Don't forget enemy wizards blatantly cheating by having multiple contingencies and spell triggers.
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Will warriors be able to kill things now?
Posted 25 May 2017 - 04:26 PM
Posted 13 June 2017 - 05:36 PM
I managed to build Eder as an offensive tank, he killed a lot stuff with his charges and it was set on Path of the Damned difficulty.
Posted 19 June 2017 - 08:21 AM
From memory, they were a bit underpowered.
Posted 19 June 2017 - 09:17 AM
From memory, they were a bit underpowered.
opposite were the more obvious problem. at release all tanks were overpowered. it were too easy to load perception and resolve so as to create nigh invulnerable tanks. weren't a fighter problem so much as an attribute problem. in fact, while fighters were the most resilient tanks, their supremacy were largely wasted. why play a fighter-tank when you could go the paladin or chanter route and be highly effective at tanking while also providing useful support abilities? alternative: monk-tanks could dish out serious pain. is not that fighter tanks were less capable than other classes. opposite were true as far as pure tanking. however, the fighter's overkill defense were wasted. 'course by the time the last expansion were released, fighters were back to channeling 2e d&d ghosts. a post wm poe fighter could tank AND dps with high effectiveness. why play a rogue when a far less squishy fighter offered similar melee dps potential w/o the need to apply debilitating status effects to foes?
fighters in poe have never been underpowered. while poe fighters initially were not what ie game fans expected, the most resilient tanky class offered far more potential active abilities than any pre tob ie game fighter. even so, compared to other classes, the poe fighter were intentional low-maintenance which could be perceived as dull.
HA! Good Fun!
Edited by Gromnir, 19 June 2017 - 09:38 AM.
- illathid likes this
Posted 20 June 2017 - 07:52 AM
A question that someone asked on Josh's tumbler relating to tanking and the taunt mechanic that is certainly relevant to this thread: https://jesawyer.tum...nk-in-the-party It's not much, but it is insight into how he feels about taunt mechanics.
Edited by smjjames, 20 June 2017 - 07:54 AM.
Posted 20 June 2017 - 08:24 AM
Tbh, I felt that taunts are a bit weird even in games like WoW and Rift. When you are in battleground (or warfront) a player will (unless specific circumstances) prioritize targets with higher DPS/TTK and Healing/TTK (or EHP if you will). Why should NPCs act different?
While I don’t think taunts are dumb, they feel a little out of place in a game inspired by A/D&D mechanics.
It's the task for CC and Supports to keep enemies at bay, away from specialized healers and glass cannons.
Sure frontliners could attract more attention at the start of the battle (first few seconds, before engagement), but it would indeed be strange if "an enemy would stop murdering Aloth because Edér whistled at them". On the other hand if Eder would have confuse/charm/paralyze... or would charge and knockdown, it would be another story.
Edited by MaxQuest, 20 June 2017 - 08:32 AM.
- rjshae and Wormerine like this
Posted 20 June 2017 - 09:07 AM
Taunt exists to make the "tank" party role an active role, and to ensure that said party role has a consistent role to play. Otherwise, as you said, the tanks role--the guy who can take the hits--has no "reason" to be actually useful if logic is applied to the NPC's decisions--they'd just ignore the tank while taking down everybody else, then concentrate on him afterwards (exactly like I would do to an enemy party).
"Taunt" is an example of a skill that exists as a meta-skill. It's not something that makes sense inside the world, any more than stealth revealing hidden treasures or being unable to dual-wield wands.
- anameforobsidian likes this
Posted 20 June 2017 - 10:39 AM
Let's not forget that the use of Taunt in a game led to the worst line I have ever read. From an RA Salvatore book:
"Your mother's an ore-sucking harlot. The enraged orc shifted targets and charged the Dwarf."
A better system would have front-liners trip, stab, or grapple people who tried to run past them. That's what engagement was supposed to model. Then again, I'd like to see a pillars style system with a 12 man party.
Edited by anameforobsidian, 20 June 2017 - 10:40 AM.
Posted 20 June 2017 - 11:00 AM
In all fairness, you shouldn't really use R.A. Salvatore to model anything *except* crap writing.
Posted 20 June 2017 - 11:07 AM
Whenever I see terrible writing I always wonder why I'm not making money trying my own hand.
Posted 20 June 2017 - 11:11 AM
If I was this age in the 80's, I would. TOR fantasy was the golden age of **** writers.
Posted 20 June 2017 - 11:25 AM
Taunting is a way to compensate for AI limitations. Ideally, a tank tanks by being too dangerous to ignore and punishing you for going straight for the squishier targets. But that doesn't work too well with AI-controlled enemies, as opposed to real players.
I'm glad Deadfire continues to pursue different ways of doing it, though.
Posted Yesterday, 03:06 AM
Well, I made a fighter and he's doing pretty good. I guess the updates did change some things.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users