Your class should mean something THROUGHOUT the game

Users who are viewing this thread

jrawlings

Recruit
When you start the game, you have four classes to chose from, and depending on your choice, you get different starting stats, skills, weapon proficiencies, and equipment (I think). But I imagine that if you look at the average player when they reach level 20 that they all look relatively the same regardless of starting class. Ok, so there is a difference depending on the style of combat you chose (melee vs. ranged, mounted vs. unmounted) but suffice it to say, I can make a hunter, squire or any other character look the same by level 20, or sooner. I think we should change that!

First, we could put skill limits based on class. So that a hunter is the only one who could advance past say skill 5 in pathfinding/spotting/tracking. A healer type would be the only one to advance past five in wound treatment, surgery, first aid.

Borrowing a bit from D&D, maybe priests should be restricted to blunt weapons? Hunters would forgo heavy armors (aka thieves) etc etc. Or maybe weapon proficiencies would have maximums based on class... Hunters would be the only ones that can get archery above 200 or something.

Maybe attribute points would also have maximums based on class!


Point is, I think it would add a lot of replay value to the game if each class choice had reprocussions (positive and negative) throughout the game!
 
I'm sorry to say this ... but I absolutely abhor this idea.

One of the greatest things (to me) about M&B is it's lack of restrictions.

The beginning classes are to demonstrate where you came from ... not where you are going.

To say that a Squire cannot learn to shoot a bow & arrow as well as a Hunter, regardless of how much practice he gets, is ludicrous.

Sorry for such a negative opinion,

Narcissus
 
I'd say no, the game works quite well as is. You can turn any character into any kind of soldier, but unlike other attempts at such a system, you can't be all kinds at once.
 
Besides, there is nothing stopping you from roleplaying your character how you want. You are a priest? Fine, focus specifically on staff weapons and don't get armour better than the basic robe. Hunter? Get a bow and horse and reak havok.
 
Maybe not such a.. deep impact would be best. I don't want this turning in to everquest, where priests can only use blunt weapons and rangers can only use 1 handed weapons.

Nuh uh, that doesn't fly by me. Weapon restrictions are a no-no, unless it's a strength requirement.

However, just starting equipment isn't enough in my opinion. Perhaps a Squire would advance in ranks quicker than a Hunter, and a priest would be recieve better bonuses in the healing skills (monks and nuns were the doctor-ish people back then, from what I can understand.)

Hunters would recieve higher bonuses in archery and horse archery, whereas a merchant would be a more charismatic person, and would therefore recieve higher bonuses from charisma-type skills.

Nothing like "Only Merchants can raise Charisma past level 15" or anything like that. Just better bonuses (instead of 1 person per 2 points in Charisma, it would be 2) for the classes.

It would still have SOME impact, but nothing as drastic as jrawling suggested.
 
I prefer freedom, no class restrictions, you may feel like every character is the same because you ALWAYS build the same character, which is not necessarily a bad thing because it means you have found your favourite fighter and he is probably a killing machine, congratulations to you! Imagine if you were lost without a hint of how to build a strong warrior.

Why don't you try building something different?

I started as a Merchant the other day and I'm only developing non-combat skills, I'm gonna become a caravan runner/escorter and I will sit back while my men fight and die, it's a whole new game when you are a crappy fighter like Marnid or Borcha.

The beginning classes are to demonstrate where you came from ... not where you are going.

To say that a Squire cannot learn to shoot a bow & arrow as well as a Hunter, regardless of how much practice he gets, is ludicrous.

This sums it up, it is up to the player to decide the future and you can do anything you want!
 
Orion said:

I completely agree with what you said (not the . I just didn't feel like quoting it all).

Extra bonusses at the start is good. Like in Morrowind, you can start as an archer, and you improv in certain classes faster, but you can still be a heavy knight. I D&D rules are needed as it is a table-top game. RPG, I say morroind is a great champion of RPGs, or great example.


Aslo, i have noticed that squires don't always start with more profiency in crossbow than bows, and they leanred to shoot both in real life.
 
Restriction in d&d games were made to balance the game (to counter tank mages), and since there's no magic in the game, what's the point ?
your character is what you make of it ...
 
