Fixing the Class system

The goal is to change the class system while keeping as much of Steven's vision intact as possible and allowing enough flexibility for the devs to develop something that inspires them without pressuring them to develop something that doesn't while allowing for more design space later on to add new classes or sub classes.

1.) Change the language to first class picked as being the base class, and make it clear this will be your playstyle. The second class could be either archtype or secondary class, though secondary class would be more clear. Call the result of those two decisions the Sub-Class. (I will be using this terminology from here on out)

2.) Remove the double up sub-classes (Ranger/Ranger, Fighter/Fighter). While an interesting idea it only serves to make people feel like stuff was withheld from them when they selected their class, and inflate an already huge number of sub-classes.

3.) Remove any subclass that would be a nightmare to balance or would be redundant either by base classes or other sub classes.

4.) Add more base classes. You have no Gish class (hybrid caster and melee), No Dark/Evil caster, No Holy Warrior, No Druid/Nature caster, no Monk/Brawler class.

5.) Armor/Weapon restrictions determined by base class and sometimes modified by the secondary class either unlocking or locking out different armor/weapon types.(I'll give an example at the end)

6.) Either reduce the level at which you get your secondary class or you should get 1 major passive change/active ability to you class when you make the choice at 25.(I'll give an example at the end)

The Cons:

1.) Less subclasses, like way less, like going from 8 to 3 or 4, this depends on how many base classes they add if any

2.) Longer development time, this also depends on how many base classes they add

3.) I can't think of anything else right now but I'm sure I'm missing at least a few

The Pros:

1.) More possible sub-classes means more design space.

2.) More design space means less design pressure.

3.) More playstyles at the start means more people can find something they like until they get what they want.

Example:

Base Class: Rogue
Secondary Class: Necromancer
Sub-Class name: Edge Lord
Armor: From Medium to Light
Weapon: Unlocks Dual short swords
Active ability: Become incorporeal reducing physical damage taken but increasing magic damage taken. The first creature attacked from stealth cowers in fear for X seconds.

So this feels like a huge change but it isn't. The playstyle is exactly the same, with one ability which could replace a stun with cower mechanic. Visually I'm thinking something like Nocturne from LoL. So more like a Dementor with blades for arms, and much faster.

Edit for clarification: I want to make it clear all I am suggesting is a focus shift to more base classes to facilitate more playstyles at launch, creating some kind of class identity, and make some language changes which will clarify things to most people.

I realize most of you are looking at this as a game that will launch in 2-4 years. That's not what I'm thinking about. I'm thinking about 3 months after launch when most people are max level, what a new player experience will be. That's where I am coming from. The game MUST be able to stand on its own no help. They will have no friends to help them, there will be no guides, and what you don't want is someone forcing themselves to play a playstyle for 100 hours only to find out they only get a few aesthetic changes and not the playstyle change they were expecting.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Azherae

arkileo wrote: »

Surely we should wait and see how the current plan plays out before declaring it as failed?

In one sense, yes, but for people who want to play a different style of implementation, it has already failed.

It's never going to give them the experience that they want. If Intrepid is still open to changing it, it might help to know how many people want it changed and how. If they're not open to changing it, it probably doesn't matter, but a good explanation/discussion of what it would take to make that player type happy, might still do something.

OP at least makes a very clear case about what would make them 'happier'.

Garren

I did have the thought that the only melee dps that gets up in your face is the Fighter. Where is the Barbarian, or the Puglist/Monk? Will there be options for unarmed combat or fist weapons for the Fighter? Who knows. We got Combat Momentum with the Fighter. It basically acts like the Rage bar from WoW, but Barbarians should forego defense for pure offense, utilizing big weapons and an extra large health pool to be a bruiser but a true tank. We've seen the Fighter wear heavy armor, which is fine, but it shouldn't be the ONLY thing a fighter can do. Where is the medium armor dexterous Fiora from League of Legends, dancing around the field with a rapier; where is the bo staff Monk who channels chi into their body to make it super tough and unleashing fists of furry; where is the one hand swordsman, Kirito the Black Swordsman who focuses on speed and combo attacks with multiple slashes a minute?

In my opinion the Fighter class could be so much more, and maybe it WILL become more. So I understand where the additional of a couple more base classes could be beneficial, but I know that would be a development nightmare.

