect it to be balanced fun; if the wizard at release date is overpowered EVERY review is going to talk about that, no ands ifs or buts.
balanced fun

Burn the retarded newfag before more of his ilk climbs up from the cesspool of Bioware Social. [..]
I don't want balance in my SP game. Balance is for competitive MP games.

mangamuscle Welcome to the Codex, and please don't feel insulted by people like Garfunkel, that's a common reaction if you hit some crucial point.

But beside his warm greetings towards you, Garfunkel is right: we don't balance the classes in Chaos Chronicles to make them equal powerful. This game is meant to played with a complete party (like Pool of Radiance and other classic cRPGs).
 

Rpguy

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
1,168
Pathfinder: Wrath
Classes need to be balanced enough. Not perfectly balanced. Now enough is subjective but I don't think finger of death as a cantrip qualifies...

IMHO the classes in 3.5 are balanced enough to make interesting party combination choices.
 

Fenris 2.0

Augur
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
183
Location
Franconia
Lets say in NWN you know there are a buch of trolls around the corner - maybe you could see them from afar, maybe you scouted with a rogue or you stumbled into them and had to reload - and your Mage only memorized only Haste and Lightning Bolt as 3rd Level Spellls, what do you do ? You retreat a few steps, change your memorized Spells and rest - not much fun IMO. I don't see it as a great gamebreaker if you can use the Spells right away; AFAIK there is no resting in Dungeons in Chaos Chronicles and if the Game is balanced around this mechanics it might be far more challenging then the recent 3.5 Games.

On the other hand Casters are so much stronger than the mundane Characters in 3.5 that I don't think it matters that much if they can also cast spontaneous - a Monk fighting against a Druid would be a Joke with or without spontanous casting.
 

Zed

Codex Staff
Patron
Staff Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2002
Messages
17,068
Codex USB, 2014
Classes should be balanced to function. Everything should have something to bring to the table. You're playing a party of heroes, after all, and your enemies will mostly be met in encounters of 2 or more (I assume) often consist of different classes or representations.
But besides making sure Class A (B, C, D, etc.) has something unique and useful, I don't think balance really matter. In fact, it's rather fun to have one or two characters being ridiculously overpowered. Especially if you're a meta gamer playing the game for the x:nd/rd/th time.

Glorious fun: "My cleric sucks. But if I go for a Monk of Flaming Fisting, I can one-shot Thor the Icelancer if I have Gloves of Glorious Fisting equipped and the cleric buff Rapid Fisting. But this is only if I put 2/3 points into Fisting Carnage and 1/2 in Thy Anus Burneth, instead of 3/3 I Love the Smell of Fisting in the Morning."

Not so fun: "Everybody in my party fucking sucks ass and there's no way to make any of them stand out."
 
Self-Ejected

Excidium

P. banal
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
13,696
Location
Third World
Yes, give wizards finger of death as a cantrip

r00fles!!
Yes, because that's even remotely the same. But keep going reductio ad absurdum, the power of Sawyer compels you!
X-TREME reply to X-TREME post.

people are here because they expect it to be balanced fun; if the wizard at release date is overpowered EVERY review is going to talk about that, no ands ifs or buts.
balanced fun

Burn the retarded newfag before more of his ilk climbs up from the cesspool of Bioware Social. [..]
I don't want balance in my SP game. Balance is for competitive MP games.

mangamuscle Welcome to the Codex, and please don't feel insulted by people like Garfunkel, that's a common reaction if you hit some crucial point.

But beside his warm greetings towards you, Garfunkel is right: we don't balance the classes in Chaos Chronicles to make them equal powerful. This game is meant to played with a complete party (like Pool of Radiance and other classic cRPGs).
I don't think anybody means "balance" as in equal powerful. They mean that everyone should be able to excel at their function.

I believe what people worry about the Wizard is that not needing to memorize spells means they have free access to a variety of utility spells that duplicate the ability of others, like Knock. This is not a problem with Sorcerers because of their limited spell selection.
 

GarfunkeL

Racism Expert
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
15,463
Location
Insert clever insult here
Again, naysayers should go buy Knights of the Chalice and play it, to see how it can be pulled off.

I don't think anybody means "balance" as in equal powerful
Nuh-uh, that's exactly the common power-fantasy, existing even on Codex every now and then. People want their favorite class to be the most awesome class ever because pretty much every AAA-RPG in the last ten-fifteen years has conditioned them to think first of the HERO and only secondly about the party.

EDIT: I should probably add that any discussion of classes or their abilities in CC is meaningless without context of the game campaign itself. One can easily say that pure thieves are useless in D&D since Wizards have Knock and Priests have Find Traps and you can use Summoned minions to trigger those traps and Fighters can bend bars and bash chests - but that depends on the sort of levels and encounters the game throws at the player. Especially since resting will be limited, why waste spell slots/charges/levels/mana points/whatever for mundane tasks or risk losing the valuable contents of a chest when you can bring a lock-picking, trap disarming rogue along, who then can also pellet the enemy with arrows (especially magical ones) and backstab them in favorable conditions?
 

mangamuscle

Literate
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
16
EDIT: I should probably add that any discussion of classes or their abilities in CC is meaningless without context of the game campaign itself. One can easily say that pure thieves are useless in D&D since Wizards have Knock and Priests have Find Traps and you can use Summoned minions to trigger those traps and Fighters can bend bars and bash chests - but that depends on the sort of levels and encounters the game throws at the player. Especially since resting will be limited, why waste spell slots/charges/levels/mana points/whatever for mundane tasks or risk losing the valuable contents of a chest when you can bring a lock-picking, trap disarming rogue along, who then can also pellet the enemy with arrows (especially magical ones) and backstab them in favorable conditions?

As expected, you have it all wrong, the sensible question is "Why bring a thief when you can have instead someone really useful (i.e. a fighter) since the wizard/cleric in the party can do everything he can do". Same scenario in the Bard's Tale I, there was no logical reason whatsoever to bring a thief, it was beyond useless to the extent that in Bard's Tale III they made you bring a thief since only backstabbing could kill Tarjan.
 

GarfunkeL

Racism Expert
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
15,463
Location
Insert clever insult here
As expected, you're so entrenched in your viewpoint, ie your tunnel-vision is so extreme that you didn't even understand what I was writing. Oh, look, I can form passive-aggressive barbs as well! Hooray, awards for everyone, for we are mature adults who do not cuss at each other but engage in civil discussion! :roll:

And yes, pure thieves are useless in most Gold Box games as well, though not because the class itself is useless but because the developers did not build campaigns that would have required thieving abilities on a scale that would easily enough justify bringing one along. That's without cheesy tactics like six dual-classed Ranger/Mages in PoD and so on. Hey see, I can also name-drop classic games in a vain appeal for nerd credit!

However, as far as we know, resting will be limited in CC. Whether it will be as sparse in KotC remains to be seen but surely this team will not be so stupid as to repeat the mistake of NWN1/2 where you could literally rest nearly anywhere, anytime - so you are desperate to save all of your spell abilities for actual combat, just as I wrote. At least NWN2 got it right when it came to bashing, you lost an item from the chest, so it was always more beneficial to have Neeshka along to pick the locks.
 

Russell

Novice
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
2
How odd... no one complain about no multiclass support.

Honestly it would really the have at least a limited multiclassing support (like maximum 2 class per char), without multiclass the party composition and the fighting styles option are really limited.

Ther is no bard also, that mean that ther is no way to play a fighter/mage char type, and morover Im quite sure that 2 figthter levels to a poor rogue will no destroy the game balance :D
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom