Thoughts and feedback on classsystem stream 281

I’m right there with you. And honestly, I’m not seeing why this is needed or even wanted. Like what’s wrong with the current system? What are they really achieving from changing the system this drastically? For mages I can understand knowledge “spheres”, and maybe even some unlockable items above base value (like the ability to always craft fine objects), but for general jobs, this doesn’t make sense at all.

Sorry, I guess I’m that guy…again…but I think this is one of the more worse ideas to be implemented, especially at this stage in the game. Yes, the current system is bland and could use some flavor.

In y’all’s design notes, you had an image of XCom’s leveling system, and that would definitely add flavor, as well as being able to have a class specialize in a subclass (footman only using shortswords vs longswords). But to try and completely rewrite the whole system, especially in this ideal, seems like you’re trying to fix something that’s nowhere near as broke as you’re making out to be. In an RPG, this would work great (see Final Fantasy VII materia system), but in a city builder, it’s going to be more annoying in the ways that @Solus has stated than not.

This isn’t being implemented any time soon, if at all. As I said when I opened the stream, it’s just an idea I’m toying with.

While I agree that currently, high-level crafters are way too easy to obtain, using the system described in the stream will severely limit the obtaining of new crafters. In my opinion, a better system would be to require new tools for crafters to level up. These could either be obtained from traders, quests or crafting. For instance, while a carpenter saw in the early game could only be upgraded by buying an upgrade, in the later game it would be possible for the blacksmith or engineer to make a new one thus enabling quicker expansion of crafting skills when a group of crafters is already set up. In contrast, the farmer hoe upgrade could be crafted by the carpenter for the lower upgrades, the mason for medium upgrades and only require the blacksmith for the final upgrades. this would also tie in nicely with the current system for talismans being the used tools.

1 Like

The way i can see the “Sphere’s or Books” work is like this.

You can progress normally in stonehearth.

(ie: worker promoted to carpenter.) progress through the lvls normally.

But lets say u find a book, It opens up a whole new area for progression, Let say u set the hearth to read the master carp book. and he reads it, would he gain a new set a skills, or fail. i think it should be a hit or miss thing, and they can try again in a few days, trying to learn a new progression to there class. When or if they hit, they gain a new set of skills to make better items or even newer items. It could have it own category tab. This could work for all classes and crafters

Lets talk about how the footman might learn something. Instead of a book this could go to sphere’s (ideas) You find a footman Sphere, and you give it to that footman, again they try and learn a new set of skills (hit or miss), When they eventually learn from the idea (sphere) they gain some new moves (say like dash or trip swing). and this could work with all combat classes

This way i can see this happening, One it really doesn’t affect gameplay for players in a sense, players can still promote and craft and build the towns of their dream, but also giving a reward type of gameplay investing in your hearths


I apologize as I missed that. Regardless, I still feel it’s too RPG for the city builder side of the game. At the same time, I love @micheal_handy76_mh’s suggestion for your ideal.

Just sleeping a few hours before replying, and suddenly I have to read through alot more comments. :grinning:

About the thematics of the knowledge spheres:
I know it was already mentioned a few times, but I immediately thought about books and such when @brackhar explained what knowledge spheres are. Radiant has previously said that tangibility is valuable for them (edge of the world part 2, IIRC), and knowledge spheres aren’t really tangible, you can’t touch knowledge. But you can touch information carriers such as books.

I’d envision the apprentice sphere to be a clay or stone tablet, with only the crude basics of said class written onto it. The journeyman has a scroll, with more info on it. (Funny, cuz the class reassignment window icon is also a scroll). The master gets a big book, enough to outline everything you need to know to be a master in whatever you are doing. Each tier of “sphere” has more room for information on it, thus more room to go into detailed specifics, thus being able to capture more of what is needed to get a noob to an apprentice, journeyman, or master.

As for why this information is no longer useful after a hearthling has been promoted, well maybe they are these spell books that lodge info into the readers’ mind.
After all, this is, or so you could argue, what happens during such a promotion ceremony (in the current game, both the talisman and the promotion ceremony already look like there is some magic involved). and it would also explain why it gives the hearthling the material knowledge as well, @Fornjotr talked about. Normal books wouldn’t do that.