I just hope Intrepid continues to develop the class into offering multiple playstyles and for players to be individualized and unique. And I know they will.

iccer

Garren wrote: »

I did have the thought that the only melee dps that gets up in your face is the Fighter. Where is the Barbarian, or the Puglist/Monk? Will there be options for unarmed combat or fist weapons for the Fighter? Who knows. We got Combat Momentum with the Fighter. It basically acts like the Rage bar from WoW, but Barbarians should forego defense for pure offense, utilizing big weapons and an extra large health pool to be a bruiser but a true tank. We've seen the Fighter wear heavy armor, which is fine, but it shouldn't be the ONLY thing a fighter can do. Where is the medium armor dexterous Fiora from League of Legends, dancing around the field with a rapier; where is the bo staff Monk who channels chi into their body to make it super tough and unleashing fists of furry; where is the one hand swordsman, Kirito the Black Swordsman who focuses on speed and combo attacks with multiple slashes a minute?

In my opinion the Fighter class could be so much more, and maybe it WILL become more. So I understand where the additional of a couple more base classes could be beneficial, but I know that would be a development nightmare.

I just hope Intrepid continues to develop the class into offering multiple playstyles and for players to be individualized and unique. And I know they will.

Any class can wear any type of armor.

Also, I'm sure we're going to see new archetypes released in the future, after the game releases. For now, this is the baseline which is enough.

Also, you can choose which weapons you want to use, and which abilities you spec into, so you might get something that you like more. Not every fighter will play the same. This is not LoL, where you only have 4 abilities (usually) that are always the same.

Rippley

I think the overall takeaway here is that players WANT unique and flavorful multi-classes and there is serious doubt whether or not the augment system can deliver on that front

Azherae

Rippley wrote: »

I think the overall takeaway here is that players WANT unique and flavorful multi-classes and there is serious doubt whether or not the augment system can deliver on that front

Not 'can'. Just 'will'.

We are not lacking the idea that it can be done, we're lacking proof.

We're not really even lacking 'proof that it can be done', we have that across many games that have done it. What we lack is 'proof that Intrepid specifically can do it'.

And since the biggest concern is almost always that it won't feel unique or flavorful enough, the issue usually boils down to people wanting 'very heavy uniqueness' which is not a thing that was promised nor a thing that most people explain that they want.

If Tank/Bard and Tank/Tank achieve the same thing a lot of the time but the details differ, the only thing that matters is if Tank/Bards feel like they are doing what they expect Tank/Bard to do, not 'how unique it is from Tank/Tank'.

If it doesn't seem to be working out, as you have shown, everyone will yell at them until they fix it to work. And a lot of those people will be able to point to really precise stuff and say 'make it work like this'.

Rippley

I think the mirrored archetypes are the ones that make the most sense within the framework of the Augment system. In a true multiclass system like the one I have outlined in my own post. Bard/Tank and Tank/Bard are functionally identical and both yield the same multi-class.

However in the augment system a Tank/Bard would have Tank stats and abilities with Augments that evoke the flavor of bard. While a Bard/Tank would have Bard stats and abilities with Augments that evoke the flavor of tank. So in those mirrored archetypes specifically, I find the Augment system to be a better design space.

Azherae

Rippley wrote: »

I think the mirrored archetypes are the ones that make the most sense within the framework of the Augment system. In a true multiclass system like the one I have outlined in my own post. Bard/Tank and Tank/Bard are functionally identical and both yield the same multi-class.

However in the augment system a Tank/Bard would have Tank stats and abilities with Augments that evoke the flavor of bard. While a Bard/Tank would have Bard stats and abilities with Augments that evoke the flavor of tank. So in those mirrored archetypes specifically, I find the Augment system to be a better design space.

The Augment system is a good type of simplification that many people need for social reasons, it reduces confusion and toxicity.

The obvious example to this is the 'Support' role in some MOBAs. This is a role that can be filled by many characters in those games, even some that definitely are not marked as Support, but the player has to know what they are doing, and they need to have an idea of how to build for it.

Most importantly, the 'Carry' needs to be on board with it and understand how to work with it. This applies across all such games. Games that offer highly flexible multi-classing like Throne and Liberty run into the 'problem' where you can't know what a player of any given combination 'thinks is the thing they're supposed to be doing'.

I mention all this because I want to point out that it's just an 'illusion'. It's a matter of how the information is presented to certain player types. A 'Support' that is playing a Bruiser character in a MOBA can upset someone quickly because their expectations fail, but that doesn't always imply they aren't doing the exact same thing a more traditional 'Support' character does, only that the person working with them 'sees that they chose a Bruiser, and makes some assumptions or doesn't understand how it's different'.

