Paragon Paths - What is our goal, here?

[EC-JP]

Regarding the purpose and design process, and to peel back the curtain a little (and to try and get this back on topic)-

Pick any PC available ability. Any given single skill is obtainable by 8th level for the class it is intended for. With the current 7 class system, nearly half of the game (and exactly half if you don't count Artisan) has that skill "in class". There is very little to statistically differentiate characters that stay approximately with class (yes, he might have a wider base on his column and a few less up top, she might have her disarms but no shatters, etc), and limited specific "build towards" milestones that are not "more of what you already have (9th #6, dodge #8).

This logic is why things like Eviscerate, Terminate, and High Magic were added, and to a point, they filled that gap; but without a mutual exclusivity or a higher degree of specialization, they eventually just became "one more thing everyone else can do."

The Paragon concept started as a "one skill for early 20's characters to specialize" concept and grew from there. A statistical goal to work towards through growth, and designed around common character archetypes and genre staples. After discussion, the idea or opening it up to staggered progression appealed to most participating in the conversation. Frankly, for those talking about "high level bloat", I seriously encourage you to look at the first level or two of each path; almost all of which have something character defining.

It should come as no surprise that there are three for each class (if you break scholar and templar into their E/C/G categories, the same wasn't done for Adept because playstyle tends to not shift substantially by spell school).

Each path has a number of abilities that are not replicated anywhere else in the system by design. Within their niche, a Paragon path should make someone (even someone still progressing and not yet completed it) better in that niche than someone of a different, or even no, path; even someone higher level.

Consider going on a module where you know you'll be dealing with elemental- setting aside things like friendships, items, and player skill; there are things that an Elementalist (even a lower tier one) brings to that encounter that no other scholar could match. The enemy general offers single combat to the PC's champion? Sure, it could just be the highest level fighter available, or it could be a mid-level duelist waiting to make her mark...

These are intended as capstone abilities, not so much by class, but by concept; ways to differentiate characters from one another and give characters ways to specialize that don't currently exist in our system.

 

[Muir]

Doesn't rewarding specific character concepts via these strongly flavored and one track systems run a bit counter to the idea of a free-form build system where players are encouraged to play the character they want to play rather than a D&D class archetype?

 

[Gilwing]

I would say that if you play in more than one alliance game regularly you have the right to speak with both owners.

I would say you have the right to speak to ANY owner.

 

[Tevas]

Players were promised the opportunity to hear the Why behind the changes. We understand we won't necessarily get all the changes we want, but we want to know what constitutes as "what's best for the game," in the eyes of those making those decisions.

Why do players become frustrated and feel ignored? Because stuff like this was promised to happen and never did.

https://alliancelarp.com/forum/threads/v2-virtual-q-a.33951/#post-274748

For reference, regarding the v2 virtual Q&A, it was specifically requested by the powers that be not to be held until after the 0.9 release. Now that this packet has been launched, we can again look into the feasibility of running a Q&A session. More information will likely be available in the original thread within the next few weeks.

 

[mythic]

Frankly, its responses like this that are causing a deepening divide between "the powers that be" in ARC/Owners and the mass of players you're representing as a whole for Alliance.

This isn't the first time it been used, but every time it seems dismissive of an owner to say "Talk to your Owner". It comes across as "You're not my player, so you're not my problem". And, honestly, its insulting to be told as such.

The fact that several chapters *have* been telling their owners (including my own, and at least a few others in this and other threads in this cycle alone), and each revision has resulted in more questionable content has led to having to call out these questions on a public forum to desperately try to get the visibility from concerned players.

Hey Saephis, I was away this weekend so could not really respond. The reason I say "talk to your Chapter Owner" is not out of slight. I talk to my players weekly (if not more often). I know them. I understand where they are coming from and we can discuss, at length, issues brought forth. Some players, especially out of Chapter players, I do not know. I do not know if they are long term players, short term, veterans, new players, dedicated players etc. I don't know their backgrounds or their play style, so unfortunately for me, just taking one player's post on a forum is not enough for me (again personally) to take to the Owners. The players should feel free to contact any owner that they know and speak with them about issues that can be brought forward. It makes no difference which chapter (as some have asked). If I know a player from Seattle, as an example, and they want to talk with me about stuff, that is fine and I welcome it. I would still refer them to their CO afterwards as some things are best brought forward by more than just a single, or a group, of the same owners bringing things forward. You can chat with your CO and if they hear enough of a topic from more of their own chapter players, it may help them make a case to the other Owners who may not be thinking of the subject. So when I say "talk to your Chapter Owner" it is because you folks will have a better chance to get your Owner to put something on the other radars if more of the players speak to their Owners about the same subject. One person asking for a "thing" may just be a minor "blip" on a CO's day. But if more players speak to them about the same subject they will be more likely to act on it. Conversations with your COs are where players need to be focusing if they want things to change. Not all owners have time to read every post. So even if I were to bring a topic forward to them, if you have not voiced your concern with them, they may not even be aware of that concern and could end up shooting down your very idea never knowing your concern. Hence why I repeat to players that they need to make their voices heard to their CO.

I hope that makes sense.
Cheers!

 

[Tulbor]

Doesn't rewarding specific character concepts via these strongly flavored and one track systems run a bit counter to the idea of a free-form build system where players are encouraged to play the character they want to play rather than a D&D class archetype?

I don't think it's one tracked. Players are free not to take them, take just a few levels of them, or to get all 5 levels. But nothing stops them from afterwards/during/before taking more skills outside of their scope. I'll take my 5 levels of Defender most likely (cause god damn it, fix Warsmith!! ... sorry), and that concept will be awesome, but doesn't mean I can't afterwards try and get a celestial shrub

 

[Muir]

Players are free not to take them, but they are statted to provide in-game abilities otherwise not available to be on PC cards, and are more build efficient than buying more skills in your class unless you are a caster.

There is a strong OOG pressure there to take them for game advantage, and once they become widespread in use there is a fair chance of them becoming the default scaling paradigm as layered PC defenses are now. This will further reduce the effectiveness of those not using Paragon Paths.

 

[Jim]

Players are free not to take them, but they are statted to provide in-game abilities otherwise not available to be on PC cards, and are more build efficient than buying more skills in your class unless you are a caster.

There is a strong OOG pressure there to take them for game advantage, and once they become widespread in use there is a fair chance of them becoming the default scaling paradigm as layered PC defenses are now. This will further reduce the effectiveness of those not using Paragon Paths.

I would think that people who are playing the character they want to play, going for concept rather than min-max build, are likely are not going to be concerned with OOG pressure and game advantage.

 

[Muir]

I would think that people who are playing the character they want to play, going for concept rather than min-max build, are likely are not going to be concerned with OOG pressure and game advantage.

I would like to think that as well, but the way MIs have been used to bypass character restrictions disagrees.

 

[A.mungo]

I would like to think that as well, but the way MIs have been used to bypass character restrictions disagrees.

Sadly we can look at the opposite as well, as an example, look at the number of hybrid classes on high level teams. If we were talking about OOG pressure and scaling concerns those characters would be much better served by being a straight class and performing a role more cost efficiently.

In the chapters my team plays in we have a shared MI pick list that can travel (pretty much universally up and down the west coast). On my team alone we have 2 mid level Celestial Templars who you would consider completely replaceable by MI picks (a DA and a couple of skill stores and you pretty much have a scholar with a fighter shrub, though if you want more per day power, a full fighter with some spell stores and a handful of cloaks), but we don't replace them, we embrace the character they have chosen to play irrespective of the potential game advantage gained by streamlining, or playing for points.

It is easy in a vacuum to point to a thing you see working for you and saying "That thing works great for our chapter! Why doesn't everyone do this?!", I see it happen here all the time, but ultimately the point of Alliance, you could say our game system as a whole, is one of teamwork and community. If a paragons specialist class means they don't feel like they need to branch out as a fighter to get alchemy and trap making because of cost efficiency, and they can spend build on something that makes them still need teammates, I am all for it. Probably the one thing paragon paths do really well is help to focus characters towards still needing other players. Just like everything, they will be scaling nightmares to begin with, but per day skills/combat mechanics rarely have anything to do with a PVE environment. Plot will learn what happens in their chapter and scale to meet the game their chapter enjoys playing.

