Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Neverwinter Nights: Enhanced Edition has been released! Visit nwn.beamdog.com to make an order. NWN:EE FAQ is available.
Soundtracks for BG:EE, SoD, BG2:EE, IWD:EE, PST:EE are now available in the Beamdog store.
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Disagreement with the proposed 4th class

24

Comments

  • RifkinRifkin Member Posts: 110
    edited December 2017
    With all changes that allow deviation from the standard NWN game logic/gameplay, these would obviously be accompanied by an INI toggle or a script flag.

    I don't understand where people get the idea that just because they don't like something that it shouldn't be an option.

    Example of proper attitude:
    I prefer permadeath, but I'm not going to ask Beamdog to remove respawn from the game.

    ProontThorssonRifleLeroyRAM021
  • MrDamageMrDamage Member Posts: 187
    At the risk of getting fireballed, I’ve decided to add because this topic interests me. The way I see it, those that want a 4th class just want more options to build a solo/Uber character to have fun. I can appreciate that. Then there is the other camp who I assume feels that 4 classes is getting excessive. I must admit I find myself agreeing with this and wondering, just abolish classes and a have a quota of any ability/magic you want if you want 4. My own personal thoughts are, how would one role play such a multi class character without any conflicts. Yeah I guess it is possible. But I’m still old school lol, Im an avid single class supporter, yet since then I’ve had plenty of fun with multiclass pc’s. So I come to the conclusion that everybody has a different play style and wants for what will make the game more fun for them. So although I may not agree, as long as I don’t HAVE to partake, go for it.

    Proont
  • TarotRedhandTarotRedhand Member Posts: 587
    edited December 2017
    OK, I’ve sort of flip-flopped but you may not like my final conclusions. I now have no objection to 4. This occurred because of one sentence that was written in here. This sentence set off a logic bomb in my head. The sentence in question was to the effect that in D&D there is no limit to the number of classes that a PC can have (but was that true for 3e?).

    If that is true it means that NwN (both 1.69 and EE) already has some house rules built in. That’s OK as all editions of D&D have said that house rules are fine (much to the chagrin of “rules lawyers"). Not only that but NwN comes with the tools (nwscript) to implement additional such house rules. House rules such as resting restrictions or the use of the scripted hard core rule set. Since in PnP D&D the only person who can implement such house rules in the game is the DM it surely means that anyone who creates a module is the DM for that module who just happens to allow a digital proxy to implement them. Now as all editions of the DM guide says for a DM to only allow that which the DM wants I have come to this conclusion.

    I have no objection to anyone choosing to create a PC with x number of classes as long as they have no objection to me preventing such PCs being imported into any module that I create should I choose to do so.

    With nwscript it is a relatively trivial matter to determine how many classes a PC has. It is also a relatively simple matter to terminate that module early even as early as when the PC enters it.

    Now before anyone starts to call me all the names under the sun, I never said that I would do such a thing. It is having the possibility and means to do so should I choose, that swung it for me

    TR

    ProontRifkinNeverwinterWights
  • RifkinRifkin Member Posts: 110

    OK, I’ve sort of flip-flopped but you may not like my final conclusions. I now have no objection to 4. This occurred because of one sentence that was written in here. This sentence set off a logic bomb in my head. The sentence in question was to the effect that in D&D there is no limit to the number of classes that a PC can have (but was that true for 3e?).

    If that is true it means that NwN (both 1.69 and EE) already has some house rules built in. That’s OK as all editions of D&D have said that house rules are fine (much to the chagrin of “rules lawyers"). Not only that but NwN comes with the tools (nwscript) to implement additional such house rules. House rules such as resting restrictions or the use of the scripted hard core rule set. Since in PnP D&D the only person who can implement such house rules in the game is the DM it surely means that anyone who creates a module is the DM for that module who just happens to allow a digital proxy to implement them. Now as all editions of the DM guide says for a DM to only allow that which the DM wants I have come to this conclusion.

    I have no objection to anyone choosing to create a PC with x number of classes as long as they have no objection to me preventing such PCs being imported into any module that I create should I choose to do so.

    With nwscript it is a relatively trivial matter to determine how many classes a PC has. It is also a relatively simple matter to terminate that module early even as early as when the PC enters it.