So, Ashes could implement an extremely cool and detailed system with many builds, and it would still be better to just 'call it Augments', for those people who don't want to have to think about it. It's 'safer' for the Tank/Bard to be able to choose Argent just so that person can assume 'ok sweet their icon looks like one of those Tanky icons' and then not instantly get mad when they lose hate a little early or don't stand in the expected spot.

Sometimes you just gotta let the casual-investment players have the option to not have to think about it.

Lodrig

Kilion wrote: »

[Edited examples for better readability]
I understand that this is nothing we can say for sure as of now, but my point is: There is no clear indication to me that augments are just skills cosmetics. And I am much more inclined to believe that rather than balancing classes through tweaking their skills all the time, they will adjust that by adjusting the encounters.

No, we have no less then THREE lines of evidence which leads to doubt as to the quality the augment system.

First off all the examples you gave and which Intrepid have given in the past are barely above the level of cosmetic changes, basically just procs for some additional elemental damage on skills, but in every example the core usage case, tactical impact and interactin with the rest of the kit remain the same. This would have no effect on playstyle as it is the kind of stuff that gear often allows in other games, such as having a sword do fire damage etc, no one would say that makes a fighter anything but a fighter. Intrepid has shown that their engine has the capability to make radical changes to base skills, but none of the design documentation shows a willingness to use that capability for anything but cosmetic and flavor variation.

Second the timeline is tight. Given the time it's taken to not yet fully develp the base archetypes, a process which looks like it will take up most of the rest of Alpha with the Rogue and Summoner classes schedualed for late release and which will clearly be the focus for atleast another year. Were explicitly told that 'finishing the base' is the priority' and it really looks like even the conceptual design of augments has yet to begin. That leaves very little time remaining and makes it hard to imagine anything but the most shallow augment system which basically has no gameplay impact could be designed let alone tested in the available time. Unless literal years of unseen work have been done already their would not be more then about one year left in the late Alpha and Early Beta to actually do all the augment work.

Third the huge number of combinations, if the augment system truly works by letting every skill have 4 augment options per secondary archetype, that would be 32 options per skill and put the combinations well into the thousands. This scope size screams low impact changes because their just are not enough playstyle distinctions to be had in such a large number of options. All class systems with meaningful playstyle differences are restricted to atmost 2 dozen well defined kits or ability sets which give focus to it and lots of distinction from other classes.

Aszkalon

Azherae wrote: »

Sorry, my native language is Erlang.

Leonerdo

I feel like there might be too much attachment that people (myself included) have already developed to the "existing" augment/class designs. Even though they don't really exist yet... Doesn't Intrepid want us to give feedback and tell them when we think their design direction is flawed? Especially before they waste a bunch of work on it?

I think people here have clearly identified two potential flaws to the whole system: 1) The 64 subclasses are not likely to feel unique enough. And 2) it might take way too long to make as many augments as Intrepid supposedly wants. (Although I think people might be misinterpreting the "4 augment paths" thing. It's probably just 4 "trees" not 4 augment choices for every single ability. Still, that's a heavy cost for something that might feel shallow or redundant in the end.)

And of course, balance might be an issue, but it's entirely secondary to the others. If classes feel unique and augments aren't infeasibly numerous in the first place, then balancing them afterwards shouldn't be too tall of an order.

Lodrig

This is why I think Intrepid should change course and to the following.

Descope from 4 augments per secondary archetype to 1 focused tree of 10 to 20 nodes per class, aka the Class tree which will sit on another tab alongside the base archetype skill tree. This eliminates the multiple thousands of bland skill/augment combinations down to 640 to 1280 nodes most of which will only alter 1 base skill much the same way many base archetype nodes currently due. This resultins in a reduction of between 60-80% in interactions which need to be designed and tested.

Similarly make racial/religion and any other augment source also small trees on tabs, as these could be applied to any base archetype they would mostly be passive effects rather then skill alterations. A small number of active skills might also be a possibility as these skills will not see modifications from a class they can exist in parrelel without adding complexity, such skills should be of a more utility nature so as not to engender race/religion/archetype optimal combos.

Allow the nodes of that class tree to far more radically change the base archetype skills, but for these changes to be very clearly focused towards making a kit which provides a playstyle which is both distinct from either the primary or secondary archetype and which feels like a true synthesis of them and which fuffills a clear 'class fantasy' which is stated upfront and allows a player to make an informed choice about the class they want to play as.

