Lephys

It's a legendary development tool that grants +5 to Productivity rolls to all allies within 100 feet.

I suppose it's fine that the combat remain boring, so long as the reward problem is remedied?

I've gotta say, I just think "... walk into a bar..." when I read the subject. (EDIT) Now I HAVE to make up a joke for it... Bartender says, "Hey... don't I know you guys from somewhere?" The Cloak says, "Maybe? We used to belong to that guy who went a bit crazy and killed a bunch of townsfolk." Bartender says, "That's it! I'm calling the authorities!" The rings say, "What?! Why?! WE didn't do anything!" Bartender responds, "That may be true, but you're all accessories to murder!!" Commence the facepalming. Also, on-topic, accessory variety is pleasant.

True, but everyone else gets that skill, too, and nothing prevents you from essentially maxing it out with a non-Fighter. That, and unless swimming a river or jumping a gorge helps the Fighter's combat effectiveness, a huge portion of "adventuring" will go completely neglected by the fighter's chief contribution. For the record, I'd love it if those things actually contributed to Combat in some way. Just hypothetically speaking.

Yeah, not really sure the cost (development time) is really worth the benefit (extremely tiny amount of accurate aesthetic representation).

The universe is not governed by a dichotomy of boring/WoW, just so you know. I don't really think Fighters are boring necessarily. It's just that... I dunno, there were a lot more things you could do with Fighters in a PnP environment. So, when you strip that stuff out (because cRPGs just can't match all that dynamicism without an active human DM/GM controlling things), you're just left with a lot less distinction, and mostly "When I attack, it is with better accuracy. When I get hit, it is versus better defense. I can take on more people in the fray at once without dying." That, and the most significantly distinct function of a Fighter -- engage multiple foes at once -- goes straight out the window when you aren't in melee combat. Give a Rogue a bow, and he still Sneak Attacks. Give a Cipher a bow, and he still builds Focus (methinks?). Shoot at a Monk from a distance and he still builds Wounds. Give a Wizard a sword, and he still magics it up out there. But give a Fighter a bow, and he becomes... a guy with a bow? Sure, there are several ways to fix that, but it seems like the core of that is ultimately "make whatever makes the Fighter a Fighter more than just a bonus to melee tanking." Anyone else can melee tank, just not as well. So, it's not like the Fighter's going about something that is unique to the Fighter. He's just doing more of it/doing it better. I'm confident there's a way to make the core of a Fighter more substantial without leaping all the way to the realm of outrageousness. I believe the heart of it is to make the Fighter fight differently than other classes fight. Sure, he might get extra damage, or defense or any number of bonuses/factor-adjustments, but the way in which he gets them can be distinctly his own. Just like the Rogue's Sneak Attack, or the Chanter's Chanting combos, or the Wizard's crazy spells, or the Ranger's self/companion dynamic, etc.

Even when floating approximately 50-100 meters in the sky and watching the shot?

Yes. Like humans. So little to do with optimal play... of a game... by humans. And, once again, at worst, my arguments are simply incorrect. That doesn't make them strawmen. Look up the definition. I have to be intentionally arguing against not-your-argument, and claiming that it defeats your actual argument. Farewell, good sir.

False. I proceed to reference human optimization to point out how the topic of "what's optimal play if we disregard the human presence that constitutes 'play'" is irrelevant to the real world, where human optimization is omnipresent. It would be a strawman if I were arguing directly against human-less optimization by arguing against human optimization, which I am not doing. Why does no one understand what a strawman is? Anwyho, it's clear that no amount of effort on my part is going to facilitate your comprehension of what it is I (and oodles of other folk) are saying to you, so, unfortunately, any further discussion between you and me is rather pointless at this point. Clearly, optimal game play (which requires a human interacting with a video game) doesn't involve humans. I concede this truth. Congratulations. False. A car's engine requires that its temperature not exceed a certain measurement. However, anything below that measurement is fine. Thus, the temperature matters, but does not need to be minimized, as every absent degree of temperature does not benefit the engine. In fact, if it ran cold, then people driving in the winter time wouldn't have any interior heat, as that comes from the engine. There are more options than "either something has to be as low as possible, or it's of no consequence." Think what you will, though.

