PDA

View Full Version : Needed changes and class/alignment suggestions



Sunking
09-22-2007, 06:53 AM
I would like to see the following classes added to DDO:

Blackguard (the fallen Paladin)

Necromancer (being a Lich would be uber!)

Jerran (evil Halflings for those who don't know)

Battle Priest (Clerics rock, and this would make them even better!)

Are Assassins coming anytime soon? I hope so!

I'd like to see all of the alignments brought into the game and I wouldn't mind seeing the old restrictions such as 'oblivious' for certain alignments put in place, either! Its far to general as it is now and it makes the classes a little bland and too homogeneous.

What about Ironweave Robes for casters? And please...somebody do something about armor in general? The majority of armor (and here I mean all armor and docents too) is so ugly it makes my eyes bleed. I mean, jeez...it doesn't have to be the classic D&D style. But it can't stay like this either! I'd go naked on a dungeon crawl if I could. At least make it uniform and functional looking.

I'd also like to see restrictions on the classes involving alignment and race. For instance, if you're a Barbarian you shouldn't be allowed to multi-class as a Cleric--Barbs and Clerics don't get along, and the same is true for Paladins. And a Barbarian Monk is simply out of the question; no Barbarian would ever be a Monk because its against their nature. Further, the idea of a Lawful Good Barbarian is simply silly--but a Lawful Evil Barb is perfect.

Also, I have a hard time getting used to the idea of a WF Barbarian (nothing against Barbs or WF!), which just doesn't fit. A WF Bard, Rogue, Ranger or Fighter makes sense along with a WF Wizard. But a WF Barbarian, Cleric, Paladin or Sorcerer? That's just not making any sense. What god wants them and what cause could they ever uphold other than their own when they have no society and no society will claim them? Further, what dragon could ever have sired a WF? I mean, its not that hard to see why its so silly (at least to me) Also, I can see restricting the WF class to Neutral and both the Chaotic and Evil alignments in one axis at best because it fits their 'race'; WF are constructs, after all.

I'd also like to see the game appended concerning multi-classing, which in a certain way is being abused and is allowing classes and professions to do things they shouldn't actually be capable of. For example, if you are a Pally and multi with an appropriate class and that class surpasses your Paladin level you can no longer progress in the Paladin profession. Also, what about experience penalties for multi-classing?

Its the little things and details that makes the difference between a good and really great game--at least to me. Maybe if someone started a poll we would see if others feel the same as well? Other than these few suggestions, love the game and always have! Thanks to the devs for all the great work!

Jebin
09-22-2007, 09:52 AM
I would like to see the following classes added to DDO:

Blackguard (the fallen Paladin)

Evil.


Necromancer (being a Lich would be uber!)

Evil..


Jerran (evil Halflings for those who don't know)

Evil...


Battle Priest (Clerics rock, and this would make them even better!)

I don't recognize this class, but I can't see any reason to add a more melee focused cleric type class. D&D and DDO already allow you to focus your cleric on melee if that is what you wish.


Are Assassins coming anytime soon? I hope so!

Evil yet again.


I'd like to see all of the alignments brought into the game

I don't want to see Evil added to the player's alignment options. The arguements went back and forth when the game was released and if you start up a thread about it, I'm sure it'll go on and on. Turbine has the final say, and they've said no Evil so far. Good enough for me.


and I wouldn't mind seeing the old restrictions such as 'oblivious' for certain alignments put in place, either! Its far to general as it is now and it makes the classes a little bland and too homogeneous.

Okay, you lost me here.


What about Ironweave Robes for casters?

You mean this? Ironweave Robe (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v294/CJGMURPG/DDOitems/IronweaveRobe.jpg)

Check out the Static Rewards (http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=121279) thread to find other interesting items.


And please...somebody do something about armor in general? The majority of armor (and here I mean all armor and docents too) is so ugly it makes my eyes bleed. I mean, jeez...it doesn't have to be the classic D&D style. But it can't stay like this either! I'd go naked on a dungeon crawl if I could. At least make it uniform and functional looking.

Well, there are some pretty nice looking armors. My biggest beef is that all the great looking light armor is actually only found as masterwork equipment. The higher end magical equipment always seems to be a variation of the same type of skin.


I'd also like to see restrictions on the classes involving alignment and race.

The alignment restrictions are already in place, and no thank you to the race restrictions.


For instance, if you're a Barbarian you shouldn't be allowed to multi-class as a Cleric--Barbs and Clerics don't get along,

Where exactly are you getting your information from? There's nothing I know of that implies that clerics as a class dislike barbarians or vice versa.


and the same is true for Paladins. And a Barbarian Monk is simply out of the question; no Barbarian would ever be a Monk because its against their nature.

