Guild Wars 2 and the Future of Classes and Roles

[Fridayknight]

Actually, no. I was amazed by what they did for Guild Wars, though (at least until the release of the dreadful 'Eye of North' expansion). Guild Wars 2, however, will just be yet-another-mmorpg.

I dont agree with this. It does seem like they are trying to do something new so that it isnt like yet-annothers (see almost every advert at the side of the enworld pages if you want that). I, for one, am looking forward to the increased pve aspects and the easy grouping systems. Trade definitely could be improved on from GW1 (i spent hours just sitting and spamming out to sell stuff).

 

[Pour]

Thanks for the responses!

@ Dracosuave

You bring up some great points. I think a lot of what you mentioned does speak to moving away from the traditional healer, and Ardent, Artificer and Runepriest do add a different dimension to support. It's awesome, but I think they should push it even further, and I'm sure they will. The Shadow Leader will undoubtedly have a unique take, and whatever new builds emerge for existing classes.

What we have now in the game, as you've excellently illustrated, seems to speak exactly to your preferred design philosophy: clearly identifiable classes/roles and generalized powers that effect many conditions/situations. But I'm saying, in light of having read through the Guild Wars 2 design docs, to challenge that, and not for the sake of challenging, but because I think if the designers continue to refine and redefine what it means to be a leader, controller, defender and striker, it's going to benefit all of us.

I'm not advocating a class build that can do everything, but I do support a leader wizard and controller fighter, and new classes in general. I'd like to see more classes given builds with leader as secondary roles, as well, and capable of more support. This doesn't make any other class or build obsolete, it simply adds more options. 4th, as you've painted it, is working, and the design philosophy has held up these past few years, but I think Essentials marks the beginning of its expansion into new design territory.

I can't wrap my head around not moving forward, as if the diversity meter said full, or the oven timer went off and 4e was done. Maybe I really do lack a finer understanding of this game, but I know what I want from D&D. I want it to continue to evolve, as I sense there is so much more to do with this system. And I have hope in the next few years it will.

@ Riga

Yeah I was thinking how exactly they would do this as well, and immediate interrupts did come to mind. Admittedly, all damage avoidance would remove something visceral from the game, and all the interjections would likely bog down combat besides. Still, maybe a unique class mechanic or a certain line of powers might help alleviate that. Like I said earlier, I don't have a clear idea how to implement these ideas (and maybe that's enough reason to stop harping on them), but I would like to see the attempts.

Cross-class powers might be something else to look into. Imagine a power that was combined between a cleric and a paladin. Or cross-power-and-class powers, centered around a certain keyword say, an invoker and a warlock unleashing a double-dose of fear. Oh, and what if they were two encounters combined, or two dailies! Novaaaa! Haha, I digress...

And I still hold out some hope for specialization and counter powers. Draco and Victim make a solid argument against them, too specific, but I wonder. What if instead of Augments, where the more power points invested the stronger the power, we had Conditions, where the more certain conditions were met, the stronger the power. At their base, these powers would be slightly weaker than your average, but, taking the rain power, if there is a fiery or acidic terrain or power being used, it enters a stronger conditional state, and then if it used in the middle of a storm or near a large body of water, it enters a third conditional state. Something along those lines.

@ Victim

Good points. Maybe they should create class builds that have built in support. If Essentials Clerics lost ritual casting and gained Resurrection, why not have a different line of classes lose utility powers and have utility build into them. That definitely speaks to me for a rogue.

@ Friday

Me too.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The problem with situational powers remains though. If you have a power that works really well in some situations and works poorly in others you simply won't use it in the situations its not good for. If you don't run into the situations it IS good for then you won't use it at all or your just stuck being sucky that day.

If you look at 4e powers you can see loads of utility powers that are highly situational. Nobody wants them. Once in a blue moon you'll need it and the rest of the time you'll wish you didn't have it. A lot of times you'll also find that the more general power will ALWAYS do something good for you at some point in every encounter. The DM can't really say "well, I am going to make this encounter such that you CAN'T do it if you don't have the Jump spell." Maybe for a specific group that he KNOWS has that spell, but in that case it isn't situational anymore, its generally useful all the time in that world.

Wizard's spellbook feature provides a bit of a way to use special purpose powers more, but it still requires meta-knowledge or careful attention by the DM to providing hints. D&D just doesn't and likely never will reward this kind of thing.

If you want to build a system that does reward specialized powers then it needs to be a system that uses something like power points. The character can try a wide variety of different tricks, just not all of them in one day and he has to pick and choose. The emphasis moves from build to resource management. There may still be a build element in creating your list of tricks, but its a different equation. There's not much point in having more than one power that does the same thing in similar situations. What you will end up with is a system where the characters mostly spam the same generally best multi-purpose power all the time, with an occasional use of some specialized trick when the situation demands.

Honestly I think 4e has basically advanced PAST where GW2 is trying to go. All of this kind of design has been tried in different games anyway. Pick any RPG game design you can imagine and I can show a game that does that, and probably one that was published before 1990 at that.

 

[DracoSuave]

Conditional/Situational/Countering Specific stuff powers are good in games where you plan to encounter specific opposition, or where part of the game is an overriding metagame in a competitive format, or where that conditional power does not take up a meaningful amount of 'storage space' or 'slots' in order to have.

Take a look at the power 'Dispel Magic' that a wizard has. They've errata'd it to be an encounter power, because as a daily utility power, it just wasn't attractive enough.

But really, that's unnecessary. There aren't enough zone or conjuration monsters out there to really justify using it more than once an adventure. Fortunately, utility powers have plentiful slots, so using one of your six slots on it isn't -that- big a loss of your 'storage space.'

Attack powers, on the other hand, are a totally different beast. You only get three daily powers you can choose. A situational one in that slot had better be a common situation, or it's a complete waste of slot. The same goes for situational encounter powers.

Look, as another example, at Warlocks, and the Spiteful Glamor at-will they have for Dark Pact. There's an example of a power that's subpar most of the time, but above par in a given situation. It even has a common situation to trigger it: An enemy hasn't taken damage yet. That happens every fight.

It's also a disappointing power. You use it once, then switch to your only other power, because there's never any reason to use its subpar ability. What makes it even worse is that the class uses up its entire alotment of 'storage space' for at-wills in order to have it. You never hear people go 'Spiteful Glamor is awesome!' People take Dark Pact because of the pact boon.

Contrast with Dire Radiance. It's also situation, but it's a situation you can make -happen-. Dire Radiance on a guy in melee, followed by a Thunderwave to knock him back? Hells ya that's good times. In this case, it isn't really situational because you're creating your opportunities. As such it IS a worthwhile addition to your repertoire (provided you're able to make it work).

It's better design to make more general counters, that work on all sorts of situations,. That's how you make powers that are flexible, and more fun.