Unseen Studios

UPDATED!

Players start as Novice, then pick their initial class. After a while, they can choose a secondary class that will replace the initial class. Dual-classing will be allowed, see post on class requirements.

The initial Tier:

Code: Select all

Novice - Fighter
       - Rogue
       - Initiate
       - Apprentice


Secondary Classes:

Code: Select all

Knight(Warrior?)
Barbarian
Ranger
Thief
Darkwar
Cleric
Paladin
Druid
Wizard
       Pyromancer
       Hydromancer
Warlock
       (Electric Warlock)
       (Poison Warlock)


I dropped Archer because it was too 2-dimensional. It would be like having a Pikeman or Swordsman class.

If anyone has questions on how this will work, just ask or better, tell me what you want to be able to do with classes.

i like my subclassing better
I like that warlock/wizards are not under the same subclass. & how you COULD be a wizard in the making but still beable to use a hammer/mace (druid) untill level 10 at witch point you decide to become a powerful wizard or a tank Melee Druid.
i really think we should keep druids. they may not have been around way back when but they are the melee class to wizards. as Darkwars are melee to warlocks. each main class has the option of being a mage or melee (except fighter class)
Druids should be more Melee class not a buffer. they could have Strong armor spells. just not a strong buff spell.

----Ranger----
Mage=Archer... Pure Intell (for precise high dmg hits.)
melee=Thief... pure agility (for very fast hits & criticals)
----(No name) Energy class----
Mage=Wizard... Intell (for massive mp and maximum damage)
Melee=Druid... general fig build (for constant hard hits)
----(No name) Shadow class----
Mage=Warlock... Wisdom (for massive mp and max dmg)
melee=darkwar... Agility (for fast hits & Criticals)
----Spirit Aprentice----
Mage=Cleric... HIGH wisdomg (for Strongest buff spells.)
Melee=Pally... General fig build (for consistant hard hits)
----Fighter----
Melee=Knight... Strength (for high damage)
Melee=Barb.... Cons (for massive hp & Rage bounus)

ziggman wrote:i like my subclassing better
I like that warlock/wizards are not under the same subclass. & how you COULD be a wizard in the making but still beable to use a hammer/mace (druid) untill level 10 at witch point you decide to become a powerful wizard or a tank Melee Druid.
i really think we should keep druids. they may not have been around way back when but they are the melee class to wizards. as Darkwars are melee to warlocks. each main class has the option of being a mage or melee (except fighter class)
Druids should be more Melee class not a buffer. they could have Strong armor spells. just not a strong buff spell.

Druids are on my list. I don't think they should be connected to wizards, because they are much more closely related to clerics. Clerics and Druids use spirit and energy spells, while wizards use energy.

I have wizards and warlocks under the same class, because they are the same, except for their main element.

Let's not get off-topic again. We are discussing the starting classes only, the tree I gave was only an example, and the final classes can be moved around. As I said, I think that given our number of final classes, we should keep the number of starting classes down to 3 or 4. This is so that there is more choice, and I think that each starter class should be unique. In your system there is a fighter-type starting class, a thief-type starting class, and 3 others that are all spellcasters. I'd like to keep the classes more balanced so there are an equal number of mage and nonmage starting classes. Drop down to 4 starting classes to see what it looks like. We could even start with just 2 classes, and go through more levels of intermediate classes before deciding on final class.

Code: Select all

Fighter Novice - Tiro - ______
               - Rogue - _______

Magic Novice - Initiate - _______
             - Apprentice - _______


We could have it start with a single class, that then diverges - that would be unique!

Code: Select all

Novice - Tiro
       - Rogue
       - Initiate
       - Apprentice


Again, lets not discuss what classes descend from other classes, but how it should all start.

My vote is for the Novice idea

Karl

i believe my chart is quite balanced. it is possible to change to druids so they are more wizard like. I stated in my previoius post that druids should be stripped of the buffing abilitys.

fighter class is all melee
but with the other classes you can be either or both untill level 10. this would allow you to choose the abilitys & spells you like most then at level 10 you decide if you be a melee or mage character.

i would like to see more than 3 beginer classes this would allow for a little more diversity among players, everyone wouldnt have the same build. altho intime the 'perfect builds' will be known for most classes.