Yep, lassez faire:wink: For example, imagine a knight who always fights in heavy armour, mounted with a lance... well.. and he's jumped at night, loses his gear, his horse and money and some nice priests take him in and give him shelter... well...since he's in a strange distant land, he starts to learn to fight with a staff and learn the art of healing and speechcraft... and perhaps will become a priest in some time...class restrictions are SO unrealistic:smile:)The thing that should matter throughout the game are your allegations to various groups, not your background.
 
the idea is fine with some tuning in my opinion.

hunter pay less than the other classes to increase hunter specific skills and talents, and squire pay less for pure combat oriented stuff etc.

you still have the freedom, but where you come from and what your natural talents are make it easier for you to become better at one thing than the other.

it's like that in real life aswell, anyone can become a carpenter but the math genius usually use longer time than the farm boy to master the craft.
 
Brewtality said:
hunter pay less than the other classes to increase hunter specific skills and talents, and squire pay less for pure combat oriented stuff etc.

you still have the freedom, but where you come from and what your natural talents are make it easier for you to become better at one thing than the other.
That's the system Rolemaster uses opposed to D&D. You can train to be a master swordsman as a mage it justs costs more and takes a bit more time. You can cast in plate mail it is just is darn hard to do and you might get your brain scrotched. :grin:
 
PrinceScamp said:
Extra bonusses at the start is good. Like in Morrowind, you can start as an archer, and you improv in certain classes faster, but you can still be a heavy knight. I D&D rules are needed as it is a table-top game. RPG, I say morroind is a great champion of RPGs, or great example.

I agree that maybe my suggestions may have been a bit radical. But taking Morrowind, for example (IMHO one of the greatest RPGs ever), it is true that you can do anything you want and play any way you want. However, when you chose your 5 primary and secondary skills, those advanced faster than your misc skills, INFLUENCING they way you played. After all, you couldn't level up until you advanced your primary/secondary skills. My point is to have a longer lasting real influence on your character besides the start of the game.

Some of the more subtle suggestions given above (like 2 troops per charisma) or even faster/slower advancement in weapon proficiencies seem very appealing and would add tremendous replay value to the game.

Here's a prime example: Diablo II. You may like it, love it or hate it. It was/is a hack 'n' slash game with a click till your finger fell off combat system. It had a paper thin plotline. Yet, it remains one of the most popular games. Why? You chose a class and each played out differently from the others from start to finish. Further, each class could be played out in many different ways (poison necro versus summoning necro etc).

I'd like to see M&B evolve in such a way that adds depth and replayability. As a primarily medieval combat sim, it behooves you to develop a combat competent character regardless of your class. True, you can technically play the game as a merchant delivering goods and escorting caravans, but then you miss out on the core part of the game. By giving the character classes lasting advantages/disadvantages throughout the game would only serve to improve overall gameplay and add replayability! (Back to Diablo, I've played it through with every character class at least 2x... that's a lot of playing for a very one dimensinoal game)
 
Thats my problem with the 'class' system that you like.

Imagine that you start with a hunter character ... and after a few weeks (in-game time) you have 100 in bow proficiency.

Now imagine that you start a squire character and use bows more than you did with the hunter character ... after a few weeks, this character also has 100 in bow proficiency.

Now what would make you think that a hunter would learn faster at shooting that bow than the squire? Just a little more practice than the hunter, and the squire has matched his ability (because the squire started with a lower skill because he lacked previous experience that the hunter had). Thats the way it is implemented in the game ... and I like it. None of the 'I am a hunter, so I can learn how to shoot bows accurately ... way faster than you' or 'I am a hunter, so I can learn a higher degree of skill than you can achieve'.

Skill is the reflection of ability. Class (in this game) is a reflection of what experience the character had before starting the game. The innate ability to become better at a skill, at a faster pace than others, because of previous experience, is absurd.

Imagine this: I have only driven a car on a few rare occassions and you have driven one on a daily basis ... hence you are a better driver. Yet if I practice driving that car ... I can soon become as good of a driver as you. The fact that you have driven a car over a longer period of time doesn't give you an advantage to learn to drive better. A year after I start driving that car and have become as good at driving as you are ... we are then asked to learn special driving techniques such as power-sliding and such. What is being suggested is that, even though we have the same driving ability, you will learn the new driving techniques faster than I would.

It isn't the best analogy, yet I still feel that it shows how ridiculous this idea is. The whole concept of gaining skill faster because of previous experience is wrong. I attribute games such as Diablo and the like for reinforcing this concept. The hunter had a head-start in skill with a bow. That doesn't mean that when a squire gets to that same level of ability ... the hunter will learn faster. They are at the same level of skill!

