What are the differences in the classes?

Mizik

He's not wrong.

It's a game, class is chosen based on preferred mechanics. Whatever is most fun to the player wins.

It's a lucky convenience to prefer a so-called 'neutral class'. In fairness, logically, all classes should be aligned to a specific faction. Or none.

The reason not all classes are faction bound is? It would piss everyone off, as opposed to the unlucky few who fell in love with classes in clashing factions.

Also, don't bother using the word 'roleplay' in a response. It's the Achaean equivalent of religion to oppose logical standpoints.

Shirszae

I'll should just say that I disagree with both @Mizik and @Penwize and leave it at it.

First, because 'roleplay' is one of the central subjects that should be touched in regards to such a discussion about classes. Also, because its not universally true that classes are chosen based on preferred mechanics. Else I'd be a serpent still. 

What I do agree with is that all factions should be 'mechanically' unaligned. That is, any restrictions should rest solely on the players. It should be for us to put pressure on those who live outside of what our characters perceive as right. There should be no convenient thing like a popup saying 'lol, sorry, quit city or house first then try again' 

To me, people playing a class outside of their perceived faction only adds to the breath and freshness of the world. It makes it feel real and alive. Why can't there be heretics? Why can't there be transgressors? That only makes it all the more fun to interact with, pursue, talk, punish, kill and whatever else you could possibly imagine. And no, it does not make a faction weaker. All the contrary, a faction could become all the stronger, because people would see it acting, pursuing and actively seeking the deviants. It would give them a reason to establish their culture firmly.  

Valdus

But it's a fact that people are told by others "No, you can't do it like that. You must do it this way." and because there are more people who believe what that person has said, it becomes canon.

It is 100% accurate that it takes 'someone exceptional' to make something work, because there are literally dozens of people who believe it shouldn't/couldn't/can't/etc be that way. They have to fight against that kind of (I don't want to say oppression but I"m saying it anyway as I can't think of another word) oppression by being 'exceptional' enough that they can get it to fly.

I don't think @Penwize , @Daeir or @Mizik are saying there shouldn't be transgressors, heretics or people who break the mold in various ways. What I think they're saying is that it's extremely hard to be one of those things and only the very few are ever able to pull it off.

Averi

I think the great thing about achaea is that if you want to be special you kind of have to like play the game for a while and build up the history behind it.  You can't like just make a character and be like BOOM Eleusian Occultist/Mhaldorian Forestal/Hashani Priest! and not get kicked out or something. 

So like people who are special actually like played through the consequences of being special and different and that just makes their character all the more cooler. 

Mizik

Yeah, that great thing you're talking about - assuming you're keeping the conversation relevant to the topic - is what we can't do anymore.

Unless you had some sort of cryptic point.

Averi

My point was simply that it's better that we can't do that anymore cause the special character would be coming in with ic background.  

Perhaps given another achaean century, there will be different kinds of people who are special.  It is a very dynamic game after all

Nakari

Shirszae said:

I'll should just say that I disagree with both @Mizik and @Penwize and leave it at it.

First, because 'roleplay' is one of the central subjects that should be touched in regards to such a discussion about classes. Also, because its not universally true that classes are chosen based on preferred mechanics. Else I'd be a serpent still. 

What I do agree with is that all factions should be 'mechanically' unaligned. That is, any restrictions should rest solely on the players. It should be for us to put pressure on those who live outside of what our characters perceive as right. There should be no convenient thing like a popup saying 'lol, sorry, quit city or house first then try again' 

To me, people playing a class outside of their perceived faction only adds to the breath and freshness of the world. It makes it feel real and alive. Why can't there be heretics? Why can't there be transgressors? That only makes it all the more fun to interact with, pursue, talk, punish, kill and whatever else you could possibly imagine. And no, it does not make a faction weaker. All the contrary, a faction could become all the stronger, because people would see it acting, pursuing and actively seeking the deviants. It would give them a reason to establish their culture firmly.  

The problem with this is that there needs to be enough identity or momentum to actually put pressure on deviants or else it does weaken factions. I do think, for instance, that Targossas' ability to put mechanical pressure on Cyrenian devotionists does make for a stronger identity within those classes. I'm not going to claim that I necessarily agree with the methodologies behind their use of influence, but I definitely think that being a deviationist has a stronger identity after that.

While I'd agree that optimally it would be really great if there were zero mechanical limits, with cities like Mhaldor and Targossas often having fewer citizens than other cities that do or historically have accepted factional classes without being a part of that faction it becomes difficult to place strictly rp pressure on people who step outside the boundaries of that class, especially in terms of the people who don't severely step out of norms. 

Trevize

Most of the people who argue that there shouldn't be limits are the reason we have limits.

If everyone RPed with maturity, limits wouldn't be required.

