What kind of character do you want to play? How can augments help?

When playing an MMORPG, people have their preferred type of character and roles they feel most comfortable with or that appeal to them the most. Some may like to play a big heavy hitting 2-handed melee warrior while others may like to play a necromancer-type character that uses dark magic and summons undead. When it comes to customization, we are often only allowed to personalize our class within some confined space, this is true even in games where you can swap your class at a whim. For example you customize if your mage focuses on fire or frost in some games and which spells you want to empower/enhance most. The grid archetype system that ashes is planning on using operates on 'augments' where your skills, as determined by your primary archetype, may be modified by your secondary archetype. There have been so many questions surrounding this system like how unique will each class really be, is the goal to make primary archetypes more distinct or similar to one another etc and even after years of development we have don't have much clarity.

In fact, I'd argue that among the many game systems that ashes has, the archetype+augment system is the least transparent of them all. We still only have 2 (repeated) examples, one being the charge of a warrior and the other being the fireball of the mage. I understand the argument of waiting to see what they put out first before giving feedback, but I really do think that we should be given some more details to decide if this system can support how we want to create our characters before too much progress is made.

The grid system as it stands has a lot of names that are vague and elicit different images and expectations for players who read them. One of the reasons for this in my opinion, is that some of the classes themselves do not have a distinct 'feel' or conceptual identity (and I suspect these classes will be the least popular). For example how is a ranger-fighter class supposed to play? Is it a warrior that sometimes shoots stuff with a bow? What about a rogue-summoner? Is it a stealthy summoner or a summoner that summons stealthy minions? This is in contrast to names like knight, necromancer, hunter, shaman, sorcerer etc which elicit expectations that are likely to be common amongst players. The problem then becomes if the grid system is set up appropriately to support these expectations and 'feel' that the name promises. Will for example the necromancer and beastmaster (both summoner primary classes) live up to their expectations or play as just a summoner with slight deviation or skin? This is why it is important and I think overdue that we hear more conceptual details on this system.

Personally, I would argue that in general, there are only a handful of archetypes (in colloquial terms) that people want to play in high fantasy and I can add to this based on the responses to this post:
1. fast attacking melee (probably dual wield, includes monks)
2. big hitting 2h melee (can have a holy/unholy flavor like paladin or death knight)
3. knight (defensive; likely uses shield, can also have holy/unholy flavor)
4. stealthy (mostly) melee assassin
5. ranger/sniper (can have animal pets, can have stealthy component)
6. mage... uses offensive magic (elemental, holy, unholy/demonic or arcane flavor)
7. summoner... uses pets via magic (can have elemental or unholy/demonic flavor)
8. shaman/witchdoctor/druid... uses magic but with more of nature and tribal/ancestral feel (same as mage pretty much but may include shapeshifting and non-offensive magic too)
9. priest/healer/bard... uses non-offensive magic to support or heal

Now as mentioned in the parentheses, these 'archetypes' (colloquial) can come in different coats of paint which I think the augment system is super well suited to handle but not necessarily in a grid-like manner. As already mentioned, using this list of archetypes or the 8 archetypes we already have for augments in a grid-like manner doesn't really make sense... like if you are playing a barbarian (big hitting 2h melee), how does it fit thematically to augment it with stealth or other rogue/assassin themes/properties?

The number of augment options for each archetype is super high when the augments, as far as we know, are not that impactful anyways ("We're not really talking about 64 true classes, we're talking about eight classes with 64 variants" -Jeff Bard). I think the class system in AoC would benefit from having a more focused design where instead of creating 32 (4*8) augments, from the secondary-archetype alone, for each skill, a smaller number of thematic augments be designed to provide us with the classes and 'feel' we want. I think having a really good necromancer class for example is much more important to the game than having a strong oracle or shadow lord (guess the archetype combos on those and how they would play if you can...). Other games often provide a much more curated and 'restrictive' list of class options to play, but what these games gain by sacrificing the theoretical freedom of mixing and matching identities together like the grid system, is having strong conceptual backbone for their offered classes and a clear expectation of what fantasy or 'feel' they may satisfy.

