Class - Race restrictions

ethion

I was reading that this game will have class / race restrictions.  Personally I love it.  I think class / race restrictions add to the lore of the game.  It makes the races feel different and unique.  No ogre rogues and elvish shaman...  As long as the classes fit with the lore and abilities of the race it makes sense.

What do you guys think?  Maybe even gender restrictions?

Nanfoodle

I'm not a fan of gender lock but I do like race lock when it makes sense. Like Ogre Wizards need not apply. This is one of the few MMOs I want to play. 

Hawkster

I like the idea of class/race lock, as long as it is kept within reason.  I also agree with Nanfoodle....no gender lock.

Sinist

Such features promote choice, add depth to the game and allow for uniqueness. It needs to be meaningful though, not artificial features that some games put in that are fluff balanced between every class to the point where it really doesn't matter as the process is not one of true pro/con game play.

Also, I hope that VR learns from the mistakes in EQ about flavor of the week additions (ie Iksar monk vs Human monk where human was basically all cons and iksar was all pros). It is not that each race should be balanced between each other, but every pro a class has should be equally balanced with a con.

H0urg1ass

I honestly prefer the way that some early pen and paper RPG's handled this concept.

In Shadowrun, for instance, you could make an Troll Mage all day long if you wished, but Shadowrun character development is heavily based around the characters attributes.

Magic works better with characters that have a high intelligence, but Trolls start out with -2 to their intelligence stat no matter how many points you apply to it.  Therefore, you could make an Troll Mage, but you'd be better off, and be able to cast more powerful spells, if you picked just about any other playable race in the game.

Basically, it nudged you towards racial restriction, but didn't stop you completely if you really really wanted to play a Troll Mage.

I much prefer this type of system.  I really dislike complete restrictions in games such as "You're a warrior, so you get a sword and too bad if you'd like to have mace because only a priest can use a mace you dolt!" or "You're a ranger, so you can only play a female character.  Everyone knows that men can't use bows you dolt!"

carotid

H0urg1ass said:

Magic works better with characters that have a high intelligence, but Trolls start out with -2 to their intelligence stat no matter how many points you apply to it.  Therefore, you could make an Troll Mage, but you'd be better off, and be able to cast more powerful spells, if you picked just about any other playable race in the game.

Than what would be the point of making a Troll Mage. Sounds like a waste of resources.

Edit: Forgot an "a" :-P

GladDog

If this game is based on EQ, the racial restrictions will make lots of sense and fit within the game lore.  For example, Shamans will probably be restricted to races that are tribal by nature; the Dark Myr and Halflings come to mind.  Clerics and Crusaders (just call them Paladins) will very likely be restricted to races that have the habit of building huge structures for worship, like humans and dwarves.  Dire Lords (probably similar to Shadow Knights in EQ2) will probably be restricted to races that are 'converted' evil races, like Ogres and Skar.  Evil is a concept that is often based on PoV, so this class may see less restrictions than I foresee.

Since my examples are based on classes that can heal, I bet that Druids will be available to just about all races.  Everyone likes nature, some more than others.

By the way, they gave up on restrictions for EQ2, which made for some 'entertaining' setups.

H0urg1ass

carotid said:

H0urg1ass said:

Magic works better with characters that have a high intelligence, but Trolls start out with -2 to their intelligence stat no matter how many points you apply to it.  Therefore, you could make an Troll Mage, but you'd be better off, and be able to cast more powerful spells, if you picked just about any other playable race in the game.

Than what would be the point of making a Troll Mage. Sounds like waste of resources.

This is the argument of the typical 2010's gamer who doesn't understand role playing and only looks at a game from a roll playing aspect.

I'm not saying that the Shadowrun system will ever be used, I'm simply saying I prefer it over others.  Today's gamers have no concept of gaming other than min/maxxing a character and going for max DPS.  

In the past we would view a Troll Mage as a fun challenge.  If you build one and you're still successful at the game, then you've overcome more odds than the player who picked the highest intelligence race and rolled their way through the content.

In the end it's about removing restrictions.  Today's MMO's have so many training wheels on them that if it was a bike you could ride the goddamn thing upside down.  I'm saying pull those training wheels off, take the guardrails down and let us, the players, make our own decisions about what and how we want to play.

Sinist

H0urg1ass said:

I honestly prefer the way that some early pen and paper RPG's handled this concept.

In Shadowrun, for instance, you could make an Troll Mage all day long if you wished, but Shadowrun character development is heavily based around the characters attributes.

