Reasonable people talk about ascendancy classes

I'm going to start this with just my own perspective on ascendancy classes, but I hope that will set up context for discussing their place in PoE.

At first glance, I thought "every block play will now be a gladiator," "every summoner will now me a necromancer," "every melee crit will be an assassin," "every trapper..." etc. This bothers me for a number of reasons. First, it provides unique benefits that are more important than everything but a few of the keystones on the passive tree, dumbing down the skill tree. Second, temp leagues may not care if they remake any type of character from a certain class, but people will be really upset about the devaluation of standard characters. There's a lot of stupid crap people say about standard and temp or HC etc, but one thing that's often overlooked is that people use standard as a hall of heroes. They leave perfected builds there as a placeholder for what they did in a past league, for the hours of effort it took to farm the gear, etc. That's why people get upset about power creep, temp chars hitting standard and meeting legacies, etc. Third, any class playing a build not addressed by the archetypes of ascendancy classes feels lost. I could take champion because it's useful to always have fortify, but that's not really how I built it. In short, this point is that you can say you're not pigeon-holed, but then you are forgotten and make no interested decisions other than "I guess I'll take this free, un-exciting ascension bonus."

After thinking it over a bit, I realized that while not all these issues are resolved by the following suggestion, many of them are eased. I've seen this suggestion, and seen a lot of people inexplicably crap on it in the forums, but I don't see a reason why the game shouldn't function this way: Making ascension classes accessible through reaching the starting position of the base class on the passive tree.

First, while some things on the tree get dumber, the tree as a whole is more interesting because these are essentialy a part of the tree. This still allows total customization, which is half the appeal of the original tree in the first place. I've seen people say "I play witch because I like the model" or whatever and this doesn't rodeo those people. Also, because the ascension class replaces the base class, there's no reason why it can't explicably come from any class. The specific buffs may still be overpowered compared to everything else, but we can trust the balance team with that.

Second, all existing characters may change, but not be locked out of anything. That'll keep people happy.
Third, and this is the least remedied, classes are more likely to find an ascension class archetype that fits their build if they have access to them all. Then at least they make the choice "do I want to get this for a little benefit to my build even if I have to go all the way to Shadow?" insteada of "eh, I guess I'll just get this only useful one.

Ok, at the current moment, and of course pending more info from GGG, I'm cautiously optimistic. But I feel there may be more depth or other issues aside from what I've thought through. If you have a well-reasoned thought on other serious concerns or reasons I shouldn't be concerned, I'd love to hear it.

TLDR= Reading is good.

Nicely put together post :)

I sort of arrived at the same solution myself. Gating the new classes via the passive tree.
The main argument for this, and also an argument for why this doesn't create more balance problems for GGG than they have already done for themselves. Is that you can do the reverse already.

That is, If I choose champion and want to take some of the talents from the Templar starting position, I'm completely free to do so. But you cant go from Templar to Champion for some reason... This has nothing to do with balance, but is an artistic choice from GGG side.
Also neglecting the core design philosophy of POE since its inception. That is, complete freedom to create your own character any way you want, within some reasonable limits(talent point efficiency).

And they can keep all their new art assets and everything this way. Its a fairly minor tweak for them to do, and they wont split the community like they are now.

Reasonable. People. On the internet.

Good luck with this.

I agree with you though. Some people will use these bonuses (and it IS bonuses... not "boni") to fill in weaknesses and others will use them to build on the strengths of their characters.

Up to them. More choice. More diversity.

Too many players are convinced that their only choice is "the right one". Bah.

Yay! Posting in a "reasonable" discussion inherently makes me reasonable!

If this is a discussion something that has left me scratching my head is fortify. From what I have heard the common fix to melee being weak is to give flat damage reduction to melee builds to reward putting yourself in melee range. GGG said they could not do that and instead put a lot of time into making fortify. However the sub classes are just what they said they would not do, a way to give a flat damage reduction to certain classes.


Is this not redundant?

Redundant isn't the word you're looking for.

There's a lot of power in names. Pretty much every block build goes down to Duelist tree as it is. Whether they are a duelist by name or not, that's the practical truth of the tree. Going down and also picking up the gladiator class feels like an extension of what I'm already doing, but with the introduction of more and different choices. Some people will still be upset that they're now called a "gladiator" instead of a "scion" or whatever, but for whatever reason this feels like less of a violation than having to pick the class first and then build out. The first makes the name ancillary to the build, the second makes the name synonymous with it. Confusion about this difference I think is somewhat responsible for some of the outrage about the new classes. For the sake of making people happy and keeping that core principle you mentioned Serah, I think this is the way to go.

Practically, it just adds way more choices to have them accessible through the tree. My facebreaker build will still be in both duelist and templar areas, but now I can choose which ascendancy classes to take AND which class to start out with. Maybe I want to level as a duelist, or start templar to get those life nodes, etc. etc. This also brings up the concern that none of us know anything about, which is if they balance the new tree around these classes. If you can't access ascendancy variants through the tree, and they have to design that area of the tree around those variants, you'll see a lot less diversity in skill trees. If people complain about certain areas of the tree now being too good or bad, just wait to hear the "templar area sucks for everyone but templar ascendancies" or whatever.

Something interesting in here. Let's see if we can debate some of these points.