So I am here to ask, what sort of archetype (in colloquial terms) do you want to play and critically, how do you think the augment system can best support this? Is the grid-system what can support your vision the best with the crazy freedom it can support? Or does a more focused use of augments feel more appropriate for the customization you would want? Personally, one of the archetypes I like to play is a tribal elemental caster. In a grid system, I would not really care for augments from the fighter, tank, rogue, ranger and even summoner archetypes, but would like heavy elemental focus (currently mage archetype), some healing/buffing (bard + cleric archetypes). I do think though, that a more focused augment system would be more appropriate for the type of character I want to play.

I think this is an important discussion to have now since there are only 3 archetypes available in the alpha and no augments from my understanding. If people look up the grid or are told there are 64 classes, which again we are told is more like 8 classes with 64 variants, then their expectations and imaginations will set them up for disappointment (especially with how vague some of the class names are). If IS can provide us with more information, people can have better and more realistic expectations of what classes and 'archetypes' (colloquial) they can play and IS can focus on delivering on what the player base wants. I understand that this is not the focus of the alpha testing but we don't need finalized details, just some conceptual clarity to prevent false expectations.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Dygz

McShave wrote: »

I feel a good augment system is very important to staying true to the 64 classes idea, and that Intrepid has made it difficult to understand what the idea is by what they have said so far. They've said that secondary archetypes gives 4 alterations to your spells, and that you can get augments by other means than the secondary archetype.

It really 8 Primary Archetypes - that's how combat is balanced.

McShave wrote: »

So what is an augment then? Do augments change your pre-existing spells into whole new spells, or are they something that can affect any spell with the same effect (give +5 damage and inflict burning).

An augment is applied on top of a Primary Archetype active ability. An augment alters that ability somewhat to also do something from the Secondary Archetype.
A Fighter/Mage could apply a Teleport augment to Charge which would cause the Fighter to teleport past obstacles in-between the Fighter and the target or could add an Elemental augment to the Charge and add Elemental damage to people/mobs Fighter in-between the target.

McShave wrote: »

The best result would be that each spell that a primary archetype has gets 4+2 (+2 from social org and religion) unique possible alterations, plus more augment options from other possible sources. This way we can have truly unique characters with many many options, but it will be a lot of work to create all this and then try to balance it all too.

Mostly balanced via the 8 Archetypes. Truly subjective will be subjective.

McShave wrote: »

A class I want to play is fighter/ tank that I can specialize in spear and shield (spear and shield specifically so I can rp an Aiel from The Winds of Time book series). I would like to be able to offtank and be disruptive in PvP, and have some damage, be somewhat tanky, and maybe have some cc type abilities for PvP combat. To whatever abilities I can, I would add threat augments, survivability augments, and stun or cc augments. And maybe an augment that works with another augment/ potion/ spell/ other, that gives my damage a boost.

Spear and Shield will mostly be Weapon Abilities. Any class can use use any weapon.
Fighter/Tank should be a great off-tank. I would expect you to be able to augment Fighter abilities as you suggest. Yes.

neuroguy

I finally put aside some time to read the comments and reply, haha sorry for the delay.

@Azherae
So it sounds like your vision, based on FFIV I guess, is quite loaded with assumptions about what roles can be played and how PvE content can be managed. I also looked at your predictions of the augments and we already know the mage ones which look extremely different from what you propose. In general, your proposed augments seem to focus on either a particular stat modification (e.g. threat generation) which may be useless for many classes/playstyles, or some uniform mechanic (e.g. copy form) where it doesn't make sense or seem balanced for all skills to have this augment. Now, given what we do know of the mage augments:

For example: A Mage offers Teleportation and elemental schools of augments. These augments will affect a Fighter's primary skills differently than a Cleric's

they seem to be thematic (fire/ice/lightning/teleport) and apply variably to each primary archetype, probably to keep the identity of the primary archetype intact. So if they really are thematically applied, my original criticism stands that some combinations do not really provide a coherent conceptual theme/identity and since you can apply any of the 4 augment schools on a skill by skill basis, there either won't be any thematic coherence or the augment schools will be ~interchangeable in a lot of ways.