Lastly this preserves the ability to expand or contract the class tree size as development continues, and even after launch to plug any holes or needs which might arrise both with the class tree or the underlying base archetype kit so this system is more future proof and expandable over time. Bit by bit a class tree can be expanded with options to introduce a second branch and second defacto kit that the player can utilize or hybridize between. In contrast augment systems have to bite off a huge amount of potential interactions and complexity for each augment, and it would be expected to keep the same number of augments options across all secondary archetypes, so going from 4 to 5 augments requires thousands of interactions to introduce.

Kilion

Lodrig wrote: »

First off all the examples you gave and which Intrepid have given in the past are barely above the level of cosmetic changes, basically just procs for some additional elemental damage on skills, but in every example the core usage case, tactical impact and interactin with the rest of the kit remain the same. This would have no effect on playstyle as it is the kind of stuff that gear often allows in other games, such as having a sword do fire damage etc, no one would say that makes a fighter anything but a fighter. Intrepid has shown that their engine has the capability to make radical changes to base skills, but none of the design documentation shows a willingness to use that capability for anything but cosmetic and flavor variation.

This the aformentioned doubt of impact, which is fine, but I don't share that doubt and especially the notion that my examples would clearly prove that there is "no impact" to these augments is something I will strongly disagree with.

Me wrote:

"Chilling Mend" (Ice) - still restores health, but also reduces burn/fire stacks on the target, also creates a small burst that deals cold damage around the target and appies a stack of chilled.

Applied on a mage channeling blizzard on an incoming group of enemies, this would have the potential to stack cold stacks so fast onto the enemies that they, meaning compared to the basic Mend this one becomes an effective tool of CC support for any target character also applying cold stacks.

Me wrote:

"Firey Mend" (Fire) - still heals, also reduces stacks of cold effects on the target and creates a small aura of AoE fire damage (like 2seconds)

This reduces CC on the tank, helping him dish out more of his own CC and the AoE basically punishes the enemy for staying where the tank wants them - in range. Note that Mend has multiple charges, so if you have 5 stacks and as the Cleric fire these at a frequency of 2 seconds the Firey Meng would result in 10s of continuous magic damage - something no heavily armored enemy will want to be subjected to.

Me wrote:

"Crackling Mend" (Thunder) - still heals and reduces static charges or reduces effect time of something like stagger or stun. Also explodes for a small amount of lightning damage - if a stack is removed this way, damage of the explosion is increased; if a hard cc is broken by the Mend the damge increase is even higher. Or it could add additional lightning damage to the targets next 3-5 weapon attacks.

Putting that on your Rogue or Ranger not only gives them more sustain in the back line, bearking them out of hard CC if timed correctly and also would increase their damage potential to land a kill in the backline and escape with enough HP. If that is not significant additional impact to you, I have to ask myself what would meet your expectations.

Me wrote:

"Distorting Mending" (Void) - heals and creates a small spacial shock around the target. Nearby enemies of the target become rooted if they were staggered, they become stunned if they were rooted (for the remainder of the root time) and if they had no debuffs on them their movement speed is decreased by 20-35% for 1-2s.

This one would be so nasty that I don't even know how this could be too light. You can promote soft CC to hard CC and if you have a team mate in a chase scene because of low HP, this skill alone could turn the situation around and make it an incredible kite where ever hit of Distorting Mend heals AND slows the enemy, making even a low mobility class hard to get away from.

I cant explain it better than that, but I hope you get my point: Yes these aren't groundbreaking changes that would change the skill entirely and in all situations, but I think that is exactly what Intrepid is aiming for with this system, the augments are playstyle adaptions that should support us more in the situations that we tend to find ourselves in the most. And a PvP focused Cleric would definitely be one hell of a pain to deal with through on of these Mend Versions compared to the basic spell.

AirborneBerserker

Azherae wrote: »

I don't know if those designing this at Intrepid still need to hear this, but since we've had multiple threads recently:

My group and I still believe you can do this to our satisfaction, team. Whether that's because we're easy to please, or other people just don't have the same type of imagination, barely matters, right? If you're at the point where you have a goal and are working toward it, we're behind it all the way.

I haven't yet seen a counterpoint from any poster that could convince me that the course needs to change, all my 'doubts' are based on the fact that it's taking so long, and maybe theirs are too.