Subclassing

fighter
get to use Any weapon (if req are met)
Spirt class
get to use swords, axes, blunt, & staves.
Energy class
get to use blunt, daggers & staves
shadow class
get to use swords, daggers & staves
ranger class
get to use Bows, daggers, & swords

and yea druids & wizards would share noob spells
same with darkwars & warlocks, so a darkwar could poison you.

ziggman wrote:i believe my chart is quite balanced. it is possible to change to druids so they are more wizard like. I stated in my previoius post that druids should be stripped of the buffing abilitys.

And why should Druids be changed to resemble Wizards? Druids are the counterpart of Clerics, being a woodland priest and serving nature instead of some diety. Wizards are pure magic spellcasters, because they study magic, and they do not serve anyone. I see Warlocks as similar to Wizards the only difference being that their motivation is not so much to study magic, as to become more powerful. If anything, Druids should be closer to Rangers as they both are guardians of the natural order.

ziggman wrote:fighter class is all melee
but with the other classes you can be either or both untill level 10. this would allow you to choose the abilitys & spells you like most then at level 10 you decide if you be a melee or mage character.

The advantage of having less initial classes is that you can do whatever you want in the early stage, and later when you want to pick a class, you are given choices based on which way you lean. For example, if you started as a Novice, and focused on the stats cons, agi, and str, and combat skills, you would later choose from Tiro or Rogue. If you pick Rogue and then focus on agility and weapons skills, you would choose from Thief or Archer. If you had thrown a few points into intel/wisdom and gotten some spellcasting elements you could choose Ranger or Darkwar. I'm thinking about making classes have some type of requirement that you must meet to be able to pick that class, but you would be able to advance from any initial class to any other class if you met the class reqs.

ziggman wrote:i would like to see more than 3 beginer classes this would allow for a little more diversity among players, everyone wouldnt have the same build. altho intime the 'perfect builds' will be known for most classes.

Actually I think we would see more diversity with fewer classes and more choices within a particular class. Even if there are many classes, with the current Xenimus system there are only one or two good builds for each class. If the class requirements idea was implemented, multi-classing could become possible, adding even more diversity.

ziggman wrote:Subclassing

fighter
get to use Any weapon (if req are met)
Spirt class
get to use swords, axes, blunt, & staves.
Energy class
get to use blunt, daggers & staves
shadow class
get to use swords, daggers & staves
ranger class
get to use Bows, daggers, & swords

I don't much like the idea of discriminating between initial classes based on flavor of magic. Initial classes should be based on character training and background. Within a starter class players could choose to favor one type of magic over the others, and eventually graduate into a secondary class.

you started as a Novice, and focused on the stats cons, agi, and str, and combat skills, you would later choose from Tiro or Rogue. If you pick Rogue and then focus on agility and weapons skills, you would choose from Thief or Archer. If you had thrown a few points into intel/wisdom and gotten some spellcasting elements you could choose Ranger or Darkwar. I'm thinking about making classes have some type of requirement that you must meet to be able to pick that class, but you would be able to advance from any initial class to any other class if you met the class reqs.

this is not a good idea.
your stats should NOT decide what you become. you could never make a melee caster, i had a melee cleric he was decent enuf owned a bunch of darkwars & rangers with ease.

another fun part about xenimus was that you could mess up horribly on stats. trial and error. the game should not decide what you become.

What about doing away with stats and skills entirely?

While we're on this track, what if you just added skill points when you level up, and no "attributes" at all? For example, every player has "swords" as a skill; if you add lots of points to it and a few other battle-type skills (shields, heavy armor, etc) you achieve the rank of "fighter", and get fighter bonus to HP. You add even more, and become a "knight" with a few more bonuses. Alternatively, you could mix in some skill in "healing magic" and become a "paladin", which would also give you some special effects. In this way we could even add 'secret' classes for certain skill combinations...like "battle-mage" for a character with magic skills that are primarily offensive, but also has some sword skill. Cool stuff like that.

ziggman wrote:this is not a good idea.
your stats should NOT decide what you become. you could never make a melee caster, i had a melee cleric he was decent enuf owned a bunch of darkwars & rangers with ease.