    Now before anyone starts to call me all the names under the sun, I never said that I would do such a thing. It is having the possibility and means to do so should I choose, that swung it for me

    TR

    I appreciate that, but I will also say, since the nature of sharing modules is a free give-and-take endeavour, and that the toolset can easily open and modify any custom module, this means that despite your best intentions for modules you give away, people can always open it up and cheat/change to their hearts content.

    I guess that gets us into a realm of module copy protection, or possibly module password for editing, but I mean at that point we're getting away from the liberty with which made NWN1 so legendary.

    RAM021
  • FreshLemonBunFreshLemonBun Member Posts: 644
    I disagree with outrage or trepidation against expansion of character options. I understand that there are some ppl that may believe that expansion of options is motivated by a desire for greater power. I disagree with this in a general sense and personally believe that it stems from some amount of unfamiliarity with the underlying rules.

    My experience is that heavy role play servers decided that taking a single level in another class was too powerful so that a character must instead be forced to take three or four levels. At the time I was very young and impressionable so I agreed with this view. It was only later after understanding how it all worked a bit better that some of us realized it was actually better to take several levels and would result in overall a more powerful character, taking a single level was actually sub-optimal.

    On the other hand it adds more options for content creators and also for role playing. If you have more class slots you can take a minor thematic class like Harper and worry less about the impact it has on your character's viability.

    RAM021
  • AzimnAzimn Member Posts: 24
    This thread exchange between BlessedAdversary and Dark_Ansem reminds me of Noob Noob...

  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,451

    Fardragon said:

    Now here's the rub. As far as I'm aware more people play single player than use pw's or play in multi-player. With the possibility of a single player having 4 classes what is the point of having hench ersons when a pc can be fighter/rogue/cleric/mage all in one build?

    TR

    Why do you care how other people play single player games?
    I care because it makes spending time lovingly crafting henchmen pointless. Have you built a module? I can tell you it takes a lot of work even to come up with an average module.

    TR
    Yes, I have, and for someone who claims to be a builder, you seem to have a lack of understanding of game mechanics.

    1) 3 classes is quite enough to create a jack of all trades character, covering the main skill areas - healing, damage output, traps and locks. You never need a henchman for that, and a fighter/cleric/thief/mage would just suck at all of them.
    2) I've never met a module that you actually needed to cover all skill areas anyway. You can steamroller through anything with asingle classed character and no henchman. All a henchman does is add an extra body to the fight.
    3) this suggestion has always come with the proviso that module builders should be able to set a soft cap on the maximum classes, so if you wanted your module to have a maximum of 3, or 2, or 1 you would still be able to do that.

    BelleSorciereProontRAM021
  • britishjbritishj Member Posts: 43
    I agree with creators being able to set a cap, after all they should be given as much as possible when creating their modules. Allowing creators to encrypt their modules similar to kingmaker and the other premium modules seems like a really good idea though! Someone should really create a new thread about that.

    Nicoenflyinghtcher
  • britishjbritishj Member Posts: 43
    edited December 2017
    I think it would just be another cool option for module creators who want to protect their work instead of forcing them to only create open modules. If there is an open spirit when it comes to making modules i'm sure most of the creators will choose to leave their modules open, otherwise this open spirit is just being forced on creators by people who want to open their modules.

    Taro94
  • MadHatterMadHatter Member Posts: 145
    britishj said:

    I think it would just be another cool option for module creators who want to protect their work instead of forcing them to only create open modules.

    Out of sheer curiosity: protect their modules from what?

    You can already host a module server-side if you don't want people to have access to your scripts. This isn't corporate espionage.

    In all the 15+ years of NWN modding we haven't had a single instance that I'm aware of where someone stripped out content from one module and tried to pass it off as their own. Especially now adays where the mod volume is extremely low it would be immediately spotted and laughed off the Vault.

    All this would accomplish is hurt novice modders who don't know how to do complex things like scripted puzzles and lessen the frequency of quality mods in the future. The only reason the Premium Modules were encrypted was because of how trivially easy it would be to share the paid modules around if not (see: how it was shared after Bioware's authenticator disappeared).

  • britishjbritishj Member Posts: 43
    edited December 2017
    I see it as just another option for module creators, if a module creator for whatever reason wants to encrypt the module why not let them? If a creator wants to do something and you tell them no then that's limiting their choices.