Xer

I assume you mean 0.85 ~ 0.9 but that definitely is faster than what I remember. Stop tempting me back to Shaman  

Trevize

Xer said:

I assume you mean 0.85 ~ 0.9 but that definitely is faster than what I remember. Stop tempting me back to Shaman  

I did, sorry! I love shaman, I just wish the willpower drain wasn't quite so bad. It's brutal as hell.

Sobriquet

Daeir said:

Jester
1. Hindrance, hard supporting role focused on inhibiting enemy movement and actions - poor basher and quite difficult to play effectively
2. Hindering, specifically with Tarot and Bananas, limited area attack ability through suicidemice/star tarot plus handling bombs in team fights
3. Poor damage output and survivability, no innate LoS
4. Immense mobility (universe tarot, backflip, balloons) and excellent group support capacity through rapid bomb throwing (blackout, stun, fight cancelling) and tarot abilities (hangedman, aeon).

I'll disagree with a little of this. Jester bashing is actually pretty good. Weapons cost just 500gp and don't need forging, damage output scales with Pranks level and is, again, pretty decent. With Priestess, Magician and to an extent, Fool tarot, you can survive pretty well. Endurance drain on bop is also very low

Mizik

Delusional. Every statement should follow with "compared to..."

Jester bashing is garbage.

Trevize

Mizik said:

Delusional. Every statement should follow with "compared to monk"

all other bashing is garbage.

ftfy

Anedhel

Not to derail this thread yet again, but, to answer Shirszae and Nakari and co- the reason that it's not super good to allow unaligned faction-dependent classes is that, because of Cities, you can't really do anything to them.

Sure, you could dedicate a ton of time to griefing them while they bash, maybe.

However, as long as Cities are safe havens, there's literally nothing more you can do to enforce a class restriction, bar mechanical punishment. I agree, ironically, that there should be more latitude in allowing for out-of-the-box character development. The sad truth is, though, that most people who want to play an unaligned <x> do NOT want to do it for the RP opportunities. They just want to be part of blah because it's where their friends are/has more relaxed laws/doesn't force you to fight, etc. etc. Given that that's the case, I can't say I can in good conscience condemn the current system.

Valdus

Anedhel said:

Not to derail this thread yet again, but, to answer Shirszae and Nakari and co- the reason that it's not super good to allow unaligned faction-dependent classes is that, because of Cities, you can't really do anything to them.

Sure, you could dedicate a ton of time to griefing them while they bash, maybe.

However, as long as Cities are safe havens, there's literally nothing more you can do to enforce a class restriction, bar mechanical punishment. I agree, ironically, that there should be more latitude in allowing for out-of-the-box character development. The sad truth is, though, that most people who want to play an unaligned <x> do NOT want to do it for the RP opportunities. They just want to be part of blah because it's where their friends are/has more relaxed laws/doesn't force you to fight, etc. etc. Given that that's the case, I can't say I can in good conscience condemn the current system.

I would agree that often that would be the case. However, I want to ask you a question:

Is wanting to be <x> for the reasons bolded somehow worse than wanting to be <x> for the roleplay opportunities?

Every player has a reason for why they chose their current class/house/city. Nobody's reason for doing this is in any way whatsoever more valid/better than anyone elses reason why they do something in Achaea.

The only reason Forestals are only allowed in Eleusis is because every other city chose Alchemy and the Administration has said they are allowed to choose one or the other. Having Eleusis becoming a stronger identity as the Forest/Nature city because of this was a bonus, but it was not why it happened. So, citing Roleplay as a reason for not having a Sentinel as a city dweller is not valid.

Penwize

Valdus said:

The only reason Forestals are only allowed in Eleusis is because every other city chose Alchemy and the Administration has said they are allowed to choose one or the other. Having Eleusis becoming a stronger identity as the Forest/Nature city because of this was a bonus, but it was not why it happened. So, citing Roleplay as a reason for not having a Sentinel as a city dweller is not valid.

Well, this is not entirely true.  Eleusis getting a stronger identity WAS the reason for it.  The admin pretty clearly steered every city to pick alchemist, but made it seem like a real choice at the time.  It was pretty well done I think in that regard.

Valdus

Penwize said:

Valdus said:

The only reason Forestals are only allowed in Eleusis is because every other city chose Alchemy and the Administration has said they are allowed to choose one or the other. Having Eleusis becoming a stronger identity as the Forest/Nature city because of this was a bonus, but it was not why it happened. So, citing Roleplay as a reason for not having a Sentinel as a city dweller is not valid.

Well, this is not entirely true.  Eleusis getting a stronger identity WAS the reason for it.  The admin pretty clearly steered every city to pick alchemist, but made it seem like a real choice at the time.  It was pretty well done I think in that regard.

Then I'm completely wrong and it's just a misunderstanding on my part.

I wonder what will happen with Multiclassing and someone wants Forestal.

Brb messaging Tecton.

EDIT: Got a reply. (Dude works fast man) The house/city restrictions to do with Multiclass haven't been finalized yet, so the answer is unknown yet. We'll find out in the future!