It occured to me at some point that quite a few classes have "trademark" abilities (at least in my eyes) that they get far too late...and if they had them early, they would be so much better and have an easier time finding a niche in the ranking department.

Here's a small list:

Druid
Call of the wild: This could be transfered to level 11 (kind of like an empowerment reward), and the beast calls could be scaled by rank, moving up tiers from small creatures (mostly non-predatory) to almost exclusively predatory/mythic creatures at the high ranks.

Plant Growth: This ability seems like it should be one of the first things that a fledgling druid would learn, as it furthers the druidic agenda most directly.

Conjurers
Familiar: I always have thought that familiars should be acquired, at latest, by level 10. 5 would be ideal. However, if the reason you guys put it at 17 is so that people don't just scrap their conjies once they see what they get, I understand. If familiars are truly equal, though, why would they want to?

Anti-Paladins
Aura of Despair: Since it's a "use at your own peril" thing, I don't see the harm in lowering the level of this considerably. Level 16? Ok, great. ;-)

Necromancers
Disruption: Hey, why not toss lowbie necros a bone? Giving this spell at level 5 (along with the sliding scale of effectiveness, of course) would make necromancers the premiere ass-whoopers of the undead...which makes sense!

I'll try to think of more later.

Remember, you did ask for me by name!

>Call of the wild: This could be transfered to level 11
>(kind of like an empowerment reward), and the beast calls
>could be scaled by rank, moving up tiers from small creatures
>(mostly non-predatory) to almost exclusively predatory/mythic
>creatures at the high ranks.

This sounds like a lot of work I don't want to do... and I don't really feel like druids are weak or useless groupmates at low levels, though they do need to play a little more like a healer.

>Plant Growth: This ability seems like it should be one
>of the first things that a fledgling druid would learn, as it
>furthers the druidic agenda most directly.

I think it furthers some druid's agendas... that being said, it's also one of the abilities that can have strong out-of-PK PK consequences. I think it's fair to say that Plant Growth is stronger than Conglaciation in that respect, and I don't think I'd want to see lowbie invokers with that, either.

>Conjurers
>Familiar: I always have thought that familiars should
>be acquired, at latest, by level 10. 5 would be ideal.
>However, if the reason you guys put it at 17 is so that people
>don't just scrap their conjies once they see what they get, I
>understand. If familiars are truly equal, though, why would
>they want to?

Yeah, that's part of the reason. At that point you might as well just let people pick their familiar, which at this point would require more infrastructure futzing than you'd probably think. Not wholly opposed to this in concept, but I'd rather take the same coding time and crank out 30 more edges... and it'd probably be a lot more than 30.

>Anti-Paladins
>Aura of Despair: Since it's a "use at your own peril"
>thing, I don't see the harm in lowering the level of this
>considerably. Level 16? Ok, great. ;-)

Eh. If that goes down, a lot of other stuff has to come up. A-P is crazy tough at 16... I can't really see giving them MORE stuff at those levels.

>Necromancers
>Disruption: Hey, why not toss lowbie necros a bone?
>Giving this spell at level 5 (along with the sliding scale of
>effectiveness, of course) would make necromancers the premiere
>ass-whoopers of the undead...which makes sense!

Necromancers are the premiere ass-whoopers of the undead... they're just not that at level 5, any more than invoker is a walking engine of annihilation at level 5. Conceptually, this feels to me like a spell that goes after animate dead and the like... you learn to put undead together, and then a few levels later you take that knowledge and start learning to break them apart. You can make the argument that it's easier to destroy than create, but... eh.


I think to some degree what all of this amounts to to me is, while I don't have a problem with level sitting (in general) and while the game doesn't start at hero, I also don't want all of the class abilities in the first 15 levels.

You can make the argument that it's easier to destroy than create, but... eh.

I was SO getting my argument ready as I read the first part of that paragraph, but you deflated me right there.

With druids I realize that re-doing Call of the Wild would be a major ordeal, but there are ways to lessen the work load that you might not have considered...I hear those class helpfiles worked out nicely ;-). And as for Plant Growth, I definitely see how it could be a problem if a lowbie druid bushifies someplace and then a bunch of rangers/outlanders hide in it. However, some kind of plant-related supplication very early on would be nice. What if Fire Seeds were given at level 5'ish, with the damage scaled to be appropriate? As it is right now, all a druid can do for the first 10 levels is dirt kick, or throw in an earthquake if there are no other mobs around to beat him down. Hell, make it start with one fireseed, and then get stronger until it synchs up with how it is right now.

As far as the familiar thing with conjies...yeah, we'd all rather see more edges too, so keep on rockin'. And also, as soon as you allow conjurers to choose their familiar, all the shapeshifters are going to beg for the same.

AP's: After further consideration, you're right. AP's are fricken tough at that level. Except arials....and dark-elves....and felar...

Necros: (Insert destruction vs. creation argument and hope for the best.)

> s it
>is right now, all a druid can do for the first 10 levels is
>dirt kick,

Not true. :) Druid recently got two new low level offensive supps.