On your first point. You're forgetting that you have over 100 points in passive tree to allocate compared to 6 points in ascendancy class. But there is some truth to your point, and that's that some of the specific ascendancy nodes provide such bonuses that cannot be achieved in a passive tree. But let's pause here for a moment. Is passive tree the only way to achieve certain build characteristics? Not really. There are gem and item combination that can reduce, or in some cases (I would guess) eliminate that gap. Surely your immediate reaction would be "but if I pick 100% spell block from Champion and combine with 100% spell block from gear, it would make me so much better than just the 100% spell block" and you would be right, but... But it's only valid if you're looking to achieve 200% spell block. Those who don't need that much will pick 100% spell block from ascendance and replace their spell block gear with something else, others will keep using their spell block gear and pick different kind of ascendancy points even if it's a Champion ascendancy. Does that make sense?

I'll pass on your second point, because I don't play default league so I can't really comment on that one.

Third - not really sure what you're trying to say.

As per your suggestion. It was something that I've also thought initially but then I realized that it can actually backfire. If you're willing to go all the way from Marauder to Witch to get certain ascendance, what would be the difference if you have started as a Witch and went all the way to Marauder tree instead? I would guess the only difference would be your character appearance, which is only relevant to a specific set of people.
I guess that second part of suggestion is also related to default league, so I won't comment on that either.

The point of the endeavor was to strengthen the character and identity of the various classes, something the game has lacked since inception. Yes, I understand that this means a player can pick whichever character model/VA they like and stick with it forever, but from what I've read of the press releases, the lack of a clear identity and/or differentiators between the classes was a big complaint of the playerbase.

As stated - if you want to make a Gladiator that uses predominantly Templar passives, that's a thing you can do. You do it on the Duelist model rather than the Templar, yes, and for some people that's an issue. I get that. But I also believe that part of the balancing behind these Ascendancy classes is their location on the tree, and thusly which regular passives they have easy/reliable access to. Mating the Assassin's massive crit bonuses with, for example...the Marauder's glut of armor/life/elsewise defensive nodes could produce issues they don't want to deal with.

That said, I can see the notion of allowing access to classes whose baseplate you've reached prevents egregious stuff like Juggernaut Witches using a gob of elemental passives without having to worry about defense because Juggernaut, but it dilutes the idea of Ascendancy classes being the way character selection finally actually matters. Yeah, I have a Lightning Arrow Scion I'm likely going to be respecing/retiring when Ascendancy goes live because Deadeye's innate chaining is a much better fit than the godawful expensive severe damage cut of a Chain gem...but that's all right.

Because first of all, Thundercloud still works as a character even if I find a LA Scion less enticing than a new LA Ranger, and second of all there bloody well should be a difference between a Scion's LA build and a Ranger's LA build. Currently there is not, save that the Scion gets more jewels and better access to life.

Besides. Having Yvonne set up means I can switch her over to Shrapnel Shot and build her as something Deadeye doesn't drastically improve and see how that works. Still a bow build, still a lightning build, just with a different emphasis than the Ranger version. Gives me more options and more ways to play Path of Exile in the end, and I can't see that as anything but a positive.

What are the design goals of Ascendancy classes?

To differentiate the classes and give them meaningful choice versus, a starting node or few of difference. Theoretically, by removing the exclusivity, you're just modifying the passive tree further and not really introducing anything to the game other than power creep. It doesn't matter if you restrict them by ascendancy points or not, if it isn't exclusive, it isn't meaningful choice based off class.

Sure, every build that the primary focus is block may be a gladiator, but not all builds that use or invest in block will be gladiators. Stone of Lahzwar is a cheap way to get 50% spell block, you still can use Rathpith globe to even get over 100% block to spells when added to that.

As for (paraphrased) "standard characters are shit on, because they were made before this was implemented and are restricted only to the ascendancies that happened to be their character" issue, how is this any different than any other patch that included balance changes in the history of this game? GGG has said, several times now, that they think it's better for the game to do what the game needs rather than "buff everything else, but keep all overpowered things overpowered." Characters always get broken in new patches that contain balance changes. All the poison/caustic arrowers and incinerators are going to get their characters nerfed and/or changed in how you have to invest to get that level of power with the patch (most likely in using the new supports, bringing them in line with the same level of investment other characters need to invest to get that power level).

GGG has a history of making sure there are no sacred cows in this game that prevent it from being as close to the ideal ARPG they ideally want it to be. Sacrificing Ascendancy classes exclusivity, which is meant to reinforce and actually give class choice meaning, to appease people with existing characters conflicts with the design goals of them in the first place, so it won't and shoildn't happen.

On your point Puddles, I also have separate concerns about the strength and uniqueness of the ascendancy benefits. They, for now, appear so strong and so unique that they blow so many other options out of the water. I'm cautiously optimistic about the balance team's ability to get it together, but if 2.0 taught us anything it's that new content + revising old content is too much for GGG to handle (personal opinion: Awakening tried too hard to do both and lost both identities, failed miserably at balancing AND the new content felt unfinished). On the other hand...

You mention the Champion class permanent fortify. I like the Juggernaut class solution a lot better (-5% damage when at full endurance charges) because it shores up an existing weakness of your usual high armor/end charges marauder. It also requires you put some effort into it. Maybe now I run End Charge on Stun for the -5%. In one sense, though, they both provide the value of a gem slot, though in different directions (free fortify frees up a slot, -5% maybe makes you put in an extra gem for the unique benefit). If other keystones follow this pattern, and they balance them with some kind of external standard like ~gem slot worth of benefit, I don't think I'll mind. If they add things without precedent in the game's skills/tree, I'm confident they'll screw up at least a few things and that there will then be outrage.