Aerlana wrote: »

edit : also, what they aim around class is not so ambitious. FFXI did same thing : you take a main class and a subclass which does the role of "specialisation".
For people who played dd3.5, those kind of thing is really common, and nwn1 / NwN2 even if a lot buggy allow to see that you can really do a lot of mixup even some "strange one"
And even to get a good balance (here it is mainly "having all 64 spec used, not getting some stupidly useless) is not such big montain to climb.
The game is really ambitious on many point (and it makes me fear the fall because too much ambition, aiming to high), but not this class system.

The difference here is that in AoC, you can't really curate and design each 'specialization' carefully. You just provide some pieces and let players pick and choose on a skill by skill basis what the augment is going to be.

@GrilledCheeseMojito I think the current proposed augment system absolutely delivers for someone like you. You have a nice vision and I think will be happy no matter the details of how the templar actually functions. I do think the 'paladin' vision can be easily met without the current grid system too (it is a very common archetype in other games) but that doesn't take away from the grid system delivering here.

@Zeshio Yeah so if what you think is indeed correct, then we really will have a lot of disappointed players since they may expect gameplay and stylistic changes to come with their augment choices. So based on what you say I think it really may be that a beastmaster and necromancer are just the same class with a different coat of paint applied which will be disappointing

@McShave see my quote from the wiki above on some of your questions, but in general having ~6 augments per skill makes it impossible to have simultaneously both meaningful and viable options. Either the augments will be trivial like applies +X type of bonus damage and essentially be passive or be active with some of the 6 possible augments not being viable or catered for the role you want to play (this is just my opinion though, I just don't think it's possible to provide that many augments that are non-trivial and all be viable... and I'm not talking min/max meta stuff, I'm talking like relevant to your role and playstyle).

@GrandSerpent Your vision seems well supported by augments, but given that they seem to be thematic and not stat-based as predicted by Azherae (based on the mage augment schools), I am not sure the grid system will be the best to cater to your vision. I do think your vision is generic enough that it should be fine in the grid system still but it may not be the optimal way to set up your fantasy class.

@Dygz Your goals from the augment system may be the best supported. I may be wrong, but you seem to be thinking about the augments as how they can best modify individual skills to make you more effective at your role. You don't seem to want to deviate from the primary archetype, just have access to modifications to make you 'better' at doing the things you already do. I think that as valid as this is, I'm not really sure how good it feels for most players to just have the 8 classes in reality when they think they're promised 64. If you can't really have distinct identities, you're simply just buffing yourself in the way you think would be best instead of modifying your skills and class to be distinct.

Azherae

Did they promise 64 though? It specifically has been said that we shouldn't think of it as 64.

There's a difference between 'this isn't what they seem to be doing' and 'this can't be done'.

I understand the feeling, but, if Intrepid is so open to feedback, and we say 'we want the Mage Augments to be this way, not that way', what happens?

My point is that the concept of Augments is possible and can work well. I make assumptions because of the same reason I always do.

"Why make the game less functional unnecessarily?"

The thing they're talking about isn't hard. It's not particularly hard to design, to implement, or even to balance. So why not do it?

I can't really be concerned about things like that, because the only result of that path is going 'well Intrepid had ways to do things well, within their own vision and chose not to'.

As I always say, I just have more faith than that.

neuroguy

Azherae wrote: »

Did they promise 64 though? It specifically has been said that we shouldn't think of it as 64.

Yes they have said that it is not really 64 classes:

"We're not really talking about 64 true classes, we're talking about eight classes with 64 variants" -Jeff Bard

but this was a single question in the Oct 2020 stream Q&A after many questions... I think it is absolutely likely that most people still believe there are 64 true classes since this has been what they said for at least 2 years now and still insist that augments will 'dramatically change skills'. This absolutely gives the impression that each class, with its distinct name will be indeed distinct, not many listen to every minute of every livestream.

