Hiro Protagonist II

And you have people complaining about THAC0.

From my limited experience with the beta. 1. Pretty much which is why I always play a ranged Wizard and have my Fighter, Rogue and Priest on the front line. You also have to aggro an enemy with your Fighter first otherwise the enemy will dog pile onto your Wizard. And PoE is better viewed as an isometric party based MMO. You're quite right in thinking that. The default strategy at the moment in the beta is send defender in to tank, other characters to help with dps and crowd control. Rinse and repeat. Tip: Play as a ranged wizard. Ignore any melee type spells. I've found Wizards are quite poor in melee situations and aren't really designed for it. There's a good strategy with playing a ranged Wizard. Don't wear any armour. Wearing armour incurs penalties, and as long as you're playing a ranged Wizard without armour, you shouldn't get hit while your defender is tanking. And combat is better and faster.

I just noticed I seem to be repeating a lot of what others want. Just noticed the first page and yeah, I agree with a lot of people. Same with Sensuki's suggestions thread. Just add me to everyone else that wants it more IE like.

The reason why they're not like 2E or 3E D&D fighters is because they're not. They're based on 4E fighters. And PoE takes a lot from 4th Edition D&D. A lot of classes are not the same. The Rogue in 4th ED is not the same as a Thief in 2E. Also, not sure about that quote. They're not designed that way. They're designed to be on the front line as defenders which is where their strengths are. I don't think you can make them like 2E or 3E fighters. But I'm interested to see how this all pans out and if you can make a 4th ed Fighter into a 2E/3.x Fighter. Or at the very least, make them 'feel' like them but I don't really know what that means.

The way the IE games did it was if you hit pause, it showed which enemies were in combat by their selection circles. Also, you should be able to mouse over an enemy and see who they are attacking with one of your party's selection circles changing. I really don't want pop ups where it says Beetle is attacking BB Rogue. Just change the BB Rogue's selection circle is enough for me.

Just making a joke. It would be good if there was something in the combat log that said something. eg. Beetle attacks BB Rogue even though the beetle might be quite a distance away.

Solution to when combat begins. A pop up that says 'Fight' would be good. Similar to Mortal Kombat.

Great. Just what I wanted from the very beginning with my party of ninjas.

So one rogue can scout a room away, stealth and sneak attack, go invisible and the other rogue in your party (with your mage, fighter, priest and cipher) a room away is unstealthed due to combat beginning. Okay, I understand now. You're now saying other rogues can go invisible during combat like the first rogue? So my rogue in the above example a room away can click on their invisibility power and enter the room. Okay, I understand now.

It was you who reduced the count of the other rogues: So the second rogue wouldn't be able to go invisible as well? Either all rogues in a party can go invisible at the start of combat or only one can and the others can't at the start of combat. Or does this just boil down to a special super duper invisibility scouting sneak attack for one rogue to initiate combat.

It is complicated and doesn't make sense. The player who has a party of Fighter, 2 Rogues, Mage, Priest and Cipher has one rogue that can go invisible at the start of combat but the other rogue can't because of what seems to be trying to stop exploits. And you also proposed that Rogues could go invisible during combat with an encounter/daily power. So now that power is lost for the second rogue because the first rogue used it? Sounds more like a PARTY encounter/daily power instead of an individual power. And that comes across as completely absurd when you have 2 rogues in your party.

With a party of 6 rogues. The rogue who initiates combat can go into stealth at the start of combat, but the other 5 can't go into stealth mode as well. Sounds complicated. And a rogue can go invisible but when they move they become visible? Uh, no thanks.

Most people on this forum over the last 2 years saw fighters in the previous IE games as just plain bad. The usual, You're trying to defend 2nd ed rules? LMAO. And we're still seeing that from some people. So you're about 18 months too late and arguing from the minority. The majority of posters on this forum will disagree with you. I'm not defending 2nd ed rules as there are problems with it just like any system. I have yet to see the perfect system. I'm just one of those people in the minority that liked how it was in the IE games. I liked the single class or dual-classing or multi-classing.

It's still exploitable with the guards at the entrance. I won't bother explaining the exploit (because we're just going around in circles) but whatever Obs puts in, I'll run with it. I want to try out my ninja party.

I agree. The power gamer in me is salivating at the thought of this.

