character class roles with the new rules

James Trotta

Spellsword
Diversity Committee
I wanted to split this conversation off from the character build thread so that Matt's thread can stay focused on the original topic:

I have a celestial scholar in the mid 30s. The difference in build spending with the new rules would be making room for meditate. Everything else would stay the same.

Read and write = 3
Read magic = 4
12 block = 300
formal 15 = 45
meditate =4


To me, this character is much more powerful with the new rules. The real change is meditate allowing me to throw spells much faster since I don't need to worry so much about hitting the target. If defenders had too little time to call defensives before, things just got worse.

It also seems that celestial scholar will become the DPS champ with the new rules. Meditate helps as I can throw my dragon breaths quicker (well the name changes a bit with the new rules but they will always be dragon's breaths to me) and get back the misses. But comparing wand damage to profs shows where celestial scholars may outpace fighters.

Wand charges increase from 108 to 118, while wand damage decreases from 15 to 10. Compared to what will happen to fighters, this change to wand damage seem minor. Considering that fighter types will probably have their damage from profs cut in half (a player swinging 30s will have to invest big time to swing 15s now), I don't think fighters will be able to sustain damage as well as celestial scholars with the new rules.
I don't disagree with regards to Meditate, but if you've spent 350-400 build on Celestial scholarly skills, your wand should only be doing 8 damage in the new system. Considering a similar build could be doing as much as 19 damage currently (base 1 + 12 9th level spells + 3 for elemental burst + 3 for greater wand), I'd say wands are taking just as a big a hit as high-level fighters are with profs.
Celestial is likely not champ. Please note the armor/body changes:
- Fighters (and fighter hybrids) may buy extra body
- Racial body scales
- Armor goes to 62
- Armor can be formally doubled to 124 on a temporary basis.

The above makes celestial pretty weak IMHO, given how many spells need to be thrown to get through all that. The spells do good damage, but it'll take a LOT of them.
 

Tevas

Scholar
Marshal
Playtest Community Manager
Is this thread based on roles that the owners and ARC feel classes should fill, and hence the v2 rules being designed to achieve that outcome and whether or not we feel that this has been successfully implemented? Or is it based on the roles that individual playtesters feel the classes should fill in v2, and their perspectives on whether or not the proposed rules allow them to do so? Or is it something else entirely? The subject was rather broad, so I was hoping you'd have the opportunity to clarify the thread's intent.
 

James Trotta

Spellsword
Diversity Committee
So regarding wand damage, if we eliminate damage from formals (up to +3 currently) and greater wands (also up to +3 currently) in the new rules, that does bring down celestial caster damage to be more in line what a similar level fighter might swing. Personally, I like getting rid of greater wand and damage aura, or at least making +1 the max (like it kind of almost used to be for DA back in the day). Also, I totally missed the part about elemental burst not giving bonus wand damage.

Regarding fighter tankiness, I sort of agree. Fighter builds probably will be tankier considering the increased cost for proficiencies. I think that still leaves celestial casters as the best DPS characters in the new rules. If we're fighting something with 250 body, my 12 dragon's breaths might be more efficient than my friend swinging 10s.

So I think my original claim - that celestial casters will be the DPS champs is valid. Not quite as valid as I thought since I now know about the elemental burst change, but still fighters will have trouble matching caster DPS. I agree that fighters will be tankier (at least against damage, casters may be better off against effects).

The potential roles for earth scholars and templars doesn't seem to change much with the new rules. With rogues, I think they lose some DPS but their roles may not change much.
 

James Trotta

Spellsword
Diversity Committee
Good question - the second one, what playtesters think are the likely roles for each class.
Is this thread based on roles that the owners and ARC feel classes should fill, and hence the v2 rules being designed to achieve that outcome and whether or not we feel that this has been successfully implemented? Or is it based on the roles that individual playtesters feel the classes should fill in v2, and their perspectives on whether or not the proposed rules allow them to do so? Or is it something else entirely? The subject was rather broad, so I was hoping you'd have the opportunity to clarify the thread's intent.
 

