mostundesired

Reviving thread because I had an idea and wanted other opinions. With the possible changes coming to concentration, what about having engaged enemies interrupted when they target allies? If the creature has concentration, the interrupt just lowers penetration of the attack. If the creature has no concentration, it gives the ally a bigger window to react. Assuming concentration is gained over time and gives a pen bonus, I think it could work without being too strong. Might have to tweak AI a bit. Have them reset who they target when losing all concentration so they're not locked in infinite interrupts.

Very close. In terms of best efficacy in a passive playstyle, yes. But that doesn't mean I want Fighters to play passively. I think the active abilities they have should be in the vein of in the fray, disciplined strikes, that one charge move that I can't remember. Stances. They don't have to do anything, but when they do, it makes a difference. Saving your rogue when they're making a break for it. Locking down an enemy going for your ranger. Hitting swaths of CC'd enemies. Making sure a tough enemy goes down after everyone unloads on it (phrasing). Things like that. Basic things that can change the fight entirely when applied correctly.

Oh, for... I'm kicking myself for persisting with the term "weapon style" this whole time. I think I should say fighting style instead. A Fighter's fighting style, being a better melee combatant, is fulfilled by having higher base deflection, constant recovery, and most of their active abilities just enhancing the melee capabilities most others already have (engagement, accuracy, being able to graze, etc.). It's a matter of better efficacy. Meanwhile, weapon styles is a matter of more efficiency. A character who specializes in dual wielding has faster attack speed while dual wielding to make them more efficient at it. A Fighter who is in melee combat at can more reliably do damage and survive without having to think about active abilities or what afflictions the enemy has applied to them. Still factors in, of course, but not as much. That gives them more efficacy. I think that since what Fighters are losing is the exclusivity of weapon styles, what they should get should be something equivalent thereof. For Fighters, weapon styles gave them higher base efficacy in the form of a minor boost to damage/damage mitigation. It barely makes a difference to their efficiency, since they don't get many multipliers/additives, but it mattered because it was unique to them, and reinforced that they are the ones who have efficacy in melee combat. For other classes, weapon specialization gives them greater efficiency because they now get a higher number to apply multipliers/additives to, and allows them to RP, and that's great, but it comes along with the efficacy boost that was initially unique to Fighters. So if that's the case they should get another efficacy bonus that is unique to them. Doesn't matter what, but something unique. Otherwise, they don't have more efficacy, they have the same exact efficacy as other classes. My initial point was that the way it should be thought of isn't that Fighter is the tank class (pretty much everyone can tank, some better than others), Fighter isn't the "good with all weapons" class (Black Jacket), and Fighter isn't the teamplay class (I think that defines Paladins).They are the melee specialist class. Compensating for the loss of exclusivity by redefining what is exclusive to the class (efficacy) would be just as bad as giving them nothing, imo.

If it wasnt their thing, then why did they exclusively get weapon focuses in the first game? This is half a challenge, and half an actual question. The challenge half comes from the fact that the weapons were grouped by who would be likely to use that those weapons based on their... Well, style. I like your ideas in spirit, but it still glosses over the notion I made that mastering multiple weapons isn't a Fighter thing, it's a Black Jacket Fighter Subclass thing. You say you want them to have fought that way for their career, and for that to differentiate them from others of the same class. There is no conflict with that and also saying that Fighter is the best in melee combat by default. Which they are, even if other classes get the same exact fighting style bonuses. Defenses, damage, accuracy, a little CC, they're all-rounders, and if they choose to specialize in a weapon, they take that with them. And there is where they're better. In a vacuum, where we only speak of fighting styles as -50% recovery speed or whatever, then I have no problem with all classes having the same potential. Outside of that vacuum, Fighters should come out on top in terms of efficacy and stability. Not damage. Maybe I'm at fault for sticking with the term "fighting style." Should I say "fighting style, when combined with other things?" Like, my understanding of the concept is that when a Fighter specializes in a fighting style, they're adding it on top of melee combat expertise, and when a Rogue takes it (sticking with Rogue for consistency), they're adding it on top of exploiting weaknesses and unconventional pragmatism. Again, I don't think we disagree on what should be done. The point I'm harping on is that it should be consistent with what a Fighter is: melee combat specialist. No one else should be a melee combat specialist. To call that tautology is silly imo, because the classes are already arbitrarily designed, and define by what they do. What a Fighter do is specialize in melee combat, not defined here and now, but when we look at the abilities Fighters get in the first Pillars. But that doesn't mean other classes shouldn't excel and flourish in melee combat, arguably more so if what you want is raw damage dealt.