It does describe them as a tank and how they are in the game. As it currently is in the beta: - They are dependable and flexible. They're dependable on the front line and flexible in their attacks on the front line. True. - They're able to shift between a variety of attacks modes on the front line by alternating between high damage, maintaining a strong defense, weakening opponents, and dealing harsh retribution to those who attack his or her allies on the front line. True. - They can specialize in a variety of weapons, including bows, crossbows, and even firearms. True. - They're unlikely to outclass rangers at their own game. True. Because they are a front line class and giving them ranged weapons won't be as affective. Viable? Maybe, Effective? ??? - Fighters can be 'almost' as dangerous at a distance as they are up close which is true. They are more dangerous on the front line which is true than at range as it currently is. The 'almost' is meaningless to me because it hasn't been defined. If a Fighter does 100 damage with melee and 60 with ranged, well that's almost as good. Okay, I inserted the 'on the front line' in those quotes to make the point clearer but those quotes even without the 'on the front line' still stand with how the class is in the beta. Now if people have assumed every class in the game can be changed from melee to ranged on a whim with selecting different attributes and skills, then it won't work. It may for some, but not all depending on their role. And the fundamental reason is they have pre-defined roles despite their class. A tank will always be on the front line. That's their job. When you think in terms of 'roles' and not 'classes', it makes sense. A Striker (heavy hitter) can both be melee and ranged, a defender can't. A defender can't be at the back because they're not defending anymore and their ranged attacks will be less than a melee attack. You're not being a defender anymore, you're trying to be a striker? I don't know why a defender would be at range. It doesn't make sense to me. The same with a wizard. Their main role is crowd control, not defending on the front line which is why I've seen posts say they suck on the front line with heavy armour in the beta. Are they viable? Maybe. I wouldn't try it. Are they effective as a defender? Probably not as I've never tried it and because they're not a defender. And this is a problem with 4th edition. When you take on a role, you can't change it.** You're stuck with that role. If you're a defender, you'll always be a defender. You can try and turn a controller (Wizard) into a striker (Sorcerer) but it won't be as good as it's a pre-defined role. And the GM would be questioning why you would want to do that and not take the Sorcerer class. And it's why 4th ed has the Sorcerer as the Striker and not the Wizard. You choose your role and class. Not your class and try and change it to what role you want it to be. If you want to change your role, you create another character. That's what we did. And that's similar with roles in PoE. When you make your character at the start of the game and it's a defender, more than likely it will always be a defender, such as the fighter. You might be able to change some classes in the game because PoE is not a straight 4th ed port, but a class like the Fighter you can't. It's in the name - defender. ** Of course with 4th ed, it has multi-classing at character creation with two classes, but my group found multi-classing gimped your character and it was better to go with single classes. But I find these debates are all academic now. We're three months away from release and classes like the Fighter will always be a front line character. That will never change no matter what you do and what talents are introduced. It doesn't make sense to me to have your defender as a ranged character. Some other classes might be able to change but I doubt it. With the proposed new stamina/health system, classes will be locked into their pre-defined roles even more. eg. a class like the Wizard will be locked into range combat, not melee. Talents will not be enough to change these roles.

I very much doubt it. As Wombat pointed out above and what's being discussed in this thread, and I noticed people in this thread like PrimeJunta liking it, this will push classes like the Fighter into more of a melee front line character even more.

LOL. Go to the Backer Beta forum. You should see my posts. Pretty much everything that's been done with PoE is NOT what I wanted with a spiritual successor to the IE games. And I'm not being subjective or sandbagging or selective quoting. There is no open ended passages. They read as it is. It's people who have misinterpreted or played the 'viable' card all the time that's being subjective and trying to change the meanings. The updates are as clear as day. The Fighter has always been a primarily front line character and while you can make it ranged, it won't put out the same or more damage as melee. The updates say that. And over the last two years when I bring up stuff like this like some classes being pigeonholed, etc, I have someone argue with me saying, "dude, that's like your opinion man. Other builds will be viable. The game hasn't even come out." Well now it's time for me to show these guys that this was intended all along. The updates confirm it.