I just got done precisely specifying that you think I'm arguing for "things that are already in the game," but am not. Your immediate response is that I'm missing the point, and that I'm just arguing for things that are already in the game. /Done

You're missing the point. Why not just make the Rogue do Sneak Attack damage always, and then let him also apply affects, then? Because having it be conditional brings something to the table. It gives you tactical goals and options for variable effectiveness in given situations. Sneak attacking every time is great and all, but it's really not mind-bogglingly interesting. What if a Wizard just did a big damaging spell every time, instead of actually casting different spells of all sizes and shapes and cast times, etc.? The mechanic is great; only a Rogue produces an extra effect when affliction conditions are met. However, the effect is hardly more than any other conditional damage boost. A character with a damage buff only produces extra damage when the buff is on them, for example. And, ideally, you want them to do extra damage all the time. But, "what does your class do? BONUS DAMAGE?" doesn't really hold up to "controls an animal companion that shares my soul" or "wields crazy arcane magics like you've never seen" or "utilizes chants to manipulate residual soul essences in order to get them to perform spectacular actions," is all. That could be remedied by simply adding more than a single effect to the already-conditional mechanic. What you'd add and when you'd add it are completely up in the air. What on earth dictates that it's fine for the game to give you Sneak Attack damage for free, but no further bonuses? Secondly, what effects you would add and when you would add them is changeable. I have to produce a single example. I can't tell you every single possibility all at once. That, and I didn't even say "Just take the exact current system, and ADD FREE EXTRA EFFECTS ALL AROUND, on top of all the active abilities that already let the Rogue do these things! 8D!!!!" So, there's no need to assume such things. My idea is foolish, assuming I meant to do it that way, and only that way. Which I didn't. Nor did I suggest such specifics. The thing is, the Rogue currently has active abilities that produce effects. That's great, but so do other people. So "I can use an active ability and bestow an effect upon you" does not really contribute to the Rogue feeling like not-a-(insert other class here). Again, what people do isn't as important as how they do it, in terms of class distinction. Every class deals damage, and yet they all do it in different ways. It baffles me that you're arguing against me as if I specifically said "This class should be able to do these things." What with your "they can already do those things!". I never said "The Fighter cannot increase his defense, so here's a suggestion that would fix that! 8D!" You are steering so clear of my points, I don't even know how to respond. And, to be honest, I'm not worried about convincing people like yourself. What you decide to do with my ideas is between you and you. I couldn't care less. I'm simply contributing ideas for whatever they're worth. And when you respond in a way proving you don't accurately comprehend my idea, I respond to help you understand it. I'm not convincing you of anything. I'm helping you accurately evaluate my idea, because "I hate the idea that isn't quite what yours is" doesn't really do anyone any good. That you did. If only that were the only possible way in which to institute the very idea of a sequential combination, then the fact that that one instance is perhaps more complex than it should be would actually be significant. You are, for some reason, in the habit of forming extraordinarily narrow-minded sub-concepts whenever someone presents a concept. (Some person with an idea) - "Hey, what if you could attack and deal damage, and it was measured with numbers, and Health would also be measured in the same way?" (You) - "That's dumb! If you dealt 700 damage, and everything had 5 health, that wouldn't even make any sense!" Does something compel you to assume as many unspoken specifics as possible before presenting a counter-argument?

I'd agree, except that I'd extend it a tiny bit beyond "at the same time." For example, if, at any given time, I can go complete a side-quest, then immediately have another one become available as a consequence, I think that's worth consideration. Sure, it wasn't available to me alongside the other one, but, if there are 15 quests available side-by-side, and each one results in another one becoming available (for example), then, at any given moment, you only have 15 quests available, even though you could do all 15 in an effort to clear all the sidequests before continuing with the main chain, and actually end up doing 30 consecutive quests. Anywho, I think all optional quests available to you at any given "time" (between main story quests) is what to consider. You see this in Borderlands (which is a game that has ENTIRELY too many sidequests, amongst other problems that aren't relevant.)

Yeah, but half your monitor now was probably off the screen somewhere when BG came out.