Ok, maybe lower stat requirements. Stat reqs are to prevent spellcasters with 10 int/wisdom. I agree that a melee Cleric should be possible. It should be hard but possible for a player to obtain Cleric rank and also meet the qualifications to get Fighter. Thus the stat requirements wouldn't be very high - maybe 20-25 str for Fighter and 20-25 wis for Cleric, so you should be able to get both before level 15. Skill requirements would be primary, and I like the idea of giving a small bonus for each class.

ziggman wrote:another fun part about xenimus was that you could mess up horribly on stats. trial and error. the game should not decide what you become.

The game doesn't decide anything. You decide to meet the class requirements or not. I am thinking of a different spell system where even if you were a melee class character, with enough skills + the right talents you can pretty much get whatever spells you want. However your spells will not be nearly as powerful as those of an all-mage stat/skill build.

Karl, I also like the idea of not adding in attributes on levelup, but adding stats seems to be popular with players. Even Dungeons & Dragons, which had a long history of having permanent stats introduced with 3rd edition additional stat points at every 4th level. However, one stat point per level has been the Xenimus tradition, and it would probably be best to keep it.

Definitely like having many classes dependent on skill levels, maybe talents. Secret classes are always cool.

i dont like the whole class requirement system.

wherein my character has to meet some type of reqirement to become a wizard or a fighter....

you should bealbe to have a wizard with high strenght and agility, naturaly they would suck hardcorestyle. but that does not mean you should not beable to make one.

ziggman wrote:i dont like the whole class requirement system.

wherein my character has to meet some type of reqirement to become a wizard or a fighter....

you should bealbe to have a wizard with high strenght and agility, naturaly they would suck hardcorestyle. but that does not mean you should not beable to make one.

Yeah, well you CAN make a wizard with high strength and agility, as long as you have good intelligence and a decent amount of magical skill or talent. On the other hand, if your character is obviously built like a fighter, with 10 intelligence and no skill or tanlent at magic then he should not be allowed to be a wizard. The Mages Guild will throw your character out after he fails to cast even the simplest of spells, and no instructor will teach someone with absolutely no magical ability.

on xenimus now, as it has Always been. you never had to make a character meet any requirements to become a fighter or wizard. you were what u were. and your stats played a roll in how good of a player you are, were. you stats did not make your character a wizard or fighter.

maybe subclassing is not going to work out.

ziggman wrote:on xenimus now, as it has Always been. you never had to make a character meet any requirements to become a fighter or wizard. you were what u were. and your stats played a roll in how good of a player you are, were. you stats did not make your character a wizard or fighter.

maybe subclassing is not going to work out.

It seems like I have to spell it out:

1) It's not just stats, it's skills and talents, maybe traits if we add that much.

2) Sometimes change is for the better.

3) No one is going to complain because they can't build a sucky character.
corollary 3a: 1. This will lead to fewer extremely badly built characters.
2. Players may invest significant time into a character.
3. Players discovering that their build is bad will experience frustration.
4. It follows that preventing exceedingly poor judgement will reduce player frustration.

4) If subclassing were not implemented, your fighter-build wizard will not be any fun. It would have mage HP modifier, coupled with a lack of any higher level spells. Spells will not be automatically granted on level alone, you will have to meet skill or talent reqs.

5) Picture a fighter, but in leather armor, wielding a dagger, with his hp cut in half.

Recap: If you build a wizard like a fighter it is going to suck either way. Re-read point #3.

Now, with this subclassing system, if you build like a fighter, you will get a fighter, which it what you wanted, isn't it? If you want to dual-class fighter and wizard, you are going to have to spend a few points improving magic skills.

