New Class System

Class ≠ support class

A class (Range/Mage/Melee) is essentially categorizing one type of damage and the broad disadvantages and advantages that come with such a class. A support class (although perhaps we should call them combat professions or some such name) is a more nuanced tactical conglomeration of complementary abilities.

Class: The crude term used to define the three major types of damage (although holy/spiritual damage has never been accounted for).

Profession: As of now this is synonymous with class...however i would prefer there to be a variety of professions that fit within (or between) the classes, a subset would be support professions which unlike standard professions are impractical for use when alone... (i.e. a priest would be impractical alone as he would have few physical defences...but by defending a large team which defended him he could be very practical)

Yes I know what a class is. It's a long story. It was mainly sparked by the fact Summoning has it's own prayer... one thing lead to another and we (me and TATz) had a combat heptagram. I realised that quick enough and most of the discussion died, but I think Sneak was the only thing that didn't ever re-emerge. Transforming did, obviously. Familiars use melee, ranged or magic... I don't fully remember why we got so sidetracked from the fundamental principle that there are only three means to inflict damage - direct physical, indirect physical and non-physical. Yes, divine damage is usually uncategorised. Logically it would class as non-physical, but most would put it in the centre of the triangle pointing outwards in all three directions.

I've always imagined professions being subclasses (not the same as support). A profession is tank, damage dealer, medic, etc - or by special names, like Guard for the Melee's tank class. I suggested professions trees and such. But, that's how I'd use the word. It's all terminology. I suppose talents could work for a tree-system, and professions could be used for a clean, one-word version of "support-class". But... "support-class" is obvious in its meaning. They support.

that's exactly what I mean, the only difference is that my wording was intended to allow classes that might involve minor hybridizations (tinkerer, summoner/mage, some sort of warrior who uses agility almost constantly) which don't fit cleanly under the suggested tree system.

Why I was defining things like that was as a way to show that warrior jobs could exist defined independent of the crude Combat triangle, although still governed by it's rules. (as in not everyone is one point, but their damage/defence system is still roughly defined by it's guidelines) and to show that something like rogue, whilst impractical alone could make a deadly support class.

Although, I don't see your point anyway. Using a support skill in combat isn't really hybridization... it's what the support skills are for. A Guard (melee-tank) who using Summoning... that's just a preference surely? I think support skills shouldn't be synonymous with support-class... players who choose to hone a

I'm confusing myself as to what we're on about. Warrior, Archer and Magician are the pure-classes, so to speak, aye? Summoning is a support skill, aye? A "support class" is trap-terminology, it's not technically a class (by how we've both defined it - damage type), just someone whose player support. Main combat groups are Offence, Defence and Support (recon too but that's normally only in war games).

I'm struggling to actually think what a support class is. Support skills are Prayer, Summoning, sometimes called character-building. Support classes would be medics? Well, and possibly some sort of Engineer class... *builds sentry*... or is that no different to summoning? It's just an extra fighter controlled by a player.

*thinking out loud* Warriors, Magicians, Archers. Druids (Summoning) and Shamans (Zoanthropy) are just support-skill pures, if they need terminology. It's not a support class as both can only be used offensively. A shaman cannot aid his team in a respect different to a warrior - he just has a different body to fight in. It's just a medic. Mysticism, possibly prayers, lunar magick... *ponders*... a profession in my sense is a more targeted attack style, accuracy vs power vs defence. Just reminding myself (because I keep confusing those three with tank, dealer and medic, which whilst the first two could be synonymous, medic and defence aren't the same). Sorcerers too I guess, in the curses/binds/empowers/bonuses sense of the word (like, para-combat skill). Beefing up your team mates with spells - increased defence for 2 minutes, "Blazing Rage" chance of causing fire damage, etc. But, like medic, unless you're doing it full time you'll probably still fight as a warrior, archer or magician whilst doing it. So in that sense I can kinda see where your going... but that's just arming yourself/using your para-skills to aid your fellows.

On a side not, Tinkering is a skill, like Smithing. I don't really see how that's involved at all.