You misunderstand me. Going from the updates, the role has always been intended that the Fighter is a defender first and foremost. All the updates confirm this. They are primarily a melee class first and that's where their strengths are. Yes, you can make other builds and they will still be 'viable', but their main strength is on the front line, not away from it. I find this to be a terrible design compared to other games. It pigeonholes the class. The fighter in 4th ed is inflexible as well as I have played 4th ed for years. I enjoyed 4th ed with my rogue as my character is cheesy, OP and a whole lot of fun, I just don't enjoy playing some of the other classes like the fighter and I will never play it in pnp. I have since moved onto other pnp games but I understand the class of the Fighter and it's role as a defender. There's not much you can do in 4th ed other than sit there and take it and there are better 'defenders' than the fighter in 4th edition imo. Do I think it should be better? Of course. But consider the MMO/4th ed type of fighter, how the fighter is played in those games and also consider PoE does take a fair bit from 4th ed D&D. I don't think you can do much to change it into a ranged character and still get the same or more damage output. It just hasn't been designed that way. There's a lot of design decisions I don't like with PoE, but that's for another time.

That's doesn't refute my point. If anything it reinforces it. The first paragraph doesn't mean anything. It just says things like Fighters can dish out high damage but not as much as a rogue (heavy hitter), have a strong defense (defender), put themselves in harms away (defender), knockdowns (melee), etc. Nothing about ranged but has some melee stuff like the knockdown ability which is in the game. The second paragraph also says and confirmed what I said about being able to do other stuff and being 'viable' but not as good. "They're unlikely to outclass rangers at their own game, but fighters can be almost as dangerous at a distance as they are up close." Define 'almost'? Well that tells me it's less than what they can do in melee. So that confirms they're more of a melee class and that's where their strength is. Play to their strengths. If you want other builds like ranged builds, they'll still be viable but won't be as good as a melee fighter. And the update confirms it.

I've managed to encounter and then outrun a feral druid and all was well. Combat seemed to end. Despite this, you could use this tactic to work yourself through a dungeon and then only need to take on the end boss. Personally, I think if there was an enemy on a map that you made aggro and managed to out run, and then when you're on the other side of the map, the game didn't let you continue would be very poor design.

You're okay with ninja like abilities? A party of rogues in combat just disappearing into the ether? Sounds awesome. Sees an enemy party at the end of a level in the mega-dungeon blocking my way. Goes into combat. *poof*. disappears. walks right past them to the next level. Might be good for solo play as well. Could see doing this in the beta. Goes to Dyrford crossing with my solo rogue, encounters two beetles. *poof*. walks right past them. Goes to ogre cave and encounters the two spiders outside. *poof*. walks right past them and enters the ogre cave.

It's pretty obvious. Read my posts again. Yep, it's your misunderstanding since I've made it very clear to you. And as I said, if you have a party of 6 rogues which you can have in the game and they all go into stealth at the same time, even in combat, they all turn into ninjas. So yes, it's a critical misunderstanding on your part. Trying to make out that it's me is just poor form and a very weak tactic. But nice try trying to deflect this onto me instead of debating the points.

You're still ignoring a rogue only party turning into ninjas. Also now the skills like stealth are being dumbed down for the other classes and the rogue benefits more? Why bother putting stealth points in for my fighter or mage if my rogue can get extra benefits on top of the stealth points. Rogues already get a head start in points and now it's being changed for even more rogue like. Well as you correctly pointed out, this is an imaginary magic-based setting and if Fighters can already get benefits from stealth, then they shouldn't automatically be excluded from stealth like abilities with utility powers. Yeah the Fighter can stealth but not stealth in combat. Same with the mage at range. The mage can stealth but then automatically gets booted from stealthing when combat starts before the mage does anything else. Does not compute.

I find that implementation quite odd. The rogue scouts ahead, shoots an enemy and turns invisible? Shouldn't it be the Rogue is already invisible, shoots an enemy and breaks stealth? Going to its absurd conclusion, this could apply to all party members who have high stealth. They all scout ahead, shoot an enemy and all turn invisible? Like a party of rogues? But why limit it to rogues with high stealth? Why not the fighter or Mage who has high stealth? Vanishing parties. Also, the at will encounter power would have to be a free encounter power (with possible number of times in encounters). As soon as you start putting points in stealth, you're automatically awarded an at will encounter power. Why not just call it a utility power instead of an at will or daily like it is in 4th ed? And this should apply to all classes. And why would the rogue get a stealth at will and not the Fighter who may have a higher stealth? Again, taking it to it's absurd conclusion, have a party of rogues in combat, all hit stealth and vanish. You now have a party of ninjas.