Magic works better with characters that have a high intelligence, but Trolls start out with -2 to their intelligence stat no matter how many points you apply to it.  Therefore, you could make an Troll Mage, but you'd be better off, and be able to cast more powerful spells, if you picked just about any other playable race in the game.

Basically, it nudged you towards racial restriction, but didn't stop you completely if you really really wanted to play a Troll Mage.

I much prefer this type of system.  I really dislike complete restrictions in games such as "You're a warrior, so you get a sword and too bad if you'd like to have mace because only a priest can use a mace you dolt!" or "You're a ranger, so you can only play a female character.  Everyone knows that men can't use bows you dolt!"

I don't mind such allowances, but if the restriction does not have a consistent purpose, it becomes pointless.

A restriction should stay consistently such be it at level 1 or at max level. A player shouldn't be able to overpower or make a con irrelevant in the game. It should always be a con, one that has consequence in the games play.

For example....

If the con is a stat penalty and at the beginning a lacking in that start presents obstacles in play, then those obstacles should always be present regardless of level. Stat inflation should not make that penalty meaningless over time. If it does, so should the bonus be equally made meaningless over time. The point is to avoid a short term con and long term pro (ie invalidating the entire point of the system).

So lets say that a low int class has a lot of trouble early on playing a caster (ridiculously low magic pool causing them to be unable to cast certain spell at appropriate level, can only memorize 1/2 the spells a normal race can due to the int stat deficiency, constantly has failures, etc...) Those "cons" should not be removed because the game over time allows all players regardless of race or class to cap out in a given skill. This defeats the point of the game play. So those restrictions that hamper the player should continue indefinitely throughout the game.

This way you do not end up with a race that outgrows their con in play invalidating the system.

If there is no meaningful penalty to a given choice, then it also defeats the point in such a system. That is, if intelligence really has no lasting effect on a casters ability, then intelligence is a meaningless stat. So, if the stat is to have meaning, so should those who lack in it which should translate to negatives in a given classes focus.

H0urg1ass

Sinist said:

H0urg1ass said:

Stuff

Good stuff

You make a great point here and I completely agree with you.  In the case of Pen and Paper Shadowrun there were max stat levels for attributes meaning that a Troll, for example, would always have a two point deficit compared to other characters.

Having a lower intelligence was always a hindrance to their play no matter what level they were.  This is because intelligence reigns in how powerfully a caster can cast a spell.  For instance, if a Mage with a 5 intelligence casts a spell and decides to use 4 dice for damage, then they subtract the (mana) drain of that spell against their fatigue stat.  If, however, they decided to cast the spell using six dice, then they would subtract the drain of the spell from their physical damage  boxes.

So a character that is forever two points under the maximum stats would always risk hurting themselves physically to cast equally powerful spells.  But then again, a Troll has a few hit boxes to spare, so the risk may be worth the reward.

Risks!  Rewards!  Tradeoffs!  No training wheels!  It can be done if game developers would just try.

esc-joconnor

H0urg1ass said:

carotid said:

H0urg1ass said:

Magic works better with characters that have a high intelligence, but Trolls start out with -2 to their intelligence stat no matter how many points you apply to it.  Therefore, you could make an Troll Mage, but you'd be better off, and be able to cast more powerful spells, if you picked just about any other playable race in the game.

Than what would be the point of making a Troll Mage. Sounds like waste of resources.

This is the argument of the typical 2010's gamer who doesn't understand role playing and only looks at a game from a roll playing aspect.

I'm not saying that the Shadowrun system will ever be used, I'm simply saying I prefer it over others.  Today's gamers have no concept of gaming other than min/maxxing a character and going for max DPS.  

In the past we would view a Troll Mage as a fun challenge.  If you build one and you're still successful at the game, then you've overcome more odds than the player who picked the highest intelligence race and rolled their way through the content.

In the end it's about removing restrictions.  Today's MMO's have so many training wheels on them that if it was a bike you could ride the goddamn thing upside down.  I'm saying pull those training wheels off, take the guardrails down and let us, the players, make our own decisions about what and how we want to play.

Not to mention that fact that you would be one hard to kill mage! All you need to do is have the cons and pros balanced. In many stories magic takes a physical toll on the mage. A troll mage might not be able to cast the more complicated spells, but she could perhaps cast more spells, or put more energy into them, as they are physically more resilient. By the same token a weaker warrior should be able to reply on speed an accuracy to make up for their lesser attack strength. 