Tevas

Scholar
Marshal
Playtest Community Manager
I guess my next questions would be, what do you consider the list of available roles in Alliance to be, and how would you define each? What criteria needs to be met for each role to qualify a character as successfully fulfilling it?
 

James Trotta

Spellsword
Diversity Committee
I don't want to limit the conversation by saying we can only talk about tanks, healers and DPS. So I hope people contribute different ideas for combat roles. However, since the rules are all about combat, I guess we should stick to combat roles and not worry about stuff like "party face" and whatnot.

Part of the discussion should be why each class would be needed in a combat encounter though - I think one of the intended objectives for the new rules is to make the classes rely on each other to get stuff done.
 

Tevas

Scholar
Marshal
Playtest Community Manager
I would be curious what you view the roles to be that the classes can fulfill. I'd like to hear your opinion. There's no right or wrong answer. I mean, after all, the thread is entitled, "character class roles with the new rules"! :)
 
Last edited:

Muir

Fighter
So regarding wand damage, if we eliminate damage from formals (up to +3 currently) and greater wands (also up to +3 currently) in the new rules, that does bring down celestial caster damage to be more in line what a similar level fighter might swing. Personally, I like getting rid of greater wand and damage aura, or at least making +1 the max (like it kind of almost used to be for DA back in the day). Also, I totally missed the part about elemental burst not giving bonus wand damage.

Regarding fighter tankiness, I sort of agree. Fighter builds probably will be tankier considering the increased cost for proficiencies. I think that still leaves celestial casters as the best DPS characters in the new rules. If we're fighting something with 250 body, my 12 dragon's breaths might be more efficient than my friend swinging 10s.
I don't really think 'Tank' in the usual RPG sense is really very accurate in Alliance under these rules simply because there remain a large store of one shot effects that can take a combatant out. It will depend on how the back-end statting changes for the folks running the game as to how the roles will really play out, as monster and encounter design plays a huge part in what is effective.

Can anyone involved confirm/deny if the monster database/building suggestions are also being reworked as part of 2.0?
 

Tevas

Scholar
Marshal
Playtest Community Manager
I can confirm that there were revisions to some items in the monster database for playtesting purposes. These updated cards were provided to the coordinators to use in their playtest events.

Did you have any questions in particular on the revisions?
 

Muir

Fighter
Thanks!

I did, but only on the broad basis of if they were re-calibrated to reflect the reduced damage available to melee classes now, especially if the proposed flurry system goes into effect, (which I am all in favor of, having fought under it in practices locally and applied it to my own Alliance fighting for quite some time now).
 

Tevas

Scholar
Marshal
Playtest Community Manager
The notes on "Tanks" also again goes back to asking James' opinion on what was considered to be the key objectives or criteria of each of the roles. What makes someone a Tank? Aggro management is not something that is currently implemented in the Alliance system. There is presently no "taunt" mechanic. NPC's can attack whoever they choose, unless directly instructed otherwise. Physically interposing yourself between the attacking NPC and their desired target can prevent the NPC from reaching them, and thus somewhat fulfil the desired outcome. However physical positioning can be achieved my most players, regardless of class or ability selection. So again it circles back to: what are the roles being discussed, and what are the criteria that must be met for someone to be considered to have successfully fulfilled that role?
 

Muir

Fighter
I would consider the new Intercept ability to be an effective threat management tool there. We have the general start of a tank split in that Fighters are capable of some truly impressive Body Point and Armor totals under the current playtest, and Rogues have significant damage mitigation with the new Evade changes as well as having the level best 'get out of Effect free' card in Dodge.

To define role-wise what I would consider a Tank :

A character who is, by design, able to take and mitigate relatively large amounts of damage. In a group, this is often the front line combatant whose role will be to prevent enemies from engaging the squishy primarily ranged combatants such as casters or dedicated archers.
 

Tevas

Scholar
Marshal
Playtest Community Manager
Thanks!

I did, but only on the broad basis of if they were re-calibrated to reflect the reduced damage available to melee classes now, especially if the proposed flurry system goes into effect, (which I am all in favor of, having fought under it in practices locally and applied it to my own Alliance fighting for quite some time now).
Yes, monster hit points were considerably reduced, along with their damage output. Smaller NPC's ranged from 10-25 body with 2-3 damage, mid range ones from 35-65 body with 4-5 damage, and larger ones from 100-200 body with 6-8 damage.