A few loose thoughts

*Should there be rare legendary spheres. Spheres that make your crafter / warrior not just a master, but a legend.

  • Can hearthlings invent new techniques, i.e. can they “think” or “invent” knowledge spheres into existence? Is this maybe a solution for the early, essential-for-survival-apprentice classes?
  • There was this thing about hearthlings needing/ not needing to absorb lower tier knowledge spheres before they could absorb higher ones. Already thought about the value of doing that across classes. i.e. to absorb a mason sphere (in Rayya’s), whatever the skill-level, a hearthling must have had some knowledge, on whatever skill-level, in the subject of pottery. I’m curious what you think about this.

I think this sounds bad… you dont learn to make a f.x a drawer just because you thop down trees, just like you dont learn how to program just by building computers etc.
Another way they could expand on the class system (i dont think their is a need for it) could be that you need to find a trainer or a book/codex perhaps through a quest line in order to unlock a class.

1 Like

Would you consider a computer a raw material? or a tool? Have you ever build a drawer without working with wood before? If so, did it turn out perfect the first time you tried?
Its fair enough you dont like suggestions, but dont throw around with facts that you cant back up please.

Finding a trainer or a codex through a questline do sound like a great way to do it, i already like the way they give us some recipes that way, so it would fit in well :merry:

wont say i gave any facts, just an example. and in my example (it might have been a bad one) i would say that the computer is the raw material compared to programming. (after all you need the computer before you can start to program)
and yes i have worked with wood and it turned out like i thought it would (bad), but i have never cut down any trees.

Sorry if i have used a confusing example, but i do stand by my statement, so dont start accusing me for spreading bs like some sjw.

sjw? If you still claim that a computer is a raw material, i wont even engage in further communication with you on the subject. And i will always “accuse” falsehood from truth, if we dont do that, we end up in a world that is doomed.

I hope you have a great day none the less :merry:

Its worth to remember that any class system (however complex progression and perks may be) is an abstraction and simplyfication. From this pov stonehearts system is fine, despite many senseless interdependencies (made an own thread on this one).
So if you want more complexity “classes” as a concept has to go - superseded by a skill based system, where classes emerge either only in the players mind or by completing ingame skill related quests or tasks.
Sadly I can’t remember any (complex beyond “blunt weapons” and “pistols”) skill based game of the last 20 years that was enjoyable to play…

1 Like

First and foremost: after skipping a couple of alphas overall gameplay has improved a lot.
The building process is ridiculous as ever, great to read this is getting revamped soon - hope in a timber’n’stone kinda fashion and getting rid of this cant edit after building.
Sorry - classes was the subject: so putting building aside surprisingly the current class system was the gameplay element that irritated me the most.
As good as any class is implemented, many if not most interdependencies simply dont make sense.
Farmer->Cook: come on man, I never grew a crop but nevertheless can be a decent cook.
Trapper->Shepperd: you can care for animals without ever placing a trap
Mason->Potter: by no means related at all
Herbalist->Cleric: imho unrelated as well - at least a cleric should be able to do herbalist tasks
Progressions that make sense:
Blacksmith->Engineer (but the handling to get a second smith to level xxx to promote to engineer is … strange… to say the least)
Footman->Archer, Footman->Knight - fine and makes sense

Conclusion: don’t squezze in forced class changes just to have it. more spezialized classes will blend in over time.

Finally: traits (and conversations) are great gameplay elements - and i’d like to see more class related traits.
comeone - everbody (and not one out of ten heartlings as in the current alpha) has some ideas of her/his favorite occupation…


I agree with you on these observations, but what would your answer to a solution then be? :merry:

1 Like

The solution would be to make the mentioned ones standalone classes.

1 Like

we need to have some kind of growth still tho, or progression. I agree the skill tree is out of synch. but would like to see 3 tiers of progression. you dont just become a cook it needs something before same for carpenter. maybe break down the growth . like Farmer / can then grow into Shepherd Then Weaver or A Trapper (closest to a butcher) will grow into a Cook(the basic meals and animal feed) then a Chef (the high end recipes).

1 Like

The growth should be job specific, not leaving the job for another.