I talked about driving. And you said that, if time were a factor in the goal for driving, then driving slowly wouldn't be a good choice at all. I then pointed out that driving involves knowing when to slow down, because if you perform certain actions too quickly, you don't arrive at your destination at all. You drive on a road, and a duration of travel (while driving) is known as a trip. Hence, "road trip" describing the example. You're arbitrarily divorcing the human existence from the playing of a game, as if it's not going to be a human, complete with human needs, psychology, finite living duration, etc., who's playing the game. You know what? A timer doesn't care about time, either. It just counts down to 0. The person USING the timer cares about the actual passage of time. There are plenty of aspects of video gameplay that are beyond the scope of the specific rules of the game. Besides, according to your overly simplified definition of "who's the designer, here?", anything optional in any game ever instantly makes the player into the designer. The game doesn't care if you perform an optional task, or refrain from performing it. So, since you get to choose, you're designing the rules of the game. No you aren't. The rules are still there. The rules dictate what your choices are, and then you choose. You're confusing what the game cares about and doesn't care about with somehow going outside the rules of the game. Just because you make up some of your own rules doesn't mean you're breaching the boundary of what constitutes the game. If I'm playing soccer, and I decide to dance around on the field, that's neither breaking any rules, NOR gaining me anything points or advantage within the soccer game itself. And yet, I cannot dance on the soccer field in the middle of a soccer game except by playing in a soccer match at the time. So, my dancing on the field is a part of the playing of that soccer match. A whole game doesn't transform into a toy just because you can play with things that aren't expressly structured for play by the game's code. That's what you're not getting. Yes, the aspect is very much like playing with a toy, but that's kind of the point. Humans can play with something as if it were a toy, WHILE playing a structured ruleset. Simultaneously. Just like they can care about time, even though the game doesn't. I don't know how else to explain it. You're right, but only on one thing or the other at a time. You're failing to consider all the factors simultaneously. Human optimization does not magically discount human factors. A game, by definition, is designed specifically to be played by a human. Thus, divorcing humanity from what is and is not the game is pretty moot. Design some games to be played by AIs or robots, and you'll be absolutely correct. Until then... Except, once again, people are the ones playing the game. People inherently prize betterment and challenges that may not exist within the game structure itself. But, most importantly, one person may be able to easily process everything without pausing, and another may need to pause much more often. You cannot dictate how often an unspecified person must pause to achieve an optimal winning state. False. It potentially does. You cannot say with certainty that having paused after every single event would produce a different outcome than letting any two events occur back-to-back without pausing. Again, you're arbitrarily assigning absolute values in a vacuum. You are confusing potential with absolution. Not at all. I'm saying that "more time = improvement" does not hold true. It's relative. More than what? More than what is necessary. Or, to put it another way, infinite time does not gain me anything over finite time, unless there are infinite options for me to consider. Which there are not. Again, you're trying apply the same value to any given duration of time, such any number of times a single unit of time is always better than any lesser amount of time. This is false. That doesn't exactly follow. Could you explain why turn-based games need to have clocks? Is it because someone might actually take infinite time? I don't understand. Are you suggesting that players should not e able to expend effort that doesn't get them an advantage? The game should only allow the player to do that which definitively benefits the player? Because, why else would you want to prevent someone from taking more time than they actually need to make a decision? Lastly, there is more than just a binary set of options here. It's not "either time must be absolutely minimized, or it doesn't matter at all." Time can be a factor without needing to be minimized. Or, to put it another way, the absence of "minimize time" as a goal does not equal the presence of "maximize time" as a goal. So, if infinite time is not useful or ideal, then time still matters, without being minimized.

On that note, I think it'd be kinda cool if you had a penetration resolution similar to how attack resolution works; instead of just having "you penetrate X armor every single time," you'd have something functioning similarly to Accuracy, versus something functioning like Deflection (or any other defense), that would determine how much armor your spell actually penetrated. So, one time, it might be 3. Another time, 6. But, it'd always be within a given range because of your offensive factor versus their defensive one. Really, you could just go with Willpower. Your spell attack could roll against Willpower (even if the regular spell actually attacks something else, as this roll isn't for core damage or anything), and maybe just get a bonus (+X) from INT? So, a "hit" in penetration would be like... 25% armor penetrated. A crit could be 50%. And a graze could be 10%. Just example numbers whipped out of thin air. Something like that, though. That only works for spells, though. So, maybe, to make that not solely favor caster classes, you could use something other than just Willpower, and have penetration work with all effects? Didn't Perception produce penetration in an earlier iteration of the stat system, by the way? My memory is cloudy.