    You either believe no one will encrypt their modules because every creator wants to be open and share their source work, in which case why be so against the option if only a small fraction will use it? Or you believe most creators will want to encrypt their work and your now telling them no they cant because you and other people want access to their source work. If most creators will use this then surely it was a feature they wanted?

    This is just my opinion and it looks like i'm in the minority which is totally fine with me as its just a suggestion :)

  • ThorssonThorsson Member Posts: 187
    This appears to be a new discussion. Please don't hijack the thread.

    britishjRAM021RifleLeroyProont
  • WebShamanWebShaman Member Posts: 483
    For the record, I am for adding the CHOICE of being able to take a 4th class.

    More choice is good.

    RAM021LathspellguestProontRifleLeroy
  • GlassmelterGlassmelter Member Posts: 38
    edited December 2017
    I'm not really convinced of the gameplay benefit of a fourth class, and would prefer that development focus on things that improve the toolset, improve gameplay, and add new content.

    That said, the cap at three classes is arbitrary and I don't see why changing the cap to make it four is the right solution. It seems like if this was something that would go forward, the thing that would make the most sense would be to just remove the cap and let people do what they want classwise.

    MrDamageJidokwonRAM021Proont
  • RAM021RAM021 Member Posts: 371
    Fact is there is no valid non-developmental reason NOT to increase the class count.

    Proont
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,451
    I think four classes was requested on the basis that that it is a more reasonable request than "infinite classes" which would be truer to PnP rules but is almost certainly technically impossible.

    BelleSorciereProontRAM021Malclave
  • LathspellguestLathspellguest Member Posts: 53
    The only reasonable argument against allowing a 4th class is that it may take time away from other, potentially cooler, enhancements.

    Anything other than that is just trying to lord over the RP experience of others.

  • FreshLemonBunFreshLemonBun Member Posts: 644
    Other enhancements also include building peripheral modding tools from scratch for modders that already have such tools, and remaking content that already exists. At least with extra class slots it's something you can't already do today.

    It's an actual enhancement to the current package rather than just a pre-installation or re-implementation of existing features. It benefits everyone including those that use Google to find things and those that don't. It's also completely optional for those that prefer fewer class slots.

    Unless it's going to costs an exorbitant amount of time, and I don't know why it would, then I don't really understand the arguments that tend towards other features taking priority.

    ProontThorssonRAM021
  • FeardainFeardain Member Posts: 12
    A Cap of 4 classes could be cool, if the max level was also raised to 60, otherwise pointless. I can do in 3 classes, what you would be trying to do with 4.

    flyinghtcher
  • FardragonFardragon Member Posts: 4,451
    Feardain said:

    A Cap of 4 classes could be cool, if the max level was also raised to 60, otherwise pointless. I can do in 3 classes, what you would be trying to do with 4.

    What, fit someone's roleplaying concept better?

    RAM021RifkinProont
  • FreshLemonBunFreshLemonBun Member Posts: 644
    Some official classes also seem to require 4 slots. Fochlucan Lyrist requires druid language, bard knowledge, arcane casting, divine casting, and evasion. If you start out as something like a gnoll that has a humanoid HD level requirement you would need 5 class slots for that.

    Proont
  • ThorssonThorsson Member Posts: 187
    Feardain said:

    A Cap of 4 classes could be cool, if the max level was also raised to 60, otherwise pointless. I can do in 3 classes, what you would be trying to do with 4.

    OK, make me a HiPsing Death Attack Arcane Archer in 4 base NWN classes. How about a HiPsing Red Dragon Monk? Bah on 60 levels, I want them in 20.

  • flyinghtcherflyinghtcher Member Posts: 21
    edited December 2017
    I'd totally like to push NWN beyond lvl 40 and a 4th class choice could help explore more class synergies

    P.S badstrref is / isn't AKA Scarface ?

    RifleLeroyProont
  • Drewbert_ahoyDrewbert_ahoy Member Posts: 65
    The radial menu is the best part of the UI... you have 3 rows of hot keys for combat spells and quick items. NWN is heavy on buff spells, most of which get used out of combat.

    RAM021
  • FreshLemonBunFreshLemonBun Member Posts: 644
    I'm sure the UI will be a bottleneck to most interesting new features so it might be an idea to prioritize the UI discussion.

    The added bonus is that modders can make a whole slew of new and innovative things with custom UI scripting.

    MrDamageRAM021
Sign In or Register to comment.