I agree with you on these observations, but what would your answer to a solution then be? 
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). Iāll 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 isnāt just caring for animals, theyāre also going out and finding them, then bringing them back. Theyād 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 theyāre 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 wouldnāt hurt either. Just at that point, this system might be getting more complicated than it needs to be.
@Siyat, look into XCom2ās leveling system. Thatās exactly what youāre describing.
Also, @jomaxro, this could probably get merged back with the original thread, as it still talks about @Brackharās 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.
Okā¦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 ācomplicationsā to the system, itād add more of a challenge and be more rewarding like @Brackhar said he wanted it to be. Itād 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 Iāve put time into his skills, or itās taken me a little while to build him into the knight he is, Iām 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 doesnāt 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 āend gameā jobs doesnāt mean they are āend gameā 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.