Yeah, it doesn't have to be sequential combos, necessarily. I was just thinking of ways in which the Fighter could mechanically take advantage of combat conditions that other classes do not. I find it kind of interesting the things that can occur in the flow of fighting. That's why I was thinking of combos. "Oh, look, that last blow sent my opponent off-balance. NOW I can take advantage of his crappy footing with this attack that, if he had good footing, wouldn't really give me any advantage." Etc. It's a brainstorming party, Hiro, and you're invited. Also, though, I do think that, if anyone should conditionally produce various status effects, it should be the Rogue. I mentioned before, but I think the concept of Sneak Attack could simply be broadened a bit. It's already conditional (Afflictions? Okay, then SNEAK ATTACK!), so it'd be pretty easy to say "Prone? Okay, then BLEED EFFECT!", or "Dazed? Okay then KNOCKBACK!", etc. That, and you could still have active-use abilities that did this, under whatever specific conditions you wanted (you don't have to have one for each and every affliction present or anything), just so that the Rogue has more in his arsenal than "EXTRA DAMAGE somewhat passively dished out with every attack!", while still keeping with the "The Rogue thrives on the existing afflictions of his target." If that were the case, then the Fighter should probably do something else. Of course, there's still a lot of options available, what with positioning, etc. On a scale of super-micromanagey to pretty passive, the Fighter's decently passive-use, understandably so. So, it just feels like any new mechanic for the fighter should probably coincide with not having to select one of 25 active abilities every time you want to make a tactical choice with him. So I'm just trying to think of passive-ish functions for the Fighter. Stances could still work. Maybe each stance allows for points to accrue towards a specific bonus? In this stance, successful hits increase your chances to interrupt, at 3% per point, up to a total of 5 points, for example. A different stance could increase crit chance, maybe after successful crits, instead of hits? There could be a defensive stance. Whenever something happens, your Deflection gets a boost. Or even DT. etc. So many possibilities. Something like that seems like it'd work pretty well. You actively decide when to use which stance, and how long to remain in it, but it's a simple evaluation of "what will I be doing a lot of, and what will I need?" It would sort of mimic combat rhythm or something, though. Fighting a certain way, as opposed to another way. Defensive stance = you're very focused on defense. If you haven't been fighting like that, it takes a bit to get into "the zone," hence the cumulative points/charges toward that stance. If something happens, and it becomes more prudent to go for a different bonus than to continue building the current one, you can switch stances. Switching loses the previous bonus and resets the charge counter, but you start with 1 charge in the current stance's bonus. *shrug*. Again, any of that could be changed a lot. It's just a rough draft. I'll try to think of something better.

I already addressed that. I said that the exception is that the affliction need not be applied by the Rogue, himself. That's the only functional difference. The rudimentary idea is still a combo. Affliction status + Rogue attack = Sneak Attack. The same attack from the Rogue, without the necessary afflictions present, produces no Sneak Attack. Same with the Fighter, only it would be more than binary, and the Fighter would have to produce the conditional status. Or, maybe he gets to take advantage of some other, global statuseseses? Who knows. The idea is just a rough draft. I'm doing neither. I answered all questions except "How can a Rogue be a Defender?", because it might as well have been "Tell me how a Monk can juggle cantaloupes!". All you "clearly stated" was fuzzy, potential ways in which combo attacks could be worse for PoE. Abort, retry, or fail:

No, because it's an arbitrary question, as I never even claimed it was possible. No you did not. You didn't even mention anything about a Wizard, or any kind of comparison. You just said "Here, have an explanation of roles" and demonstrated what roles are using the Rogue as an example. If I thought my mere mention of something made it true, I wouldn't have followed up my claim with an explanation of why it wasn't true, and the same rule applies to your words. So, saying you addressed it, and saying I don't know what roles are doesn't make it true. You seem to be arguing against the importance of roles in general, while I am arguing that the specific role you design a class to fill does not inherently determine class distinction. Sure, you can use only roles to differentiate between classes, but that becomes rather boring. Besides, how do you differentiate between multiple classes of the same role group? With something beyond a role, that's how. Which brings us back to my point. The core of class distinction is not "what general combat factor that is common to all classes are you best at?". The core of interesting class distinction, anyway. The Wizard can blast something to kingdom come, and thus does lots of damage. The Rogue can do lots of damage with his Sneak Attack. How does that make the Wizard not a Striker, and not a Rogue? You didn't answer the actually-relevant question. No, and I have no idea how that small quote clarifying that my example ability "smack" deals damage somehow led you to the conclusion that "A-HAH! So I'm correct in the entire process of this combo-ability example!" You can actually respond to things other people say, or you can go on repeating yourself and disregarding the fact that anyone has said anything at all. I can assure you, only one of these options is actually constructive. The specific example you're thinking up in your head is convoluted. Why would you have to figure out what it is you did before? Are video games suddenly incapable of indicating things to you? It's no trickier than remembering what 5 different abilities do, then deciding the order in which you wish to use them in combat. If you can remember what Power Attack does, then you can remember that, when the enemy is in A state, Power Attack also does X. Then, you have an attack that puts the enemy into A state, and/or just a status indicator of the state the enemy is in. You're making a mountain out of a mole hill. Instead of considering the general idea, you're arguing specifically against details I haven't even suggested (such as the player having to solely rely upon memory in order to execute a plethora of tricky combos). If you can conceive of a potential problem with the system, how about putting some of that brainpower to good use thinking of ways around that problem, instead of arbitrarily concluding that there's no hope and the entire concept is doomed because of a mere way in which it could be made horrible.

This is basically how the Chanter works. Do you hate the Chanter? Also, do you hate Sneak Attack? It almost works the same way. You apply afflictions (just not necessarily with your Rogue), then make a second attack that produces the combo effect Sneak Attack, which happens to deal additional damage. Do you say "yuck, no thanks!" to the Rogue's class function? What about effect combos? If an enemy is first frozen, then stricken with crush damage (for example) and shatters, do you feel the urge to vomit at the thought?

No. It's not better in a way that is relevant to basic class distinction to restrict comparisons to roles instead of simply comparing classes. It's not that it's better to specifically refrain from comparing classes with similar roles. It's pretty much unaffected by role. Then, tell me, how is a Wizard different from a Rogue? I made that example for a reason, and you didn't even address it. You just came out with "No, you don't know what roles are... here, I'll tell you." Also, the Rogue happens to do lots of damage with Sneak Attack. He could function the same way (when X afflictions, proc Sneak Attack) and instead create lots of debilitating effects with Sneak Attack, or generate lots of buff auras with Sneak Attack, etc. It just so happens that they want his role to be a damager, so his class function boosts damage. Again, his role is completely moot, as it is the fact that he produces SOME effect based on the number of concurrent afflictions a target has that makes him a Rogue, as distinct from some other class. Yes, it does damage. I apologize, as I assumed calling it an attack conveyed that it was essentially an active ability that dealt damage. I shouldn't have assumed that, and should have specified. No, it doesn't. At least, not in the sense you seem to mean. For one thing, I'm not sure how any of this is going to resemble Street Fighter, since there are set recovery times between actions in PoE. That, and, in Street Fighter, a combo attack doesn't produce anything new. It's simply a coincidental chain of attacks. You don't even get a bonus to damage. You just get the satisfaction of having performed a "combo," and of your opponent not having been able to act in the midst of it, I suppose. So, no, I'm not trying to have the Fighter literally combine multiple actions into a single action. It's essentially sequencing. I call it a "combo," however, because the different attacks would produce conditions that allow for the subsequent attack to produce something beyond it's base effect. Really not very much like Street Fighter at all. I'm uncertain, at this point, as to why you seem to be incapable of conceiving of any example of a combination attack/effect that isn't exactly the same thing as Street Fighter. If you simply select your Fighter and run up to an enemy (still using my Super Simple Example), and use Thwack on that enemy, it would not knock him back. You must have stricken him with Smack first, for the combo to actually take place. That, or you could even have a sequence of more than 2 specific attacks/attack-types, resulting in something pretty awesome. Again, I believe the Chanter already uses a similar system. Anywho... that's all the explanation I have in me, for a rudimentary concept. It doesn't have to work exactly like that. It was just a basic idea. You asked for elaboration, and I've elaborated. It is my hope that you have achieved an understanding of my concept now.

Yet another splendid use for cloaks.