Skill or proficiency is the base that is used for showing your ability with that weapon. There isn't a hidden modifier that allows a character to gain skill faster and there shouldn't be. I'm not a realism > all type of person, but in this case I much prefer the current system than the one being suggested.

Narcissus
 
I don't see a problem with the current system. Your class defines what skills you start off with. If you selected a class for a specific skill, that means you would use the skill most of the time. If you use that skill most of the time, you would only progress in that skill. Its same thing. The fact that there IS no restriction / caps is part of the game. This is how your character develops in this game.

I am 100% against the idea and dread to think what M&B would become should it be implimented.

Furthermore I find that using 'Diablo' as an example, is pretty much pointless since for one thing it is a completely different game, set in different world, different combat system, different monsters, fighting style, gameplay dimentions and probably every other aspect I can think of. For another thing, Diablo was popular due to battle-net setup, and the time it was released. I don't really think it remains that much of a popular game as well, infact I have noticed that Diablo2 is already dying faster than a few games which were released before D2.

Lastly, I don't classify myself as a hardcore roleplayer, but I do try to roleplay as much as possible on and off line. Personally I find that if there are no caps set to skills and such, it IMPROVES the roleplaying experience, since there are no boundaries, and if I concentrate on roleplaying a certain class, I would be primarily concentrating on the skills that the class excells in anyway. If you concentrate on ALL skills, you would end up with a well-rounded character, but one who is not exceptional in anything. There is no problem with that as well in my oppinion...

I mean this whole argument is stupid. Like narcissus said, if you practice in something long enough, you would become just as good as somebody who has practiced just as much (theoretically, I know some people learn faster than others, but that is up to the individual, not profession)
 
I get what you guys are saying... In real life, it is true that you can self-teach or learn a skill and be very good at it. Take golf for example, Lee Trevino was an amazing player... came from a poor mexican background yet emerged as one of the priemere players of his time. The driving example given above is also very valid. But let me give you another:

Mathematics. You take algebra, geometry, trigonometry, throw in a logic course. When that person takes calculus, they are prepared and WILL DO BETTER than someone who decides one day, hey... I'm going to take calculus. Likewise, take both of these students and put them in an intro computer science class. The person with the math background will likely do MUCH BETTER than the other.

Back to the golf example above. Lee Trevino was a good player, but could only play one type of shot... a fade if I remember correctly. If he was from a rich background, he could have taken golf lessons and learned the proper swing mechanic and understood what the results of making a modification to one's swing. As a result, this player could probably pick up new shot types (draw, punch, stinger) much easier than one who did not get trained.

So it is true, that if you practice something, without instruction you will eventually get good at it. I hope that is the case for me because I'm an avid golf fan but never could afford lessons (computer games won out when it came to my $$ :grin: ). I play rather terribly but I'd like to think that one day I will be much better than I am! But suffice it to say, someone who is more athletic than I, in tune with their bodies, can understand and execute things like "opening your hips" and will generally have much better muscle memory than I do. Therefore, your athlete will 90% of the time progress faster learning the game of golf than I ever will.

That is the spirit of my suggestion.

And back to the diablo analogy. I wasn't trying to compare Diablo to M&B per se. I was just pointing out the replayability that game had because of the character class system and its long reaching effects throughout the game. Without that system, battle.net or no, Diablo would not be heavily played as it is (log on to Bnet and you will see tens of thousands of people playing... US East/West).
 
I say no. Restrictions are nonsense. I always hated class restrictions. I want to point something in case you didn't notice. You are NOT selecting a class in the beginning of the game. It says "Before taking up a life of adventuring, you used to be...". So, don't confuse it with any other FRP game. And I like the lack of classes.
 
jrawlings said:
Mathematics. You take algebra, geometry, trigonometry, throw in a logic course. When that person takes calculus, they are prepared and WILL DO BETTER than someone who decides one day, hey... I'm going to take calculus. Likewise, take both of these students and put them in an intro computer science class. The person with the math background will likely do MUCH BETTER than the other.

But isn't this what we have in-game right now? The Hunter starts with an advantage in Bow over the Squire, if the Hunter decides to take down a group of river pirates with his Bow he's going to do MUCH better than the Squire if the latter also tries to use the Bow, it's in the game already.

So it is true, that if you practice something, without instruction you will eventually get good at it. I hope that is the case for me because I'm an avid golf fan but never could afford lessons (computer games won out when it came to my $$ :grin: ). I play rather terribly but I'd like to think that one day I will be much better than I am!