Ziggman, your opinion is noted. Do you have any other concerns, besides this point?

aside from only you karl and i discussing this issue, i would like to know what other people think, i still dont like the idea of having to have 30+intell to get the wizard strong beam. ( I KNOW if you want to build a good character you should have this) but, having to learn spells from somone else, or having to meet certain requirements is not cool. i know hundereds of games are based on this system, i never liked it cause they all had a tree system.... if you go this way it is NOT logical to go back and get other skills. cause your current skills would suffer.

Some Rare spells you could learn from npc's but the majority should be self taught.

this isnt so much about subclassing anymore rather mechanics of classing/leveling.

back to original post,
4 classes would be fine, but i honestly dont like the 'Tiro' term,

Fighter---- Knights, Barbs
Initate----- Palidins, clerics, druids
Apprentice-- wizards, warlocks
Ranger---- Archers, theif, darkwars.

'Tiro' was only a stand-in for 'fighter-trainee', so I'm looking for a better name too. The initial classes should have names that are either very general, or implies 'newbishness', like apprentice. I understand that Fighter is a general name, but I don't really like the sound of Knight. It seems too close to Paladin. For this spot I'm looking for something closer to 'Padawan-learner'.

I liked Rogue for the nonconventional combat class, but I'm open to suggestions. I don't want to put Ranger into the precursor spot because Ranger is a final class in itself.

Yeah probably good to get back to the topic

If it's Knight vs. Tiro, I'd definitely go for Knight....

a ranger is a woods man type person, there should be no ranger finnal class, ranger in itself is a very broad term. the finnal class for a ranger would be thief or archer

a thief is all agility
an archer is the intell build.

i believe fighter is a general term as well, i see nothing wrong with having rangers and fighters being a sub class.

how soon would you be able to lock in your finnal class?

are we thinkin of having 3 different tiers for classing??
mage novice - apprentice - wizard?

i thought we were only having 2.
apprentice - wizard.

what if we stripped a fighter of axes? to make him Master Swordsman?

Sure, have Fighter be the base class, but have Warrior as the general secondary fighter-type. There can still be a Knight class, but they don't strike me as very general, and don't they have to be mounted? That can wait until horses come in.

I don't see a Ranger as a simple outdoorsman, but as a survivalist who lives in the woods and is skilled at bows. A Rogue would be a more general term for a class that is both skilled and agile. Furthermore, Ranger -> Thief doesn't seem right to me, as you go from a person who lives in the woods in harmony with nature to someone that picks pockets in the city or sets up ambushes on the road. Rogue should be the base class. If you don't like Rogue, find a better name, but not Ranger.

isnt rouge going to be the name of a monster?

ok how about 1 Newb class

Novice
at level 10 you choose your secondary class
your build would not/should not determine what class you can choose.
secondary class=
Rouge
fighter
initate
apprentice
at level 20 you choose your tertiary class
your build would not/should not determine what class you can choose.
Rouge
Ranger
Archer
Darkwar
Fighter
Knight
Barbarian
Initate
Cleric
Palidin
Druid
Apprentice
Wizard
Warlock.

so are you suggesting that there is now 4 classes under rouge?

ranger=archer or thief?.

as of now theres
Rouge
Ranger
Archer
Darkwar.

ziggman wrote:so are you suggesting that there is now 4 classes under rouge?

ranger=archer or thief?.

as of now theres
Rouge
Ranger
Archer
Darkwar.

I suppose we wouldn't need Archer, given Ranger.

uhm guys:


Me, thad, and karl have already worked this out. The problem is we dont know what to call the "Holy Class"

Yes, I'm adding on to your system. Don't worry, we'll keep most of it as you have it there . I'm trying to make a more elaborate subclassing system, so read on and see if you like it. I will update the first post to reflect changes. I wasn't aware that there was a wiki.

Ratiotile wrote:Yes, I'm adding on to your system. Don't worry, we'll keep most of it as you have it there . I'm trying to make a more elaborate subclassing system, so read on and see if you like it. I will update the first post to reflect changes. I wasn't aware that there was a wiki.

Elaborate = bad. Xenimus is fairly simple concerning classes.