Have a talent tree for each and every hearthling. For a footman, select more health or more damage. Make them a mold of what you need. For a Cook, make them choose between baking and cooking (yes, they are different). One might be better early game whereas the other might be better for the endgame.

What I propose is this, two columns with two different talents with 5 talent choices (Levels 1,2,3,4,5) (6 Levels is a weird cap). I’ll continue using the Footman as an example. At level 1, go to the character and have an option for talents. You will have a choice between selecting one of two options. You want your footman to be an archer at level 1, maybe you get that here. Select between Warrior or Archer. Warrior gives you +10% bonus damage for using melee, Archer gives the same bonus but for ranged.

At level 2, the options could be normalized to work with both types of specializations. Higher critical chance, higher critical damage, heals faster, better shield handling, etc. But only one talent could be selected.

Maybe on hard mode, these talent selections are made by the AI to increase the difficulty.

This one is a stretch, a very far stretch. Yes, a good cook can never have farmed a day in their life and still be good. At the same time, the very best cooks and pioneer (colony) cooks know what each plant is, what it does, and how to combine them to get different effects. Being a farmer and knowing about the different herbs you have would give you an advantage over just grabbing a handful of random mushrooms and hoping for the best.

I can understand this one. The shepherd isn’t just caring for animals, they’re also going out and finding them, then bringing them back. They’d need knowledge in how to lure and trap them without hurting them before they could be brought back.

This one I can relate. Think of an herbalist as a nurse (in a very loose term) and a cleric as a field medic (again loosely). A field medic (cleric) would need some medical knowledge before they can run out and start helping people in battle. Yes, military wise this can be argued half a dozen ways, but you get my point.

See my above statements. I feel the mentioned ones should be tweaked, if not balanced, but at the same time, there are advantages (lore wise) as to why they’re like this.

I will say that @Jeffrey_Bomford has a good idea, and let me let me iterate this through a simple chart.

Say you want a cook.

Lv2 Farmer -----> Generic Cook
Lv2 Trapper -----> Cook mostly focussing on advanced meat based recipes.
Lv2 Herbalist -----> Cook mostly focussing on advanced plant based recipes.

If you wanted to take this further, and throw some XCom leveling into it, where you have to pick individual skills each level (but only pick one), it wouldn’t hurt either. Just at that point, this system might be getting more complicated than it needs to be.

@Siyat, look into XCom2’s leveling system. That’s exactly what you’re describing.

Also, @jomaxro, this could probably get merged back with the original thread, as it still talks about @Brackhar’s original idea.

1 Like

Basically my intention to post the initial thread was NOT to discuss how the class system could be made more complex - it was rather the idea to make it even more simple by removing most interdependencies.
There still remain some, at least those related to tools that need to be crafted by one class to promote another class.

Where I see room to improve is by the class systems interaction with other gameplay elements, like traits.

Wanting more complexity imho leads to a skill based system and to the discussion in the thread you mentioned.

Ok…and what would that achieve to just let anyone be anything? In that instance, I could have an end game army before the first goblin camp arises. I could fast track production, and be a level two town by the third day. The list goes on.

IMO, and note this is just my opinion, removing the dependencies would shorten the length of a playthrough drastically, and thus make the game less entertaining. By adding “complications” to the system, it’d add more of a challenge and be more rewarding like @Brackhar said he wanted it to be. It’d also give you a reason to care more for your Hearthlings. If I lose a knight, and can just replace him as fast as McDonalds replaces their fry cook, what do I care if I let him die? But if I’ve put time into his skills, or it’s taken me a little while to build him into the knight he is, I’m going to worry about his welfare more.

1 Like

This is why I think the jobs progression is flawed. By using a talent tree for the base job (think Footman, Mason, etc.), you set a barrier of progression for the player. Additionally, it doesn’t pull the hearthling out of their job when you promote them to a different specialization. When you move your hearthling from Footman to Knight, it actually feels more like your being punished for your decision, especially when that Footman was level 6. Keeping the progression within the base job makes it feel more like a promotion and less like a demotion.

To answer your question, allowing the player to choose the “end game” jobs doesn’t mean they are “end game” hearthlings. Levels and equipment should reflect that instead. And having an end game army means you have skimped out on something else, so sure, why not let people decide from the onset what they want their hearthlings to be.