I do agree that if you don't think you can do this, or you are still struggling with it, you need to tell us, soon, and maybe consider these threads to be important, but our feedback is that if you are just keeping things close to the chest, or still gathering data from the many games that do this well, or even just 'tuning it so that it doesn't overwhelm certain types of player', keep going.

It's not even 'we really want to experience this because it seems so cool and novel'. It's definitely in the 'why are people reacting like this to something that is so common/relatively easy?' pile. So keep poking at the MOBAs, and the Nippon Ichi Software games, and Dragon Warrior, and TL, and the good Diablo games, and push on.

I have no doubt that they can pull the system off. What they are talking about is not hard to make.

I'm worried about people being upset because the class they were promised is a sub class.

I'm worried that the lack of playstyles will amount to lower sales on launch.

Caeryl

This is a really good example of someone jumping the gun, if not asking for an entirely different game experience.

We haven’t even had a chance to test all the classes. You’re gonna have to cool your jets until well into Alpha 2, as well as give up on the arbitrary armor and weapon restrictions. That’s a pillar of the gameplay design and if it’s a deal breaker for you, then there are other games you can get into that have those sort of arbitrary restrictions.

AirborneBerserker

iccer wrote: »

Kilion wrote: »

I read through the other comments, it seems that there is serious doubt in the impactfulness of augements in general. And I understand that we do not know for sure but here is my take on:

And the thing is, this is only the case because we haven't seen anything yet, or really heard much about it.

I really like your examples, and that's pretty much what I also would think is the goal of this system. And I am a big fan of that.

However, I'm cautiously optimistic, because I've been disappointed already with some feature showcases, and I wouldn't be surprised if they changed their mind about how much of an impact augments will have. Or rather, maybe I had envisioned it differently.

Also to add to it:

How many abilities are we going to end up having on the skill bar? 10? 15?

I feel like class augments should apply to maybe half of those, your main abilities basically, or rather, those abilities you use most often. We also have several other augment types that are not tied to the class/archetype system.

Azherae wrote: »

Aszkalon wrote: »

AirborneBerserker wrote: »

Fixing the Class system

The Title itself SC~REEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAMS with Confidence and Conviction that You can probably do a better Job for the Class System than the Company who worked on for noticeably longer than half a Decade, Berserker.

Not so much 'better' as 'different'.

OP just wants a more restrictive game style, normally found in the 'Asian' MMORPG side of things.

There are/will be games for them, which are likely to release around the same time as Ashes anyway.

Again I never said change the system, please reread my Post.

The biggest change I suggested was changing the focus from sub classes to base classes. That's not a different Design, that's a focus shift.

AirborneBerserker

AirborneBerserker wrote: »

iccer wrote: »

Kilion wrote: »

I read through the other comments, it seems that there is serious doubt in the impactfulness of augements in general. And I understand that we do not know for sure but here is my take on:

And the thing is, this is only the case because we haven't seen anything yet, or really heard much about it.

I really like your examples, and that's pretty much what I also would think is the goal of this system. And I am a big fan of that.

However, I'm cautiously optimistic, because I've been disappointed already with some feature showcases, and I wouldn't be surprised if they changed their mind about how much of an impact augments will have. Or rather, maybe I had envisioned it differently.

Also to add to it:

How many abilities are we going to end up having on the skill bar? 10? 15?

I feel like class augments should apply to maybe half of those, your main abilities basically, or rather, those abilities you use most often. We also have several other augment types that are not tied to the class/archetype system.

So

Azherae wrote: »

Aszkalon wrote: »

AirborneBerserker wrote: »

Fixing the Class system

The Title itself SC~REEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAMS with Confidence and Conviction that You can probably do a better Job for the Class System than the Company who worked on for noticeably longer than half a Decade, Berserker.

Not so much 'better' as 'different'.

OP just wants a more restrictive game style, normally found in the 'Asian' MMORPG side of things.

There are/will be games for them, which are likely to release around the same time as Ashes anyway.

Again I never said change the system, please reread my Post.

The biggest change I suggested was change the focus from sub classes to base classes. That not a different Design change.

Leonerdo wrote: »

I feel like there might be too much attachment that people (myself included) have already developed to the "existing" augment/class designs. Even though they don't really exist yet... Doesn't Intrepid want us to give feedback and tell them when we think their design direction is flawed? Especially before they waste a bunch of work on it?