Amathe

I nearly always prefer choice to lack of choice. I also prefer more customization to less customization. These considerations lead me to hope there will not be class or gender locks/limitations. 

Of course there will be some race/class combinations that are sub-optimal. But if that combo floats somebody's boat, more power to them. 

Nightbringe1

  I support racial class restrictions. I am not a fan of gender locking a class.

I am a fan of troll physical adepts

Vynt

Gender locking makes sense sometimes. It depends on the game and lore. Games like Warhammer, it would be silly to have a male witch elf, lol. Or having male banshees or valkyries just don't make sense. That is usually part of long established lore, mythology.

Kayo83

Im indifferent tbh, if anything Id lean more towards no race locks, and definitely no gender lock (seriously Black Desert?). IF there are any, it should really be ingrained into the games lore. And by that I mean more than just the typical 'X race, generally looks down on magic.' No, thats not enough, as it wouldnt actually stop an odd member of such a race from doing what ever he/she wanted. Something more like in Dragon Age where dwarves had no connection to the Fade so had no ability for magic (even so I still modded my save game to allow just that :-P).

Mind you, im the type to usually roll an Elven sword and board tank, large and/or stockier mages, and human ranger. Not the most odd combinations except maybe the large bulky mage, but for Pantheon ill either pick Drawf or Archai over an Ogre, lol. And it wouldnt be the first time elves were considered "too pretty and frail" to be Warriors.

Racial disadvantages be damned so long as its balanced.

Lokero

For the most part, I hate race locks.  But, for some combinations, it's only logical, such as your Ogre Rogue example.  If it's just an absolutely ridiculous combination, then it should be locked.

Then again, if classes were designed in such a way that stealth wasn't the only focus of a Rogue class, then an Ogre Rogue could be plausible, just wouldn't be able to stealth very well.  It actually would be a pretty cool variation, instead of just having a normal rogue that can sneak around and take shots at your flank, you could also have a not-so sneaky Ogre that had other increased abilities(who needs to pick a lock when you can smash it off?)

DztBlk

I am like many in this thread.  I don't mind race/class locks as long as they make sense.  Again, the idea of a ogre wizard or mage doesn't seem to readily make sense.  I'm not thrilled with imp and elf tanks either.  However, a good designer and artistic team can make any class look okay in any set.  Still....

Thorkune

I won't even try out a gender locked game. I play to immerse myself into the game. So, I 100% of the time play male characters.

Zen00

Hawkster said:

I like the idea of class/race lock, as long as it is kept within reason.  I also agree with Nanfoodle....no gender lock.

Then again, knights were never female and other things like that which would again add more to class/gender choices, adding depth to character.

I never understood people who want lots of role playing options, but then get annoyed by gender/race class lock.

Thunder073

I believe this should sum up the thread.

https://nanookofthenerd.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/halflingpaladinmotiv.jpg

NeverForgetLove

No restrictions - more options!

Why not let players choose themselves who, what and how they want to play? I don't care about any race/ class - combination ever... as long as the females don't wear beards.

Hrimnir

NeverForgetLove said:

No restrictions - more options!

Why not let players choose themselves who, what and how they want to play? I don't care about any race/ class - combination ever... as long as the females don't wear beards.

Because games have lore, and if the class isn't in line with the lore it's stupid.

For example in EQ Ogre's were very a very tribal, unintelligent race with a very basic language.  Having them be able to be wizards (who were in the game world paragons of knowledge, etc) is a little dumb.  However, them being shamans, who were tribalistic type of magic, made sense within the lore of the world.

At some point you have to set a line as to where you won't cross when it comes to player choice, and such.

Kayo83

Zen00 said:

Hawkster said:

I like the idea of class/race lock, as long as it is kept within reason.  I also agree with Nanfoodle....no gender lock.

Then again, knights were never female and other things like that which would again add more to class/gender choices, adding depth to character.

I never understood people who want lots of role playing options, but then get annoyed by gender/race class lock.

Because IMO it actually restricts role-playing more than it helps. Who says roleplaying has any bearing on RL history anyway? Particularly those having to do with sexism and/or racism. If RPGs went by your logic then females wouldnt be able to play any of the usual classes.

NeverForgetLove

Hrimnir said:

NeverForgetLove said:

No restrictions - more options!

Why not let players choose themselves who, what and how they want to play? I don't care about any race/ class - combination ever... as long as the females don't wear beards.

Because games have lore, and if the class isn't in line with the lore it's stupid.