*re-reads what you wrote and attempts to reply... again*

A warrior who uses agility is just making use of the support-skills provided. With my suggested profession system (just to establish I'm not saying THE end-profession system) is just a style of fighting within the class itself. Guard, Berserk and Swordsman were the melee professions I suggested, I think. It's completely irrelevant to whether you train your summoning, or agility, or defence. Those are support skills. Magic is different as that is a class-hybrid, Magic is a class-skill and not a support skill. If you manage to hybrid magic with melee then the game still hasn't solved the hybrid issue and that's another matter. And yes, I think it is an issue. You can't have a triangle and class-hybrids, one or the other. Unless it's heavily controlled and a hybrid will only ever be half as good. I'm by no means saying you can't train other classes - switching whenever you want, just not using both at the same time. Warrior in dragonhide. Or, before they updated it a few years ago, Magician in rune.

Speaking of, how come they nerfed magic-rune players but have done nothing to nerf melee-hide players when it's exactly the same issue?

Note: When I defined class as a type of damage that was being unclear...I was merely defining the normal use of that term...I later talk about classes as i envisions them, a set of combat strategies that can be used together but exclude others (for example the strategy of damaging enemies with bolts of magic works well with the strategies of cursing them and using magical shields) a tinkerer would be someone who sues some set of engineer-like skills augmented by and augmenting their magic.

Support Class vs. Main Class


What I'm saying is that if we were to design an interesting combat system there would ideally be a set of classes which would be able to work efficiently alone (Main Class). For example a warrior can fight relatively efficiently alone, as can a mage, or a ranger.

A support class is a class which can't efficiently fight alone. Taking the most basic example, a Medic won't last long in a direct combat situation (even against one person) but when they support a group/fight along with them they can actually be more influential in the battle than the basic fighters. An engineer specializing in trap building will be hard pressed to stand against a warrior, but 9 warriors and a trapper likely have an advantage over 10 warriors. An assassin will likely be hunted down and killed quickly by a lone ranger (lol) but if he's helping an army he can be more influential that any single ranger on the other team.

Hybridization:

It's bad in a sense, but that's merely because Jublex has poorly designed the stats...if it were designed well then hybrids would have advantages and disadvantages, like any class...How the triangle applies is that it still governs how the three major Damage types interact with player defences and what effects those defences have on the damage causing skills

Spoiler:

Reading your comment.

Hmmmm... *thinks*

I think we need to agree on aspects such as professions before we can define class.

Swordsman (Attack), Berserk (Strength) and Guard (Defence). Three specialised modes of the Warrior Class. Or should it be a super-class? I'm just remembering some of the taxonomy lol. Swordsman, Berserk and Guard could be the classes, Warrior is just a super-class (a collective term as opposed to anything else). For the sake of the following, I propose the term "Profession" for how you specialise within a super-class. Medic would be another class, but doesn't fall into any super-class. I don't imagine that the Medic skill would have professions - Medic is Medic? If Medic would have professions, then Medic is the super-class and its specialisations are the classes. Unless we can think of a super-class that medic would fit into.

I disagree with how you've described a tinkerer scenario. The concept of tinkering is magic for the people, you made it sound like a tinkerer would only benefit his Magic.

Oh, and I love how this feels like a discussion and not an argument. I'm doing my best to word what I say so it doesn't sound like I'm dictating my ideas, which is how I get the impression I can sound (I never mean to).

I'm trying to build a tree - should Prayer/Worship have multiple "professions"? You can either go for the self-beneficial tree, the team-beneficial tree, or the opponent-piercing tree? I was creating a support super-class, and I stuck "Priest" and it made me think about Prayer. Being in the support super-class means that it's team beneficial, but should this be at all related to a players own prayer?

Yeah, I was thinking...

Medic
-Surgeon
-Druid
-Cleric

Priest
-Cleric (yeah...that's the problem)
-Priest (powerful defensive type holy spells)
-Some sort of type that blesses their warriors...

Other...(will complete when i get home

Okay...heres what I've devised, it's a table that sets uses of power against sources of power to define class/profession. for example...a Ghost is one who uses mage to sneak, a cleric uses prayer to heal

Use of Power	Divine	Magical	Direct Physical	Long Range Physical	Herbal	Other...
Attack	N/A	Mage	Warrior (subclasses)	Ranger (s)	Chemist	Shaman, Druid
Defence	Priest	Warder	Guard	??? (N/a)	???
Healing	Cleric	Healer?	Surgeon	N/A	Pharmacist
Sneaking	???	Ghost	Assassin	Hunter	???
Engineering	???	Tinkerer (a combat version)	Engineer	???	???