Azherae wrote: »

There's a difference between 'this isn't what they seem to be doing' and 'this can't be done'.

I understand the feeling, but, if Intrepid is so open to feedback, and we say 'we want the Mage Augments to be this way, not that way', what happens?

I'm saying what you propose is not what they are doing, but I think they shouldn't do what they are doing either. The whole point of this post is to provide feedback that their current vision is not clear and frankly not appealing from the little details they have provided us and therefore we need more details, and sooner rather than later. The fact that we even have to speculate on the nature of augments is kind of crazy to me (with little consensus to boot), no other game system they are implementing is shrouded in so much mystery. To clarify I also don't like your proposed augment variants :P but you know, I'm definitely pro changing the current system (as we understand it).

Azherae wrote: »

My point is that the concept of Augments is possible and can work well. I make assumptions because of the same reason I always do.

I absolutely think augments can work. I just hate the grid system personally haha. I think if they do it in a more curated way where they design the augments to better compliment the primary archetype without worrying about the thematic constrains of the other archetypes, it will turn out much better. I also think that having the freedom of having less augment options per skill will allow them to make each augment more impactful and interesting.

Azherae wrote: »

I can't really be concerned about things like that, because the only result of that path is going 'well Intrepid had ways to do things well, within their own vision and chose not to'.

As I always say, I just have more faith than that.

No idea what you mean by this part :P.

Azherae

I really find myself struggling for words a little here, so bear with me, since I don't want to be insulting in any way.

You say things like 'doing it in a curated way might be better' or 'having the freedom of less augment options per skill will allow them to make each more impactful'.

This isn't often true in coding. I have been trying to avoid 'credential dropping' on this forum for a long time, since it's never received well, but I feel like you might be a person who understands it, so.

I've run game communities before, and I've worked as the Technical Director for a large data aggregation company that builds enterprise level corporate search engines. This means I have to be able to see very large trends in data, aggregates, and systems, and at the time, I was in charge of over 50% of the development team (around 40 people total).

It's common for customers to have concerns that are based on their gut feelings, which don't reflect a reality, especially when it comes to things like big data. It's easy to presume 'this thing seems like it will be hard' or 'that sounds impossible' for tasks that I could personally complete for a client in two days with no direct assistance other than QA.

So when I 'look at what Intrepid is doing', 'what they say', 'what they plan', I'm seeing it from a possible 'mirror to the inside'. You might see 'something that requires lots of effort and limits freedom', whereas I see 'oh good we can use a few standard configuration files and distribute those and make this easier to patch using the version control system'.

I have faith because they have some of the best in the industry, and they use terms that are extremely recognizable to me as indicators of various things. I work with others in my group on game projects literally for fun that are structurally more complex than this specific system.

Honestly, I figure Intrepid chose the Augment system because it's much easier to balance, curate, and test, while still giving them easy options to offer specialized stuff.

MMORPG design is very much a numbers game, and it's pretty constrained, too. I can break down 'why games are going to fail or change something about their systems' very far in advance usually, and I'm right often enough to make myself sad.

It's not that I specifically want this system. just like I don't want the precise Augments I predict, just like I don't specifically want certain changes to combat personally, but I want Ashes to succeed, and I want others to enjoy it, and if Intrepid has a vision that can lead to that more cleanly than all the other things we've been seeing, then I want them to follow through on it as much as possible.

The last thing I want to see is another studio, another game, that ignores the pitfalls of the ways this can go wrong, because they don't have the internal cohesion to foresee their own problems. But that's not what I see right now. So I have faith.

And I'll continue to have faith until that sinking feeling of 'oh no... they can't see it' starts to creep back into my data.

Percimes

At the moment, considering what I know about the different archetypes, I don't have enough to really make my mind on anything. I'm usually attracted to hybrids classes, jack-of-all-trades master of none, secondary healers/supports. I like both melee and range, magic and pets. I'll probably have a few alts...

I haven't played an archer in a long time, so the ranger archetype is appealing at the moment.
I like to explore and rogues often have tools that help in that regard.
I'm tempted by the Charlatan for the name alone, but the rogue/bard combo could be interesting.

