[crossfire] Skills & Classes

[Mark Wedel]

  As thinking about this on my drive home from work tonight, it seemed like 
taking a step back from classes to look at how skills work might be a good idea.

  The two are very closely related - depending on how skills work determines 
what skills to give to different classes, and how to balance them.

In brief history of crossfire: The first many versions of crossfire did not have 
any skills.  You had a single character level, and all attributes came from that 
(ability to use magic, effectiveness with weapons, as well as hp/sp).  Later, 
skills were added, but with a few skill categories that contained the level an 
effectiveness of the skill (in terms of current skills, this would mean that 
evocation, sorcery, pyromancy and summoning would have a skill bucket of 
'magic', and it is the level of magic that determined level of all those skills, 
and if you get exp using a pyromancy skill, it would go in the magic bucket. 
The only thing this really did was limit some abilities until one gained a 
skill).  Then, at a later point, those categories were removed, and each skill 
had a level, exp for a skill was gained by using that skill.  That is where 
things currently are.

  I bring this up because as this illustrates, skills was an add on from the 
original crossfire, and so the question that comes to mind is this the right 
approach.

  So as I was in traffic thinking about this, I realized there are different 
ways skill systems work out:

1) Number of skills:  Some systems have very few skills (almost a 1:1 mapping of 
skill to class).  Other systems have lots of skills, in some cases getting very 
discrete (dagger, sword, hand axe, battle axe, etc as an example of weapon 
skills).  Most systems are somewhere in the middle.  But a question is there - 
should we try to limit skills to some total number of skills, and that may mean 
removing some skills or adding their abilities to other skills?

2) Method of advancement: There are a few different methods here - one is to use 
what is currently done - only way a skill improves is to use it.  Other systems 
use a mechanism where as the character gains level, they get some number of 
points to improve skills they have.   Some systems have a hybrid approach - as 
you use the skill, you get better, but as you gain overall levels, you get some 
number of points to improve skills.

3) Cap/improvability of skills:  Should all/most skills be reasonably possible 
to reach maximum level?  Should all skills be improvable (there are several 
skills in crossfire right now which are not improvable as an example).  This is 
a general concept question related to class skills and for now is ignoring that 
non class skills may have level caps and/or less favorable exp gain ratios that 
make reaching max level impossible

4) Starting still quality: Should a characters class skills (magic use skill for 
wizards, weapon skill for warriors) be somehow better?  We had discussed 
different versions that have better/worse exp ratios, but for a brand new 
character, that fighters and cleric weapon skill is still identical - it only 
gets better for the fighter in the sense the fighter should gain a level in that 
skill faster.  My thought here is to make class skills effectively a higher 
level, eg, a clerics weapon skill may start at level 3, a fighters at level 5, 
and a wizards at level 1 (note, probably would be good to change the term level 
to some other term).


  My quick thoughts on these points:

1) Middle approach seems good - this is what crossfire currently does (has about 
40 skills).  Some could perhaps be merged, and I could see adding some new ones.

2) I'm tempted by the hybrid approach myself - I'm not sure what portion should 
be based on using the skill and what by points, by something like 75 (exp)/25 
(level gain points) may be workable - this gives some mechanism to improve hard 
to improve skills

3) Skills should be improvable (if it is not improvable, I'd put that into an 
'ability' definition). This is based more on consistency - since most of the 
skills right now are improvable, it just makes sense that all be improvable, 
since the skill framework bases a lot on that idea.  I don't think it is 
realistic that all skills be able to get to a point of maximum level - at least 
not easily (if someone really wants to grind, then perhaps so)

4) I think classes would get more distinction if starting skills were more 
effective (effective level is higher) - this would give wizards better spell 
choices.

  Note on abilities vs skills:  This may be a matter of semantics, but for many 
of the non improvable skills, the reason they are skills (I believe) is it 
provided a simple mechanism to put them on treasure lists to give them out, but 
also provides a mechanism already in place to use them (use_skill ....)

  The idea of abilities here is to provide another method to use this without it 
being a skill.  One reason I think this is desirable is per other discussions, 
where as one improves in their skill, that skill might also grant them certain 
abilities, but calling them spells (even if they act a lot like it) might also 
be confusing.