For example in EQ Ogre's were very a very tribal, unintelligent race with a very basic language.  Having them be able to be wizards (who were in the game world paragons of knowledge, etc) is a little dumb.  However, them being shamans, who were tribalistic type of magic, made sense within the lore of the world.

At some point you have to set a line as to where you won't cross when it comes to player choice, and such.

What if your mentioned Ogre has unknown powers noticed by a wizard, who then adopted and raised him to finally teach him how to use his full potential by going the route of using magic, therefor becoming a wizard, too?

I'm aware of people like you, who would like to have everything within the game - especially the players themselves - as close to the lore as possible. Exceptions like my example above should be part of the lore, as well. Just think of D&D, how many characters of its world don't fit the actual behavior and lifestyle of their race/ class that they are normally known for?

I know this would lead to too many players creating such exceptions not following the original path. But solving this issue is easy by simply adding optional but still hard to complete unlocking mechanics to remove the restriction. This way only players with a real intention of playing such an exception will be able to do so, without flooding the game world with them.

Dullahan

H0urg1ass said:

carotid said:

H0urg1ass said:

Magic works better with characters that have a high intelligence, but Trolls start out with -2 to their intelligence stat no matter how many points you apply to it.  Therefore, you could make an Troll Mage, but you'd be better off, and be able to cast more powerful spells, if you picked just about any other playable race in the game.

Than what would be the point of making a Troll Mage. Sounds like waste of resources.

This is the argument of the typical 2010's gamer who doesn't understand role playing and only looks at a game from a roll playing aspect.

I'm not saying that the Shadowrun system will ever be used, I'm simply saying I prefer it over others.  Today's gamers have no concept of gaming other than min/maxxing a character and going for max DPS.  

In the past we would view a Troll Mage as a fun challenge.  If you build one and you're still successful at the game, then you've overcome more odds than the player who picked the highest intelligence race and rolled their way through the content.

In the end it's about removing restrictions.  Today's MMO's have so many training wheels on them that if it was a bike you could ride the goddamn thing upside down.  I'm saying pull those training wheels off, take the guardrails down and let us, the players, make our own decisions about what and how we want to play.

I agree with this to a point. I think lore has to be considered as well. If a certain people do not tolerate members of their race practicing shamanistic "witchcraft", I don't think it should be an option at character creation. However, I wouldn't be against a way via questing to unlock a class that wouldn't be available at the start. Of course, such a trial shouldn't be easy or available at low level, would probably require gaining reputation with a shaman guild and should come with a serious negative alignment hit with your own people.

danwest58

NeverForgetLove said:

Hrimnir said:

NeverForgetLove said:

No restrictions - more options!

Why not let players choose themselves who, what and how they want to play? I don't care about any race/ class - combination ever... as long as the females don't wear beards.

Because games have lore, and if the class isn't in line with the lore it's stupid.

For example in EQ Ogre's were very a very tribal, unintelligent race with a very basic language.  Having them be able to be wizards (who were in the game world paragons of knowledge, etc) is a little dumb.  However, them being shamans, who were tribalistic type of magic, made sense within the lore of the world.

At some point you have to set a line as to where you won't cross when it comes to player choice, and such.

What if your mentioned Ogre has unknown powers noticed by a wizard, who then adopted and raised him to finally teach him how to use his full potential by going the route of using magic, therefor becoming a wizard, too?

I'm aware of people like you, who would like to have everything within the game - especially the players themselves - as close to the lore as possible. Exceptions like my example above should be part of the lore, as well. Just think of D&D, how many characters of its world don't fit the actual behavior and lifestyle of their race/ class that they are normally known for?

I know this would lead to too many players creating such exceptions not following the original path. But solving this issue is easy by simply adding optional but still hard to complete unlocking mechanics to remove the restriction. This way only players with a real intention of playing such an exception will be able to do so, without flooding the game world with them.

Neverforgetlove,

D&D is a good example of how a character can break a class lock, just look at Drizzit.  The problem is allowing players to select it when they start because players today are so use to bitching up a storm why they should put X amount of effort into getting a class unlock.  That is why I too feel that the classes should have a race lock and not care what people think after that.  The reason is because if enough people bitch on the forum daily developers will change things that are TOO HARD or TOO TIME CONSUMING even if the path is not meant to be followed by most people.  We focus so much on making everyone happy that its time we make a group that can support the game happy and ignore the rest.  Like P2P players vs F2P players.

Unless you feel that they should have stuff that is not easy or fast to do and expect it to not change just to make a bunch of people on the forum happy.  I might go for that.