*sigh*

One thing I would like to try with augments, if it's even possible, is to put all my spec points into them for a character. Nothing in the main skills or weapons. Spec'less up to level 25 and then all-in in the augments. Not sure if it will be allowed, but that would be an unusual character. Trying to push as much as possible the secondary class aspect even at the expense of the main archetype. Good alt concept (patent pending...)

neuroguy

Not sure why you thought anything you said would be insulting haha, read fine to me. I feel like I am being misunderstood a bit here though. I am not saying the augment or the grid system is impossible to pull off practically, I don't see why it wouldn't be practically feasible. I think the grid system is bad game design.

My biggest point is that we are given too little information on a major part of the game that might be worth looking at to see if it meets expectations and desires of the playerbase. My peripheral point (perhaps this is what you meant by gut feeling) of not being able to have impactful augments if there are that many augments is just due to the fact that I can't think of any game that has 32 augments that are impactful and viable. I think Diablo 3 has the most similar system to the proposed AoC augments that I can think of with their 'skill runes' (I only played D3 for a while early on so forgive me if the game changed a lot) and they only had like 6-8 skill runes if memory serves and even among those 1 or 2 were just trivial damage increases. If you can give me an example of game that had 20+ variations of a skill you could choose between that were all meaningful and relevant, I'd love to hear it.

My other reason for thinking this grid augment system is bad is that I have had, and I know most people have had, a fulfilling experience playing classes and archetypes in a more classically designed class system with arbitrary specializations (like old WoW had). When classes have strong conceptual design and clear lore/identity, people are satisfied. Having a hodge-podge of identities mixed into one class, like for example a rogue-cleric in my opinion, does not have that clarity. Practically, you can make it work if you set up the augment schools in some way as you suggested, but the identity of the character as a whole is confused in my humble opinion.

neuroguy

Percimes wrote: »

At the moment, considering what I know about the different archetypes, I don't have enough to really make my mind on anything. I'm usually attracted to hybrids classes, jack-of-all-trades master of none, secondary healers/supports. I like both melee and range, magic and pets. I'll probably have a few alts...

I haven't played an archer in a long time, so the ranger archetype is appealing at the moment.
I like to explore and rogues often have tools that help in that regard.
I'm tempted by the Charlatan for the name alone, but the rogue/bard combo could be interesting.

*sigh*

One thing I would like to try with augments, if it's even possible, is to put all my spec points into them for a character. Nothing in the main skills or weapons. Spec'less up to level 25 and then all-in in the augments. Not sure if it will be allowed, but that would be an unusual character. Trying to push as much as possible the secondary class aspect even at the expense of the main archetype. Good alt concept (patent pending...)

Cool! What does a 'Charlatan' class look like in your mind? How would it play?

I don't believe you put skill points in 'augments'. I think the skill point system puts your points into 1. active 2. passive and 3. weapon skills, the augments apply on top of your active skills and change them permanently. I think your lack of clarity on this (or mine if I am wrong here) speaks a little to my point haha :P

Azherae

Ok, after rereading your other stuff along with this one, I can see the difference in context here.

I agree that we don't have a lot of information. I obviously am in no position to say why that is. If it's that Intrepid wanted suggestions, well, great. I am absolutely bursting full to the brim of suggestions.

I believe that part of the idea, though, would be that everyone who wants just a specific flavor archetype will be able to just pick one of something closer to 16. So to me, it's '16 strong designs', '14 other complicated niche designs', '12 similar to others designs that don't need to exist but don't hurt anything', and 24 'let's see what we can make work here, for the people who want to really push the limits'.

I wouldn't expect anyone who wanted to play a strong, easily identifiable or understandable class, to have any problems choosing from the grid, just as GrilledCheeseMojito doesn't.

And that's great. We can expect a lot more of those 16 than any others. But the ability to make things like what I want, viable, is also good. Because only the most freedom-loving games ever bother to give me what I want, and yet, in all those games, it's a blast to play it.

