Reasonable people talk about ascendancy classes

@laminajara
Yeah, I think I know what you're saying on the first point. The ascendancy classes only have 6 points, but they're kind of like a very compact cluster of new keystones, just like MoM/BM/EE etc. I think this is a good way to look at it. And if they're accessible through the tree rather than just locked into classes, I feel it gives more options for people to take gladiator and lose their spell block gear, or keep their spell block gear, still go down to Duelist for the block nodes, and maybe use the witch necromancer class with facebreaker dominating blow. The third point is that you can more easily find a class that matches the identity of your actual build if you have access to all of them. This is especially relevant for new players who usually build a class from the ground up with an idea of what they want to do, but haven't planned out every detail like veterans would.

@1453R
As far as I understand, Chris has stated that the ascendancy class replaces your own class. This doesn't really seem to distinguish the identity of classes so much as just introduce 19 classes now instead of 7 (if you can't access them any other way). Most of my reasoning is from that perspective. It seems there's a negative tension between picking a class mattering and being totally customizable. GGG's original tree seems to favor the latter, so I'd be surprised if this move is actually designed to go back the opposite direction.

@PsiKitten
I'm not convinced the goal is to make class matter more. There can be meaningful choices without having them based off class, and I'm not sure there's inherent value in class above other things like skill points. Again, that's part of the fundamental design choice of PoE.
As for existing characters, it's not just a matter of being the most powerful, it's also a matter of identity. Say I have a dual wield crit sword duelist. If I can get ascendancies through the tree, he has a better chance of keeping the identity he already has, or of changing that identity very little. Maybe he's an assassin, which is pretty close, or a raider, which is kind of what I wanted. If I can't access those, I'm left saying either "welp, I guess I'm a gladiator now" or "welp, guess I'm a champion now."

It occurs to me in the three responses above that making it accessible through the tree is kind of like implementing reverse compatibility, for whatever that thought is worth.

Ascendancy classes won't be on the tree. This further encourages players to make a new character instead of just respeccing the old one and picking a different ascendancy class, which as far as I've understood is how GGG wants it to be. Currently you can respec a lvl 100 character fully with 5ex in standard. With ascendancy being unrespeccable, even those who want to get a specific class need to roll a new character (I do realize that most people in standard already got all characters pretty well covered, but that's beside the point).

No matter how many positive arguments you can come up with in favor of Ascendancy being in skill tree, it won't happen. And if it does, I'll be extremely surprised of GGG going a route that encourages respeccing over starting anew.

"

PsionicKitten wrote:

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.

I do almost completely agree with you. At the same time, I do have some nitpicks. We still are missing a Ranger class, 2 Maurader, 2 Templar, 2 Witch, and a Scion. I do think it is a bit early to say that all block builds will go Duelist/Gladiator. Considering that you can get 60+ block and ~50 spell block relatively easily when you focus on such things. I do think such broad statements should be saved until more classes are released.

I don't think that existing characters are going to get fucked over that much either. From what we have seen, all this will do will make each class have a different sort of play style. If you want to play Melee witch, the only subclass we have seen gives you 30% increased skill effect duration, and the bonus of Offerings. Sure, you might not be min-maxed perfectly, but I don't think that any combination of starting point character and game play will be made unviable with the addition of subclasses. No matter what, it will make every build stronger, though content is sure to increase in difficulty to match it.

"

Pioneer2 wrote:

We still are missing a Ranger class, 2 Maurader, 2 Templar, 2 Witch, and a Scion. I do think it is a bit early to say that all block builds will go Duelist/Gladiator.

That's exactly why I specifically chose the word "may." Perhaps I should have highlighted it with italics or bold to make sure it was noticed. I don't particularly agree that all block builds would go that way, but if it's your number one focus, it's certainly a strong option. This may be true if you want to do something like build around Aegis Aurora which makes your spell block options drop to stone of Lahzwar and Rainbowstrides for the larger chunk of your spell block. Other key factors to your build could influence your decision to pick spell block up from gear, the gladiator, or none at all.

In responding to someone's posts, I tend to respond to "the worst case scenario" that they tend to imply will come to pass, as it helps put in perspective how bad it could get if their worst fears are actually founded. This directly addresses the content and intention of their post rather than having a completely valid, but possibly unrelated, point that may not apply to the original posters concerns. You cannot particularly address an issue or concern, if you cannot first put yourself into their shoes and accept their point of view, even if you don't agree with it.

"

Pioneer2 wrote:

I don't think that existing characters are going to get fucked over that much either.