I didn't even say Rogues should be bad at fighting, or that they should do less damage. You're extrapolating "does less damage" from "not the best at fighting." I said Fighter should be better at melee fighting. Melee fighting. Not dealing the most damage in melee combat. Things like disciplined barrage, lots of bonuses to defenses, constant healing, lots of other stuff. I would just add on to that list "deeper mastery of fighting styles." I still expect Rogues and Monks and Rangers to do consistently more damage than Fighters in some way, either because of DPS or burst damage or DoTs. But I expect Fighters to be better with the basics. Rogues don't pay any price for their tricks, they're rewarded for using those tricks in combat and take advantage of enemy's weaknesses (read: more damage). That's why their power source is called Guile. Fighters are rewarded for mastering the direct approach (read: trained defense, steady offense). It's the reason their power source is called Discipline. If a Rogue specialized in dual wielding, they did that in tandem pragmatism aimed at dealing more damage. If a Fighter specialized in dual wielding, they emphasized it the mastery of it. I love the idea of a character being better at dual wielding than any random schmo who picked up weapons without training and specialization. That character practiced and practiced, and it's their fighting style of choice. But I don't want that at the expense of the Fighter whose main thing is their fighting style of choice. If your idea of dual wielder is someone uses two weapons efficiently, more so than others, looking for maximum damage regardless of technique and willing to do the unconventional, you're looking at a Rogue. If your idea of a dual wielder is someone who practiced day in and day out with two weapons, becoming so much better at it than others that it's one of their defining traits, you're looking at a Fighter. At least insofar as my understanding of the core class concept of Fighter and Rogue in Pillars goes. I'll repeat for clarity: I'm not picky in how it's achieved. If Obsidian decides that the way Fighters become better at melee combat is through defense, teamplay, and active abilities, then so be it (and actually better for me because I love me some tanky Fighters). I think we're in agreement in what should be done, but not in why. Your why is "I want to be able to master this fighting style more than others, but Fighter shouldn't be a redundant class." (Correct me if I'm wrong) My why is "Everyone should be able to specialize, but the Fighter should have a leg up in specializing in fighting styles in some way." And I think the latter is a better way to look at it because it keeps the Fighter's class role in the forefront, rather than scrambling to come up with a new role for Fighters. Incidentally, Fighter and Rogue are my favorite classes, so this particular idea is one I have some vested interest in. I'm not the 2E grognard you seemed to expect me to be, Rogues doing subpar damage and only being useful for lockpicking is a pet peeve of mine, and I much prefer to have Fighters in defensive roles over offensive (who better to hold up defense than the guy trained in understanding combat?) TL;DR: Better at fighting doesn't mean doing more damage, that's too narrow a way of looking at it. I want Rogues to do damage, among the highest. I like characters having a specialized fighting style, but I think Fighters should get those by default because that's their thing, and they should never be worse at their thing than other characters. Taking away their thing, spreading it out, and giving them something else would create a hole in the characters people can make, shaped like a trained combatant who can steadily do their part (or excel when they need to).

It looks like I'm getting something for two-weapon or one-handed style on non-Fighter characters. Unless this is something all characters get? Hasn't that always been the case? Even in the first game?

I disagree with Answermancer's assessment of Fighter being "Jack of all trades" type for weapons. Their trade isn't "I can use all melee weapons," that would be the subclass of black jacket. Their trade is "I focused on being in melee combat more than anyone else." I'm okay with a rogue who dual wields being a cut above dual wielders, but a Fighter should be even better than that; while the rogue was learning underhanded tricks to use while dual wielding, the fighter was doubling down on their ability to dual wield. Essentially, it's dictating that the fighter class shouldn't be the best at melee combat because we (royal we) want rogue to be just as good, or whatever other class. Functionally, however? Yeah, I'm down for that. It's why they have a higher base deflection than other classes: to be better in melee combat. If we give other classes the ability to specialize in a weapon more than their peers, something should be given to Fighters, then, to reinforce their role as melee experts. I wouldnt know what, though. More deflection? Active abilities? Passives that do something else? Who knows. Same for Ranger, but substitute melee combat concepts with range combat concepts.

I'd like, personally, to have deflection tied to an attribute. Or if not that, then passive talents I can pick up. I'm partial to the idea of making a character who stands out in their focus on defense over offense.

I see. What I suggested was based off the premises of "I just want something on my character sheet" and "you could just pump stat x" So if you want some specialized build variance, you could take a passive that was equivalent to, but distinct from, adding one more point to the governing attribute.

What would you want them to look like, out of curiosity?

I had a thought. Would people be content with a general talent pool (or maybe put this on the proficiency page) that had passives like this: "Dual wielder: +1 to dexterity in calculating weapon and recovery speed when wielding two weapons" "Resolute: +1 to resolve in calculating resistance to a will affliction" "Crowd controller: +1 to intelligence for calculating affliction duration on targets" "+1 to might when calculating damage with two handed weapons" Etc... Functionally, it's just increasing an attribute, but it puts something on your character sheet and makes mechanical difference, if slight.