If you want to play something with a strong identity that people can easily understand, do that. If you find it isn't working out for you, you can change secondary Archetype, and experiment with the other in your spare time.

But Cleric/Mage won't be fulfilling for me, and neither will Cleric/Cleric.

I want to do what I do in all the other games I enjoy playing, and I'm not going to ask Intrepid to build me a class that I can't even accurately describe to most people, which will be played by like 1% of all players, when they can 'just' slap some Augments on my skills and let me build it myself.

And this is coming from a person who has designed a system in which there actually are functionally 64 classes (or more than that, technically, our Tabletop game is... complicated).

If your concern is that Intrepid is not focusing enough, then just assume that the following classes will all be super cool and very thematic and practically 'premade'.

Weapon Master, Dreadnought, Trickster, High Priest, Oracle, Strider, Scout, Assassin, Predator, Minstrel, Conjurer, Necromancer, Archwizard, Warlock, Hawkeye, Duelist, Paladin, Guardian.

If you'd like them to focus on these, then just assume that they will tune the Augments to make these perfect.

But don't take my 'confusing stealth blinding misdirection battle control healer' away from me, and don't ask Intrepid to design one that fits me precisely either. If they give me the tools, I can do it myself.

Percimes

My lack of clarity is indeed due to the scarcity of info on the main and secondary archetypes and how they intertwine in more practical terms. The time will come when more is revealed and there will be a lot of theorycrafting then.

If this was a pen and paper rpg, the charlatan would be a social rogue. One using his charisma more than his hands to achieve his goals. Using his charm to trick people. A bard/rogue (trickster) would use his tricks to charm and entertain his audience.

In the context of a AoC, the charlatan could use the mobility of the rogue to position himself more easily to maximize the de/buffs from his bardic augments (as we know bards positioning will be an important aspect of its group fighting dynamic).

Dygz

neuroguy wrote: »

Your goals from the augment system may be the best supported. I may be wrong, but you seem to be thinking about the augments as how they can best modify individual skills to make you more effective at your role. You don't seem to want to deviate from the primary archetype, just have access to modifications to make you 'better' at doing the things you already do. I think that as valid as this is, I'm not really sure how good it feels for most players to just have the 8 classes in reality when they think they're promised 64. If you can't really have distinct identities, you're simply just buffing yourself in the way you think would be best instead of modifying your skills and class to be distinct.

It's a semantics problem.
Other RPGs would say 8 Classes/64 total sub-classes.
The augments will create very distinct identities, but we will always be primarily playing the primary role of the Primary Archetype. The way we go about the role of the same Primary Archetype will be significantly different.
And the goal is not really buffing yourself in the way you think is best, rather it is all about buffing yourself in way that you like best - to distinguish yourself from others.

When I play a Cleric during an Ashes Siege, I'm usually wishing I had augments from a Rogue's Stealth School so I can go Invisible after I drop Hallowed Ground. Sunday's test also had me wishing I could drop traps and/or grenades.
A Cleric/Ranger might be wanting to add a Snare/Root augment to their Hallowed Ground.
A Cleric/Cleric might want to add an augment from the Death School to their Hallowed Ground.
A Cleric/Summoner might use a Summon minion augment with their Hallowed Ground.
And that is just Secondary Augments - it's not factoring in the distinctions derived from racial, social org, religious, Node and naval augments.

CROW3

Percimes wrote: »

If this was a pen and paper rpg, the charlatan would be a social rogue. One using his charisma more than his hands to achieve his goals. Using his charm to trick people. A bard/rogue (trickster) would use his tricks to charm and entertain his audience.

Love it. I think Charlatan was a AD&D 2nd edition Thief Kit. Honestly, there were so many good characters in that rulebook. The smuggler would be a particularly awesome class/role to play in AoC.

To the topic at large, nothing suggestions that Intrepid is going to approach classes haphazardly. So I’m confident the classes will feel different enough, and class families (same archetype, different 2nd archetype) will feel similar enough to provide some solid roles. That plus any weapon will give some additional diversity.