Just like the math examples you used before, we are talking about the natural universe here, training with a mentor is sharing his experience and training alone is experiencing it yourself, the knowledge is already there and available to everyone, the more you experience it the more you learn, a Guide that has been throught that before can help you but he is not the holder of the knowledge, the first Golfers or the first Mathematicians didn't had any tutors to help them but they created, invented and developed, cultures and religions far apart came to the same conclusions without ever meeting, developing similar stories, traditions, philosophies, etc..

But suffice it to say, someone who is more athletic than I, in tune with their bodies, can understand and execute things like "opening your hips" and will generally have much better muscle memory than I do. Therefore, your athlete will 90% of the time progress faster learning the game of golf than I ever will. That is the spirit of my suggestion.

I whole-heartedly disagree, the problem lies in your past not in your future, I find your lack of faith disturbing, why do you severely limit yourself believing you woulnd't ever be better than an Athlete, what makes an Athlete better than you? What makes an Athlete different than you? What does he posses that you don't?

A professional Athlete dedicated a greater share of his life to training than you did, hence he has more experience than you right now, exactly like we have in game, but if you dedicate as much or more time and effort than he what makes you think you wouldn't catch up?

There are many enemies at higher levels than you when you start the game, imagine if you couldn't rise in levels because we have to follow your analogy and the higher levels will always be faster and better than you, doesn't sound right to me.

When you start from a Squire, you have to learn to be a good knight and you will be worse than all higher level enemies as those have been fighting longer than you, but as you gain experience you will become better than every new warrior, and eventually better than any warrior with a certain level of experience lower than you, and eventually you will become a killing machine like those high level enemies from the beginning, and those would be long gone by the time you are level 50, the old enemies died, got weakened by many wounds, retired of old age, etc.

If you start from a Priest you are far behind as your only fighting experience was a harmless brawl over a toy during your childhood, however, the knowledge of good swordsmanship is universal, anyone can learn to become a master given enough time and practice, or in other words, experience, the most advanced techniques require greater practice and even greater effort than the basic stuff and you are correct in this point, only someone who knows the basics can progress further, someone who never touched a sword before would have to get the basics first to reach your level and that's totally represented in-game already! You don't have to make "class" based bonuses as that's already represented like when you take a knight character and start enhancing your Bow skills, you will suck in the beginning and will be behind a Sea Raider's Archer for example untill you can start progressing beyond basic levels, the only "class" difference I see is someone who already has experience with a Bow and others who don't, I don't see why a special super-human class of people should progress faster than others, I don't see how a former knight who's now dedicating his life to Archery can't catch-up with Robin Hood.
 
Well if I am not utterly wrong it goes simplified like this: Your brain get better in the areas that you use (atheletes gain better motoric functions and so on). This can't be done in an instant and happens the easiest when a person is young. So if you have studied mathematics all your youth you will have harder time training athletics than a person that started practicing at a very young age, so his motorical functions have become way better. (I might be wrong, and prob. am but this is the way I have understood it).

The previous statement might give something to back up the "classes", but it is not really that black&white IRL.

That said I am all for M&B being a classless game. We have too few of them.
 
Then maybe we shouldn't chose a class at the beginning of the game. Everyone should start out the same and blosom into the flower they were meant to be (ok, that even made me want to hurl).

If there is no real meaning to , chosing a class, why have it? Everyone should start out naked with the same base stats and proficiencies. Give people 5 attribute points, 10 skill points and 50 weapon points to distribute as they please. Give everyone X amount of denars and if they want to buy a big bad ass sword and nothing else, go for it. If they'd like to have a decent horse and throw rocks, go for it. Whatever.

I see the point that folks are making about learning skills and I do somewhat agree that a merchant can become a good marksman etc etc, but for the sake of a game I was just looking for some way to add replay value. If there is a class system in the game, then I say we use it to add depth to the game. If we want it to be Morrowindish and open (which is also fine), then abolish the classes altogether and go with a model like what I've just proposed.
 
If there is no real meaning to , chosing a class, why have it? Everyone should start out naked with the same base stats and proficiencies. Give people 5 attribute points, 10 skill points and 50 weapon points to distribute as they please. Give everyone X amount of denars and if they want to buy a big bad ass sword and nothing else, go for it. If they'd like to have a decent horse and throw rocks, go for it. Whatever.
This would actually be nice. Like the "adventurer" class in Morrowind. It bugs me that I can't be a former bandit, or something like that.
 
Back
Top Bottom