>AP's: After further consideration, you're right. AP's are
>fricken tough at that level. Except arials....and
>dark-elves....and felar...

Arial's not quite the dynamo human or halfs or duergar or fire is at that level, but it's still pretty good. Dark elf I'll give you. Felar, actually, I think is also pretty good.

I've played too many sub-20 A-Ps. :P

>> s it
>>is right now, all a druid can do for the first 10 levels is
>>dirt kick,
>
>Not true. :) Druid recently got two new low level offensive
>supps.
>
>>AP's: After further consideration, you're right. AP's are
>>fricken tough at that level. Except arials....and
>>dark-elves....and felar...
>
>Arial's not quite the dynamo human or halfs or duergar or fire
>is at that level, but it's still pretty good. Dark elf I'll
>give you. Felar, actually, I think is also pretty good.
>
>I've played too many sub-20 A-Ps. :P

Ok, I'm going to need some splain'n on this. At 17 I'd pretty much rank it fire, duergar, human, arial, half, drow, felar with only felar being a significant step down from the one before it. This isn't counting the new spear/pole skills, so that could be where I'm wrong, but fire/duerg/human/half get the bash downy coupled with invis and maledict bones while arial/drow get the big ass spell (lightning bolt) coupled with inherent fly/sneak and decent fighting abilities and trip goodness. Felar? meh. They can't bash, their spells aren't going to be that much better than a duergar/fire giant (and worse than human/half) all for dual wield w/spear/pole bonus? I just can't see it.

Also, since I'm hijacking this thread anyway, I thought about playing a drow ap for spell + sneak goodness, but I really can't see how sleep + vulnerability to getting my ass bashed down evens out vs being able to bash people down and being much much harder to bash as a fire giant. Never mind giant resist vs mithril vuln, or that even crappy sleep will hit decently if you aren't try those with good saves. I'm trying to justify playing a drow AP, and I just can't see how vs fire giant...

Ok, I'm done.

>decently if you aren't try those with good saves. I'm trying
>to justify playing a drow AP, and I just can't see how vs fire
>giant...

Drow is good against bards. Yeah, you can't bash too well, but you won't be slept much, and fiends won't be your bane. At 17 obviously fiend isn't an issue, but sleep is. Also, you'll have a great deal higher base mana. And your hitpoints won't even be that much worse, since you won't be trading in trains for practices. You can get away with training hp 4-5 times by level 17 with a drow. At those levels, that's a lot.

I don't think that completely makes up for it, though. Giants are kind of gross at low levels, and just the fact that they'll be dealing DISMEMBERS and bashing like crazy makes them tough to beat. Drow are good for subtlety and finesse, and at low levels fights are over too quick for finesse to be effective.

It depends a lot on your style, honestly. Dark elves play a lot more like a mage. In some cases that means a lot more like necromancer; in others, a lot more like invoker. It's more of a finesse character and less of a bash character. Between higher mana max and (probably more importantly) much faster mana regeneration, the d-elf just has so much more mana to play with than really any other option.

Having played (some years ago) a caballed d-elf A-P into hero range, I always felt like I could beat any one opponent no problem. No matter what it was, there was a good tool or combination of tools in my arsenal to deal with it. The problem came in when it was more than one. :)

>Having played (some years ago) a caballed d-elf A-P into hero
>range, I always felt like I could beat any one opponent no
>problem. No matter what it was, there was a good tool or
>combination of tools in my arsenal to deal with it. The
>problem came in when it was more than one. :)

Beating one opponent with a dark elf AP is nice, but did you feel that you couldn't beat any one opponent with a fire giant AP? Did you feel you could beat any 5? That's my thing really... Even if my dark elf AP is a terror 1 vs 1, I'm probably not that far ahead of a fire giant, who also can take on groups without being bashed to death, or other nastiness.

>Beating one opponent with a dark elf AP is nice, but did you
>feel that you couldn't beat any one opponent with a fire giant
>AP?

Well, once the 200 damroll comes out, no. :)

But that aside, in a lot of cases I think the d-elf stacks up better against smarter opponents. The fire can bash mooks down or iceball them until they're clear out of moves, but the better players generally don't walk into that. Equally, the better players generally aren't going through the fire's resistances either.

D-elf also stacks up to magic and mental stuff a lot better.

Does all of that amount to the goodness that is bashing people down (or, possibly a stronger competitor -- detect hidden)? Probably not, but it is a different set of strengths.

Just asking - don't see many around. Maybe Orc Edges?

I drew up design for about 30 of them a while back, but they weren't really first on my list.

But what about powerhouse orcs? Any?

I've seen a ton of orcs with super good PK ratios. I probably could find you a dozen orcs who went better than 40-2 without really trying.

The trick is, orcs who can maintain that into hero range. There are definitely hero-range orcs who kill more than they die, but not on quite that scale.

Hey Daevryn, give me the final word!

I especially like the small critter call of the wild idea. I think that both players and imms could have a lot of fun with that both in desinging them and using them as tools in druidic empowerment and maybe some druid quests.

From what I've seen alot of the alternate calls could be set as the primary call only untill a certain rank, simply because they are so fluffy.