We had a couple years of high resurrection counts in my chapter. The games PC membership shifted (we had a nearly 40/20 NPC to PC ratio one event, it was truly brutal). Other chapters have been playing for years with high numbers of resurrections per game, they do just fine. The build/balancing for combat truly matters very little as Plot has the ability to literally write anything on a card before it goes out. Got a lot of characters with Vengences on them? I'll add a couple KBA's to each fight, let them have some fun. Got a lot of rebirths? I might sprinkle in a High Intelligence Ensure Res a couple times a season. 700 prison items? Maybe a celestial GSS, or rips from prison (takes 100 damage, acts as disease, etc.). The point is there is a large amount of tailoring that goes on in the game. Until the rules focus on crafting and resource based skills the daily mechanics truly affect PVP more than anything else in the game. Outside of that, the answer will always be "Trust your plot team" (I know this because we heard it from ARC over and over again).

 

[A.mungo]

As a note, please understand that I recognize the difference in what a 10th level character and a 30th level character can do per day. When I speak of things rarely having anything to do with a PVE environment, I am speaking on all things being considered evenly from a plot perspective. A 10th level fighter in 1.3 and a 10th level fighter in 2.0 will be scaled for differently. a 40th level fighter in 1.3 and a 40th level fighter in 2.0 will be scaled for differently. This is what I mean by the build has very little to do with the "Meta" of the game. Plot teams will adjust to make a fun and engaging game, or players will not play it, regardless of what rules are in place.

So paragons.
Positives - High level teams/players cannot control the Paragon "Economy", accessible through character advancement and not player "skill", premium abilities tailored to make a powerful character better at a more specific thing, and keeps build focused towards class skill. Personally I would be just fine if paragon build helped with class progression as it would help to keep characters from branching out into do everything, need no one bots.....skill/spell/ability store notwithstanding [When you see me walking around with 30 Hobling/Wylderkin squires, you will know the power got to me].

Negatives - Gives unique abilities not replicated by build expenditures elsewhere (like racial abilities), gives more power to powerful characters (Like build does naturally), possibly forces characters to interact with each other or plot elements to learn (I might misunderstand it, but I don't personally see the last one as a negative, but it was listed higher in the thread).

I don't see these as out of place based upon anything else I have seen in 2.0, comparatively I would rather have per day life spells, but I am for anything that creates long term character growth goals, and can add to a characters personal "flavor". I for one was leaning towards playing a Rogue in 2.0, but now the Duelist has me interested in the first every hybrid build I would even consider.

Can you play the game without knowing or concerning yourself with Paragons? Yes. Do we see weird stuff on monsters all the time? Yes. In some chapters do we even see weird stuff on characters? Like half the games have weird Noble power packages, or Gryphon Gifts, or Animus Packages, so, yes. Does the inclusion of Paragon's specifically limit the play of any other type of character? Yes, but it hopefully only where it is tailored to (See Duelist/Plot written honor duel...please don't jump every single hook that comes out potentially for other people)


Even if these don't pass, I have some great 5 day supercharge true empowerment effects. Thanks ARC! .

 

[Muir]

I generally try to pretend 'weird stuff on character cards' doesn't happen, as when you bring it up on the national level things get very quiet very fast.

 

[A.mungo]

I generally try to pretend 'weird stuff on character cards' does't happen, as when you bring it up on the national level things get very quiet very fast.

That's just it though, if it is nationally codified, it can actually travel. That's the big issue with the way it is right now, someone leaves a game where they have access to void magic, and they are just another earth scholar, and I will 1000% never let a custom transform or weird custom ritual into my local game, but if an Auraknife shows up? Great! Everyone has "agreed" these are standard, have fun. The weird isn't the issue. It's that it isn't aplied consistently. For that reason more than any other, I appreciate the paragon packages.