Hybrid XP penalties

[fadetree]

I understand what you are saying about shared leveling rates, but I still don't buy it. Because of the specialty case of someone playing regular with a particular friend(s), they decide to across the board penalize everybody for having a hybrid in the group? That's kind of throwing the ranger out with the bathwater, if you'll pardon the expression.

I do agree it would be best that they not have hybrid penalties in the first place, but oh well. As you say, waiting for Velious.

[lecompte]

I knew what I was getting into when I chose a ranger and I chose to play it BECAUSE of the penalty in a lot of ways. I lament it sometimes when I can't get a group for hours at a time, but at the same time a truely challenging experience is a very good experience and I'm all for self imposed handicaps just to up the entertainment.

[t0lkien]

Originally Posted by Atmas [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The real problem with the hybrid penalty is that if you are using it to balance power it is kind of meaningless when you get to max level. However, this methodology is reminiscent of the old pen and paper games that made it more difficult for players with greater potential to reach it.

This is where it comes from. I worked for a short time with one of the original designers, and he confirmed EQ was based on D&D. Actually, apparently it was completely D&D at first, but they couldn't work out licence details or something, so they rewrote code to make it "unique". I had always thought it was based on Rolemaster, just from the feel of the systems.

[screenmonkey]

Originally Posted by August [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If my memory serves me correctly, the EVerquest lore was actually heavily influenced by DnD games that they had going on.

In that sense, the 'hybrid exp penalty' actually make a ton of sense. In DND, you can only level up 'one' of your classes at a time. You could be a level 10 cleric and level 10 warrior - and be level 20- but only 10 of each class.

I believe the logic was that you got to be represented properly @ your level, but you weren't actually HALf as powerful as each respective class, but more so. So, they added in a penalty to require you to get more 'experience' to level up both of your classes respectively.

What they failed to realize was how this translated into the MMO genre and character power. Usually in DND you took a class to unlock special abilities or spells that were utility related - turn undead, for example. Nobody was going around (at least in my group) leveling up their classes equally. So you ended up with gimp classes.

The appropriate analog to DnD would have been to eliminate the SK and PAL class altogether, and then let the warrior, upon reaching 60, 'specialize' into a class and receive LoH+Stuns+Turn Undead, DT+lifetap+summon pet, or pure-melee abilities (think Berserker in DnD) that gives raw power or stamina of the sort.

No when EQ was released it was AD&D second edition, and multiclassing didn't work the way it does today. Lets say I'm a Elf Fighter/Mage and lets say you earned 1000xp for the session, well you now split the difference between the two classses so you are sitting at 500/500 XP. Now I don't have my books infront of me but, as a multiclass character if I'm remembering this correctly as you gain levels each class has different amounts of xp requirements so a character with 10k xp would be a level 3 fighter and a level 2 mage.

[Vondra]

From leveling an enchanter to 60, I can tell you that I greatly preferred SK tanks for exp groups over warrior tanks.

With warriors I had to goof around with extra spells to protect myself after I mez'd 3 mobs in sebilis or something and it was time to break one for the next focus target, root, mem blur, etc. With SKs, they just cast once on my mez for the break and I could stay seated.
In fact I could mez a mob, slow it while it was mez'd, then when the SK broke the mez it'd STILL go for the SK.

It was meaningful enough that I didn't like dealing with a charmed pet when the tank was a warrior.

[August]

Originally Posted by screenmonkey [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No when EQ was released it was AD&D second edition, and multiclassing didn't work the way it does today. Lets say I'm a Elf Fighter/Mage and lets say you earned 1000xp for the session, well you now split the difference between the two classses so you are sitting at 500/500 XP. Now I don't have my books infront of me but, as a multiclass character if I'm remembering this correctly as you gain levels each class has different amounts of xp requirements so a character with 10k xp would be a level 3 fighter and a level 2 mage.

I didn't play til 3.5, but i would say this still fits the mold. Your experience is getting 'split' between two classes, with both lagging behind what you would be if you were a solo class.

[TarukShmaruk]

I had really hoped this discussion would be as simple as : should we get the hybrid penalties removed early, for the good of the game, since it's coming anyway -OR- wait until velious just 'cuz?

(I know that's a bit of a loaded question, but still)

[RevengeofGio]

Are all xp penalties removed in Velious? or just class ones?

[TarukShmaruk]

Just class ones.

[Droog007]

The Vision was never about having your cake and eating it too. Even if the cake sucked. The game is cruel and rewards are scant - this has been the key to success/longevity. Embrace it.