I think it would be less confusing if we didn't use magic as a combat-type, rather Sorcery. I used Sorcery for the non-combat skill, but that was only becauce between Magic and Sorcery, Magic was better suited for combat. Between Sorcery and, say, Wizardry, Sorcery sounds better suited for combat as Wizardry sounds very scholarly. Crossed out beloew I said the melee and magic shouldn't hybrid, but I'm referring to the damage-type as opposed to the magical-concept. Mystics (medics) use magic, but they can hybrid if they want. Having different terminology just means not specification each time.

I'm struggling to imagine Medic and Prayer split up. Aside from "Priest", the other aspects are covered; Wizards would empower their allies. I suppose {name you couldn't think up} could also do it, but I wasn't sure if we wanted duplicate classes. And I can't see how different medics would vary. They all heal their allies don't they? Perhaps have the odd weapon the hurts their enemies as a twist for high-levelled medics who'd prefer a bit more cat-and-mouse. Medics could also resurrect fallen players. What does a surgeon do differently?

Shrinking the page;

Spoiler:

That chart needs some work.

Things like Druid, Necromancer, Priest, etc, are just abilities rather than standalone classes. I know I mentioned hybridding, but thinking about it, they aren't really classes. I'm trying to imagine a playing card and how it could be portrayed on a card.

Things like Swordsman, Berserker and Guard would be type, whilst Wizard, Priest and Druid is a sub-type. Warrior, Archer and Sorcerer would be the archetype. Pures wouldn't have a sub-type, the are purely combat. Another archetype could be Support, with things like Medic, etc. The classes which aren't support to fight. Having a sword is just for reserve/backup. Or should it be the other way around? Wizard, Priest and Druid is the type, with Swordsman being the sup-type. So... you could have a Medic-Swordsman, Priest-Arcanist, etc.

13 class system;

Spoiler:

21 class system;

Spoiler:

It's encouraged to hybrid para-types with the main classes as each para-type is quite combat-weak - even if the hybridization is just for reserve.

Sub-types are scarcely even classes. Sub-types are classes of combat-skills that only really adorn a players own abilities. It's almost a waste of a player unless your group is large enough to benefit from having a specific player to rely on. Having a familiar (druid) is something all players COULD have.

Hybridization between the main classes is frowned upon.

Okay. As to the Medic Question I envisions it like this...

Surgeon: A surgeon has relatively cheap equipment...the two main dowfalls of surgeons are that they deal small amounts of damage in the healing process which renders it risky when dealing with low health players, and there is a risk of poison or disease.

Pharmacist: A pharmacist carefully administers poultices, they are not as powerful as a surgeon but are less risky, their supplies (being herbal) are expensive)

Cleric: A cleric uses prayer points to heal with the costs and benefits this entails

I suppose that could work. But power of a class/equipment used isn't classed differently, is it? Chainmail is just the lower-levelled Plate, but still part of melee/warrior. A swordsman can increase their speed by wearing chainmail instead of plate, but a swordsman isn't limited to either. I don't know. I suppose they could be separate, but with Cleric being what I've called Mystic, by your examples Medic isn't a class/superclass as it's multiple skills.

It's all good then. I've just used the name Herbalist where you've used Pharmacist, and Mystic instead of Cleric. I haven't got a Surgeon although I could add one somewhere. To compare my table to what you've got there; "Medic" is a group/subgroup - you're just being more specific than "Support".

Okay. Sounds nice.

Any objections? I'm not 100% on some of the names.

Um...no

13 or 21 class system? 'cause if you don't class the sub-types as classes, then it's only 9 vs 17.

uh...what?

On the previous page lol.

13 class

I assume 21 class would be a more restrictive system?

No, it's just different categorization.

Not really...you're just renaming the categories...

What I want to know is what you "lock into" if you lock into something.

By locked you mean locked-classes? As in the inability to change? In the 13 class system, the sub-classes cannot be switched between on the spot. They can be changed, but like changing the type of gloves you get from Family Crest.