This response doesn't make sense to me. Picking up a weapon style talent isn't a choice, it's increasing the efficiency of a choice you already made: using a weapon style. The bonus is already inherent in dual wielding or whatever. Does increasing that bonus count as a choice? Because I'm pretty sure the other person was saying that it's not much of a choice. EDIT: ninja'd

It's good at first, but it has declining impact over the course of the game. And you won't be gimp if you don't take it. You can build a perfectly fine character without it. ... Assuming the game isn't balance with the expectation that everyone gets +6 accuracy. If not, it becomes easier to lay on damage and CC, potentially trivializing some encounters. If so, that +6 could make or break your character's efficiency. Maybe there's some middle ground here. The people against it, however, are erring on the side of caution.

I'm okay with that. You'd have roll back the numbers on accuracy and deflection across the board, but that doesn't sound like a bad thing exactly.

Actually, I concur here. I would've love to have those passives. In fact, I'll admit to a lapse in logic: I forgot how easy it was to enchant weapons to do exactly that. Adding passives to make my character better with enchanted weapons would be equal too adding passives to make characters better with certain weapon styles. Would it be a stretch to suggest also having passives that increase the likeliness of specific status effects to kick in?

I feel like moving deflection to dex would be equally overpowered. Faster recovery means higher potential DPS, and it's already got reflexes, I'm not sure if it's wise to put deflection on top of that, too. You could take reflexes off of dex and leave it on perception, but I'm not sure how much of a difference that would make. As much as I like the idea of making Resolve do something else, we have to be very careful what we pair deflection with, considering deflection is the main method defense. I could argue slapping deflection onto con, but something in the back of my head is telling me that's a bad idea too.

What about deflection, then? Does it stay with Resolve? Because if so, then suddenly Resolve became insanely powerful: maximum healing, ability damage, and defensive properties.

I'm seeing in this thread a lot of what I pointed out before: people arguing that spellcasters and the like should be able to pick up and learn how to use a certain weapon efficiently, but ignoring that Fighters/Rangers/Barbians don't get to pick up some tricks that other classes get, like learning a chant, or being able to lay on hands. I don't have a problem with a single class Wizard who learned to fence, I have a problem that I can make a single class Wizard that learned to fence, but I can't make a single class Barbarian that learned a healing scripture, or a single class Rogue that learned how to confuse an enemy using just their mind. A weapon is a tool that someone can pick up and use, to a certain extent. To specialize in using it takes practice. A scroll is a tool that someone can pick up and use, to a certain extent. To specialize in casting that spell takes practice. Am I making sense? Anyway, I'm not especially picky, as long as every class is fun to play. Just pointing out some unintentional hypocrisy.

Not only do I like that for numbers and damage, that idea personally appeals to me for fluff reasons. I'd love to see my Rogue actually use both their dagger and pistol in one attack, even just one, instead of committing to one or the other all the time.

I started a new thread to specify my issue. It's not specifically the AI, its that spending a point to upgrade Defender stance to guardian stance is a waste because of the behaviour. We can discuss it more there if you like.

Just saw your post, Boeroer. I was actually about to head to sleep, but I just had to test it out. Similar to using a ranged weapon, enemies don't give a flying ferret about my Scout as she beats the life out of them. An Earth blight did cast a spell to damage her, but immediately went back to focusing on the Crusader afterwards. Interestingly, an enemy that joined combat late somehow got hit by a disengagement attack from my Crusader without even being in engagement. It happened while it was chasing my Scout around my Crusader. Seems like a bug.

Not quite. Even without Guardian Stance activated, enemies just plain don't like disengaging, and I haven't seen an enemy voluntarily disengage no matter which modal I have on.

Sure, they don't have to disengage easily. That's not the only solution I'm looking for here. My only problem is that Guardian Stance is useless. Or extremely niche, as the case may be.

In testing out engagement for that thread, I found out something disappointing: enemies aren't interested in disengaging. In and of itself, that's not a bad thing, but when I was first scanning the Fighter tree, I was very excited to see that knocking disengaging enemies prone is still in the game in the form of the Guardian Stance upgrade to the Defender Stance. As it stands, spending a talent point in Guardian Stance is a wasted investment. Here's what I always see happening: 1) Fighter engages a bunch of enemies 2) Rogue will move into melee and attack 3) Enemy will turn around to attack Rogue 4) Rogue will run away 5) Enemy forgets Rogue was ever there and goes back attacking Fighter 6) Repeat steps 2-4 until I give up and commit my Rogue to attacking from range (or risk taking damage in melee, as the case may be) Am I missing something, or does the Guardian Stance/likeliness of enemies disengaging need to be looked into?

Oh, I knew I had that but didn't know that's what it was called. Thanks for clarifying.