I think people here have clearly identified two potential flaws to the whole system: 1) The 64 subclasses are not likely to feel unique enough. And 2) it might take way too long to make as many augments as Intrepid supposedly wants. (Although I think people might be misinterpreting the "4 augment paths" thing. It's probably just 4 "trees" not 4 augment choices for every single ability. Still, that's a heavy cost for something that might feel shallow or redundant in the end.)

And of course, balance might be an issue, but it's entirely secondary to the others. If classes feel unique and augments aren't infeasibly numerous in the first place, then balancing them afterwards shouldn't be too tall of an order.

I want to make it clear augments will be super easy to make, your adding an effect which probably already exists and needs to be attached to an ability.

There is nothing wrong with the system, the problem is the focus.

Dygz

AirborneBerserker wrote: »

Telling a player after what will be probably months of play time, they get some extra particles when they twirl their sword now isn't enough or a passive effect, isn't exactly ground breaking.

By design, Augments are more than just extra particles.
Tell us you don't understand Secondary Archetypes without telling us you don't undertsand Secondary Archetypes.

Dygz

AirborneBerserker wrote: »

I'm worried about people being upset because the class they were promised is a sub class.

That is mostly just semantics.

AirborneBerserker wrote: »

I'm worried that the lack of playstyles will amount to lower sales on launch.

Tell us you don't understand Secondary Archetypes without telling us you don't undertsand Secondary Archetypes.
Test it and find out.

Kilion

Do we even know anything about the augmentations that clearly shows the focus?

I mean, I theorycrafted most of what I said about augmented skills to highlight what I would expect an impactful but core-preserving augment system to look like, within the confines of what Intrepid had told us. Which is mainly [from the tank livestream I think] that skills were designed as modular packages allowing for parallel development of its different components and Stevens statements regarding maintenance of the core mechanic of the original skill and adding/exchanging some of its effects.

So I don't know whether it will actually end up being the way I pointed out in my examples, but to me it feels like this would be the direction.

@Vaknar , @StevenSharif help a brother out here and rate my Mend example (on page 1, 14th comment) in terms of how close this is to the intent you have with the augment system

AirborneBerserker

Kilion wrote: »

Do we even know anything about the augmentations that clearly shows the focus?

I mean, I theorycrafted most of what I said about augmented skills to highlight what I would expect an impactful but core-preserving augment system to look like, within the confines of what Intrepid had told us. Which is mainly [from the tank livestream I think] that skills were designed as modular packages allowing for parallel development of its different components and Stevens statements regarding maintenance of the core mechanic of the original skill and adding/exchanging some of its effects.

So I don't know whether it will actually end up being the way I pointed out in my examples, but to me it feels like this would be the direction.

@Vaknar , @StevenSharif help a brother out here and rate my Mend example (on page 1, 14th comment) in terms of how close this is to the intent you have with the augment system

"When you reach the class phase, which is around level 25 and you introduce that secondary archetype selection to create your one of 64 classes, then you'll have a number of augments that you'll be able to apply on a per-ability basis; and your core ability kit comes from your primary archetype selection; and those augments will change the look and feel of those abilities; and some will have the affect to create more darker thematic aspects to it. Or just generally different aesthetics to the abilities that represent the secondary [archetype] selection." – Steven Sharif

"The intent behind the augment system is not to provide new active abilities. They're intended to augment existing active abilities that are provided through your primary archetype; and so your secondary archetype selection completes your class selection, of which there's 64 types and you get augment skills that can apply certain attributes and mechanics to your existing active skills. So, if you have certain abilities, like a backstab as a Rogue primary archetype, and you take that healer secondary archetype selection, now the properties of your backstab will still remain the same as an active ability, however it might include things like life steal, or it might include things like susceptible weakness to the target, and reduces their healing because the definition of what those augments are intended to provide based on the archetype selected for the augments is within the schools of magic that live for that archetype: so a Cleric is about balancing life and death and the control of those types of hit points." – Steven Sharif

Dygz wrote: »

AirborneBerserker wrote: »

Telling a player after what will be probably months of play time, they get some extra particles when they twirl their sword now isn't enough or a passive effect, isn't exactly ground breaking.

By design, Augments are more than just extra particles.
Tell us you don't understand Secondary Archetypes without telling us you don't undertsand Secondary Archetypes.

By design my statement of adding particles is closer to the truth then saying augments will create a different "class".

So you're okay with the devs at the very least using misleading language to sell a product, but if I make a rhetorical statement because I've run out of ways of saying augments aren't enough that needs to be nipped bud right away. Got it.

Child Item