I don't think that either. I think there will still be good choices to choose from regardless of class you started your build with. Just less choices. Instead of 19 subclasses to choose from when designing a build, existing characters have 3 or 1 subclass to choose from to complement the build, and the one you want the most could have been from a different class, which could leave a sour taste in some players mouths, in which my point was this is no different than any other balance change patch in the past.

In all, I think we mostly agree. I was probably too succinct and did not explicate enough the fact that I understand that we don't have all information yet so I am explicitly and consciously choosing to express myself in conditionals.

.

"

Biznits wrote:

@PsiKitten
I'm not convinced the goal is to make class matter more. There can be meaningful choices without having them based off class, and I'm not sure there's inherent value in class above other things like skill points. Again, that's part of the fundamental design choice of PoE.

If you're not convinced to goal is to make class choice matter more, then why have they been implemented as specifically subclasses for specific classes? Why would they have been implemented that way? What is the point of picking a witch over a templar in the current system or the new system?

In the past, POE has been a very classless game, despite having 7 classes. People like the fact that you can make a spell casting marauder and a melee witch. You'll still be able to do that. HOW you go about that will change though. Class will be something you consider beyond starting nodes and/or how you level at the beginning.

The whole point of Ascendancy classes is specifically change the design choice of making class matter more. It matters minimally at low levels, and by a few nodes that are close to inconsequential at high levels. Ascendancy changes that, so that class can matter more at later levels too. It doesn't make it so you can't make a spell casting marauder or melee witch, but it does change how you go about it. Melee witches with bone offering (and rumi's concoction? maybe add some fire nodes and go oro's sacrifice?) are going to be interesting builds we've never seen before.

So I wonder, how can you not be convinced that the ascendancy classes are meant to make class choice matter, when that is pretty much the main thing, and pretty much the only they do in contrast to the current system? I'm not talking how you view how poe should be or how things have worked up until now, but rather given what GGG has released on them and how they are implemented as class exclusives, how you can see what they are changing and come to the conclusion that they specifically don't want to make class choice matter more?

"

Entropic_Fire wrote:

"

mynameisonlyforthegods wrote:

Ascendancy classes won't be on the tree. This further encourages players to make a new character instead of just respeccing the old one and picking a different ascendancy class, which as far as I've understood is how GGG wants it to be. Currently you can respec a lvl 100 character fully with 5ex in standard. With ascendancy being unrespeccable, even those who want to get a specific class need to roll a new character (I do realize that most people in standard already got all characters pretty well covered, but that's beside the point).

No matter how many positive arguments you can come up with in favor of Ascendancy being in skill tree, it won't happen. And if it does, I'll be extremely surprised of GGG going a route that encourages respeccing over starting anew.

In one of the videos they respec ascendancy points for 5 points each.

Oh really? They can respec to another character's ascendancy class for 5 points?

Well geez, then what's all the ruckus about?!

"

mynameisonlyforthegods wrote:

"

Entropic_Fire wrote:

"

mynameisonlyforthegods wrote:

Ascendancy classes won't be on the tree. This further encourages players to make a new character instead of just respeccing the old one and picking a different ascendancy class, which as far as I've understood is how GGG wants it to be. Currently you can respec a lvl 100 character fully with 5ex in standard. With ascendancy being unrespeccable, even those who want to get a specific class need to roll a new character (I do realize that most people in standard already got all characters pretty well covered, but that's beside the point).

No matter how many positive arguments you can come up with in favor of Ascendancy being in skill tree, it won't happen. And if it does, I'll be extremely surprised of GGG going a route that encourages respeccing over starting anew.

In one of the videos they respec ascendancy points for 5 points each.

Oh really? They can respec to another character's ascendancy class for 5 points?

Well geez, then what's all the ruckus about?!

It was 5 points to respec Ascendancy points within that Ascendancy tree. I don't think we know yet whether you can change Ascendancy class within a class for example Slayer to Gladiator.

"

Hunt8722 wrote:

It was 5 points to respec Ascendancy points within that Ascendancy tree. I don't think we know yet whether you can change Ascendancy class within a class for example Slayer to Gladiator.

Choice of Ascendancy class has been stated to be permanent - no switching from Slayer to Gladiator and back. Respecs within the singular chosen Ascendancy class will more than likely be possible, though five points per Asc. respec strikes me as likely.

Regardless. As Psi has stated, the specific, explicitly stated design intent for Ascendancy classes is to differentiate the origin classes and to make class choice matter to characters, as it currently does not. Some people hate the idea that class choice matters. Some people like it. I'm not sure the two will ever see eye to eye, though it'd be nice if their arguments could make sense. 'Melee Witches' and 'spellcasting Marauders' never worked the same as straight melees or straight casters in the first place, how is the new system any different?