For me, I’m pretty stuck on Ranger / Tank. I prefer bow as main with a sword & board when distances close.

RocketFarmer

Just realized that if Secondary Archetype augments are optional then there are actually 72 “class” variants. Using “class” loosely since the eight primary archetypes are the real deal.

Interested in seeing how all of the non-archetype augments come into play and if there would be reasons to opt for those rather than the secondary archetype augments.

As for which Archetype/Class combo. I am leaning towards finding a group and then figuring out what combo fits best within the group. If the game is really centralized around the group, then this sounds like the most reasonable option to get the most out of the game. The good news is with Steven’s preference for Cleric, and I am sure his experience in D&D and Pathfinder where the player running cleric was heal, heal, channel, channel, channel, that Cleric won’t suck in AoC.

Dreoh

RocketFarmer wrote: »

Just realized that if Secondary Archetype augments are optional then there are actually 72 “class” variants. Using “class” loosely since the eight primary archetypes are the real deal.

Interested in seeing how all of the non-archetype augments come into play and if there would be reasons to opt for those rather than the secondary archetype augments.

You get those in addition to your class augments.

You're literally just nerfing yourself to not choose a secondary archetype.

Dygz

I'm pretty sure you have to pick a Secondary Archetype.
You could not use the augments if you wanted to.
There are tons of augments from other categories - if you prefer to use those.

C0nohd

I'm all for the artisan gameplay if i can be a merchant/tamer/gatherer whatever thats what most of my gameplay will be if i need some pve i'll probably do that last.

RocketFarmer

So what would be the benefit of selecting a secondary archetype if you opt not to select the optional secondary augments? That’s what I am getting at. You could just fill your bar with other options from other non-class augments. And come to think of it should you be penalized by either not selecting a secondary archetype or just not opting for the secondary augments.

This isn’t a question of being optimal. It’s a question of player choice.

What other benefits do the secondary archetypes grant besides augments, and what do you lose from your primary archetype? If it all just boils down to optional secondary augments and a fancy class name, then is that really all that?

Not everyone chooses to have nuts on their Sundae.

That’s before even considering what may or may not stack. I am sure AoC is trying to limit the options that don’t stack, but that’s a hard thing to implement. Characters easily become broken without such considerations. Pathfinder was notorious for that with all of their supplemental books.

Azherae

RocketFarmer wrote: »

So what would be the benefit of selecting a secondary archetype if you opt not to select the optional secondary augments? That’s what I am getting at. You could just fill your bar with other options from other non-class augments. And come to think of it should you be penalized by either not selecting a secondary archetype or just not opting for the secondary augments.

This isn’t a question of being optimal. It’s a question of player choice.

What other benefits do the secondary archetypes grant besides augments, and what do you lose from your primary archetype? If it all just boils down to optional secondary augments and a fancy class name, then is that really all that?

Not everyone chooses to have nuts on their Sundae.

That’s before even considering what may or may not stack. I am sure AoC is trying to limit the options that don’t stack, but that’s a hard thing to implement. Characters easily become broken without such considerations. Pathfinder was notorious for that with all of their supplemental books.

Yeah, for sure. Religious and organizational Augments are gonna be interesting, since there are a lot of augment types that would be good but wouldn't work well on Secondary Archetypes without pigeonholing people into specific ideas and builds, which the Creative Director doesn't seem to want to do.

I can see some sort of 'Holy Order Templars' org giving an Augment that buffs your block chance, for example, which you could just go 'well that's neither here nor there, I don't care about it'. If you put that on a Tank augment, though, then suddenly people who don't like using Shield have one less viable augment to choose from.

I still think the optional secondary Augments are going to be fairly impactful to performance, though. An ArchWizard whose Blink effect calls down six or seven lightning strikes in their wake as they move is a pretty different beast than just 'someone who disappears' (if Blink starts to get past collision).

Wokal

Shapechanger! Every game needs it, even if they dont know it yet ^^

Might have to add a new archertype for that to work out. Shifter.