No barbarian could ever be a monk or paladin because the alignment restrictions prevent them.

Barbarians (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/barbarian.htm) cannot be Lawful, Paladins (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm) and Monks (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/monk.htm) are required to be Lawful.


Further, the idea of a Lawful Good Barbarian is simply silly--but a Lawful Evil Barb is perfect.

As I pointed out, Lawful is a no-no for Barbarians.


Also, I have a hard time getting used to the idea of a WF Barbarian (nothing against Barbs or WF!), which just doesn't fit.

Okay you lost me here too. You mind explaining yourself a bit? I don't see a problem here. A newly created Warforged gets misplaced, grows up/develops without a proper education and has an uncontrolable rage manifest when he's extremely angry/frustrated.


A WF Bard, Rogue, Ranger or Fighter makes sense along with a WF Wizard. But a WF Barbarian, Cleric, Paladin or Sorcerer? That's just not making any sense.

You can come up with feasable reasons for any race/class combination, so the only limits you have are ones you place yourself.


What god wants them

Why wouldn't the god of magic want a magically created being as a worshiper? Or a god of war even? They are "war"forged, designed for war and all that.


and what cause could they ever uphold other than their own when they have no society and no society will claim them?

When you're Lawful Good, it doesn't matter if the people don't like that you're made of sterner stuff (literally). You know what your duty is, and you know (at least 'think you know') what is good for the people around you. You're not doing it to be accepted or liked by people.


Further, what dragon could ever have sired a WF? I mean, its not that hard to see why its so silly (at least to me)

Okay, here comes silly for you. A dragon was able to capture a creation forge and began creating an army of his own version of magically imbued warforged. Then again, who says Sorcerers are required to have dragon blood?

If you read the Player's Handbook introduction for Sorcerers you'll see, "Some sorcerers claim that the blood of dragons courses through their veins." It doesn't actually say where any of the power comes from, instead it simply states, "--just raw power that they direct at will."

So how about a wizard is fooling around with his creation forge and accidentally spills "Agent X" onto one of his unfinished warforged? Now we have a pink/green/blue flying...err, I mean we have a warforged with "raw power" that he learns how to direct at will. In other words, a sorcerer.


Also, I can see restricting the WF class to Neutral and both the Chaotic and Evil alignments in one axis at best because it fits their 'race'; WF are constructs, after all.

Warforged are not Constructs. They are Living Constructs. The Warforged have sentient minds. Sentient just like humans, so there can be no restriction on alignment because they can do whatever they like.


I'd also like to see the game appended concerning multi-classing, which in a certain way is being abused and is allowing classes and professions to do things they shouldn't actually be capable of.

Isn't that what multiclassing is about? You give up abilities in one class to obtain different abilities from another class. What am I missing here?


For example, if you are a Pally and multi with an appropriate class and that class surpasses your Paladin level you can no longer progress in the Paladin profession.

I'm not sure which rule set you're basing your Paladin example on, I'm only familiar with 3.5. The 3.5 rules state that if you multiclass into ANY other class, you are no longer allowed to progress as a Paladin. Period (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/paladin.htm#expaladins). Unless the class specificly states you can multi with Paladin (certain prestige classes) or you pick up a Feat that allows you a single class to mutli in.

Even adding in that restriction wouldn't stop people from multiclassing as a Paladin. There's no restriction on when you can start being a Paladin, so you can easily take the other class levels before and after the splash of Paladin. You never lose your Paladin abilities unless you turn evil.


Also, what about experience penalties for multi-classing?

Reasons this won't happen: They didn't have these present when the game went live. It would not restrict multiclassing, it would simply make people level slower. Adding a Favored Class to the races would be a waste of development time.


Its the little things and details that makes the difference between a good and really great game--at least to me. Maybe if someone started a poll we would see if others feel the same as well? Other than these few suggestions, love the game and always have! Thanks to the devs for all the great work!

I like the little details too, but racial restrictions isn't one of them.

Sokar6000
09-22-2007, 10:20 PM
OP, please pick up copies of the Dungeons and Dragons Version 3.5 Player's Handbook, and the Eberron Campaign Setting, read them cover to cover, and then come back here.

Thank you.

~S.

Rilean
09-23-2007, 05:03 AM
I have to agree. OP read the eberron book in this campaign world nearly anything is possible. Hell you can have a lawful Good Red Dragon in Eberron. these requested changes just dont make sense. Not any that I can see anyway. Sorry.