From the cards provided, it also stood to be noticed that most monsters did not have defenses, unless that creature would reasonably be armed with one. For example, martially inclined NPC's might have parries, but no dodges or spell or poison resists. Magically inclined NPC's might have spell resists, but no other defenses.
 

Tevas

Scholar
Marshal
Playtest Community Manager
I would consider the new Intercept ability to be an effective threat management tool there. We have the general start of a tank split in that Fighters are capable of some truly impressive Body Point and Armor totals under the current playtest, and Rogues have significant damage mitigation with the new Evade changes as well as having the level best 'get out of Effect free' card in Dodge.
I apologize if there was any confusion there. By "aggro management" I meant an ability that forced an NPC to attack a particular target. Characters have always had access to similar damage "reassignment" abilities through Parry and Riposte. That mechanic is now being built upon with Intercept, but still does not prevent a target from initiating an offensive action against any target of their choosing.

And again, is that something that is required, in James' or others' opinions, to satisfy the role of a "Tank"? Hence the need for roles and criteria to be defined before conversations take off.
 

James Trotta

Spellsword
Diversity Committee
I don't think we'll see WoW style tanks, but I think the new rules will push more fighters into tanky builds. I suppose it would be cool if someone built a DPS fighter and a tankier fighter for Matt in the character build thread.

Right now fighters can be awesome DPS but under the new rules I'm not sure. I think celestial scholars will be the DPS champs under the new rules.

In the old days when you talked about backpacking, usually the fighter killed everything and the scholar kept the fighter standing. In the new system, will we see scholars doing all the killing?
 

Tevas

Scholar
Marshal
Playtest Community Manager
I am still curious as to what roles you feel there are within Alliance, and what the criteria is to successfully fulfill such roles. At the moment, it primarily feels like your intended topic is a focus on the damage output potential of certain classes, particularly Celestial Scholars, and not necessarily a discussion on class roles per se.

If that is the direction you are interested in taking it, there's nothing wrong with that. It simply doesn't align with the intention of the thread you stated earlier or the thread's title, hence the confusion on intent.
 

Muir

Fighter
I don't think we'll see WoW style tanks, but I think the new rules will push more fighters into tanky builds. I suppose it would be cool if someone built a DPS fighter and a tankier fighter for Matt in the character build thread.

Right now fighters can be awesome DPS but under the new rules I'm not sure. I think celestial scholars will be the DPS champs under the new rules.

In the old days when you talked about backpacking, usually the fighter killed everything and the scholar kept the fighter standing. In the new system, will we see scholars doing all the killing?
That's a good idea James, I think I'll put together a level 10/20/30 tank-style fighter for that thread and see how it works.
 

Tevas

Scholar
Marshal
Playtest Community Manager
To define role-wise what I would consider a Tank :

A character who is, by design, able to take and mitigate relatively large amounts of damage. In a group, this is often the front line combatant whose role will be to prevent enemies from engaging the squishy primarily ranged combatants such as casters or dedicated archers.
So, by this definition, would you accept a frontline Celestial Adept as a Tank, who purchased a substantial number of Magic Armors (Weapon Shield), Fortresses, Evades and Dodges?

Again, there is no wrong answer. It is exclusively a theory question. :)
 

Auric

Administrator
Alliance General Manager
Alliance Logistics
Can anyone involved confirm/deny if the monster database/building suggestions are also being reworked as part of 2.0?
Yes, The monster database will be rewritten to fit within the 2.0 changes
 

Muir

Fighter
So, by this definition, would you accept a frontline Celestial Adept as a Tank, who purchased a substantial number of Magic Armors (Weapon Shield), Fortresses, Evades and Dodges?

Again, there is no wrong answer. It is exclusively a theory question. :)
Sure, albeit not a very efficient one and prone to dying of spike damage from casters. Same thing for say, a Rogue or Scout stacked up with defensive skills. Not terrible efficient, but doable.
 
Top