But 2nd best option would be Conjurer and augment the summons to swap place with your physical body (so that your physical body is for the duration, and/or until the summon is killed,in a spiritrealm of sorts)

Could make a necromancer into a Lich/vampire/Zombielord, a beastmaster into differetn animals (like Dnd druid), a spellmancer into an elemental....etc etc

SongRune

As promised, I return with my own wishes!

First of all, I'm a Bard. You might have guessed from the name, or remembered my post before. I want all the usual Bardy goodness. Buffs for all sorts of stats, recovery over time, damage over time, and the various stat and status debuffs that make up the Bard class as we know it from so many other games. What Azherae has put together in her Bard Compilation post (with a little help from me, gathering the data) sounds perfectly good to me overall. What comes next, is obviously, the subclass, or secondary archetype in Ashes parlance.

To choose my subclass (Spoiler: It's probably Rogue), I have to consider what I need or want, that Bard alone can't give me. (Shoutouts to all you Minstrels though!)

1. I want to blind my opponents with weapon attacks. I could probably get this from Bard with an accuracy debuff (like "Narrative Goal: Demoralize" > "Grace" in the above-mentioned compilation/theory), but even if I can, I still want it on weapon attacks or abilities. It just feels better that way. I don't want to have to worry about cooldowns on that (or linked abilities), and it'd be nice if it worked while "Silenced" (if this game turns out to have a status like that). I'm not extremely particular about whether it's an additional effect on normal hits (possibly activated for a short time by an ability or augment), or whether it's a weapon-related augment or ability in itself.
2. I want the ability to increase my evasion. Sure, I could get that from Bard abilities, but it'd cost "song slots", or cooldowns, or whatever else is involved there. Also, I want this to be a stance or ability that raises it sharply for a shorter period of time (limited by cooldown, of course), that I can use when my target is about to enter a dangerous stance of their own, or start using some big attack. Bonus points if this affects magic too, but, again, I won't insist. I'd also be happy to see a stance that will let me buff my evasion longer term, at the cost of DPS, as long as I can cancel out of it when I'm ready. I'm also happy for any form of shadow-trickery nonsense that lets me get similar results. I am fond of striking from the shadows.
3. I'd like the ability to bind my opponents and root them in place. I don't know how much CC we're going to get, and I can see how this gets OP fast if it lasts too long, or too many people have it. (Long cooldown? PvE only? Balance isn't my expertise.) Still, I would appreciate the ability to control the flow of battle that something like this provides. I would use it to change situations: To get a few seconds of breathing room. To let my critically wounded teammate back off a bit so they can be healed. To just give myself a head start if I want to run away. I would use it to create opportunities: My mages can go ham if they know that the enemy can't chase them down before the tank gets it's attention back (right after it wasted its long range ability, of course). So many possibilities.
4. I want a "Cripple" style effect, that limits enemy abilities. Preferably heavily right at the beginning, and diminishing over time. Lots of subtlety here as well. I can use it right as I expect an enemy is about to use their powerful attack for an almost stun-like effect (or in PvP, a race between my predictive skill and their awareness and reactions (to delay their own ability)). Or I can use it when I just need some more control or safety, and rely on the longer-term, weaker effect.
5. Extra critical hit or accuracy buffs really can't hurt. (Well. Me, anyway.)

Blinding, Evasion, Shadows, Rooting, Cripples, and Criticals. Definitely looking like /Rogue. I might even have a Rogue alt, but I'm never abandoning Bard. It will always be my main.

Things I don't want:
I don't need the whole "Backstab" thing. I'm not really a stereotypical rogue in that sense. I don't mind the ability, but setting things up in that way, as a major goal, isn't something I'd like to be focused on. It'd get annoying or distracting eventually, so I just won't unlock that particular augment. I prefer to keep my focus on control. I'll let my teammates capitalize, in that regard, or just wear down the enemy myself through debuffs, sustain, and evasion.

A lot of these would make solid abilities on their own, but they're fundamentally all compatible with augments. Probably mostly on Weapon related skills, as I don't see Bard having many active direct-damage abilities, but there will probably be some on those too.

Child Item