No, not really. I'm not comparing roles. Some classes can fill more than one role, depending on the build of a specific character. So, comparing roles is a bit moot, since role is not the sole factor at play distinguishing classes from one another. I mean that no one but a Rogue inherently takes advantage of afflictions by Sneak Attacking. No one besides a Ranger has anything mimicking an animal companion. I don't care if your Rogue is the most defensive guy in the universe, or your Ranger is Captain Crowd Control. It doesn't matter. They still function differently before you even get to role. Or, to put it another way... The Rogue is a Striker because Sneak Attack (his class's distinctive mechanic) happens to produce increased damage. I'm sure you can blast the enemy with Wizard spells and still accomplish lots of damage, but you wouldn't suddenly say "I'm being a Striker, and therefore I'm playing like a Rogue!" No. The Wizard and the Rogue still differ in raw functionality. The Wizard weaves big active magic effects that get hurled at people, and the Rogue must successfully land regular attacks whilst his foe is under the influence of a number of afflictions. A class is not so much what they do (which should be pretty flexible, hence all these "problems with classes!" threads in response to the current state of the backer beta), as much as it is how they do what they do. I hope that makes sense. Please, if you have further questions on that, or I haven't made myself clear enough about what I think the Fighter lacks, ask away. I'm not really concerned with what does or doesn't happen in 4th ed, since never have I referenced 4th ed in regard to my idea for combos. And I have explained how it works, but I shall elaborate, as I clearly have not explained enough. Super Simple Example (don't evaluate this like it's supposed to be THE final, genius-design build of a game that you'll actually play and love): The Fighter uses Smack. If it lands, the enemy has successfully been smacked. Now, if the Fighter follows that up with Thwack, and lands it, the foe not only takes damage from that attack, but he also gets knocked back. If the Fighter, instead, had followed Smack with Crack, the foe would have suffered from rent armor (deflection/DT penalty or something). If the Fighter had used Boof, the foe would've been knocked down. Etc. Each of these attacks are pretty standard, until performed in the proper sequence. Some of them would even have multiple potential effects, depending on the state of the foe when they were used. Really, the same thing could possibly be accomplished by using stances, or something similar, rather than individual abilities. Thus, it could just be that you strike with a certain attack, or with an attack from a given stance, to set the condition necessary for the next attack to produce a combo. Then, you swap stances and attack again from a different stance, and the foe -- because of how your previous attack left them and the specifics of your current attack -- receives some other effect than just "Oww I took damage." This could apply to both ranged weapons AND melee weapons (except the stances wouldn't really apply to ranged... that would have to be different abilities, I suppose), even. Does that make sense, though? The combo thing? And yes, Street Fighter was one of the first games to introduce fighting game combos, but that's a more specific usage of "combo" than just the raw meaning, which is what I'm after (hence my original post being devoid of anything resembling "LIKE IN STREET FIGHTER! 8D!").

I understand what you're saying. It would better to compare a Defender to a Defender. However, I think it's still perfectly fine to compare any given class to any other class for the purposes of distinction, since, without distinction, the class boundaries are pointless. I realize that the Fighter gets to do lots of Defendery things right now, but, my point is that pretty much every other class feels like it has its own, unique, substantial function, regardless of the specific role within which that function resides. Also, I don't know what you mean by "why is the fighter getting more than one standard attack...?", as Silent Winter already pointed out that giving the Fighter more frequent attacks, or an additional quantity of attacks is not the goal. I realize it sounds like Street Fighter to you, because you've made that clear three times now. But, the idea isn't to make things like Street Fighter. Street Fighter did not invent the concept of combinations ("combos" for short). So, please, consider non-twitchy, speed-based combinations when you evaluate this idea, and instead of sequence-based effects/abilities.

Just to re-iterate, the Cipher practically uses combos already, if not actually does use them. Mechanically, it's not that absurd, in real-time instead of turn-based combat, for subsequent actions to produce a different result. OR for certain actions to become available only when certain conditions are met (this is exactly how the Rogue's Sneak Attack works). Functionally, for a Fighter to utilize combos, you could simply flag the attacked foe with a Fighter-only status effect. Then, if attacked with abilities A, B, or C (for example), or attacked in a specific way, while that foe has that status, the combo effect would be produced and the status would be removed. If attacked in such a way that the combo wouldn't "proc," the flag would still be removed, unless it produced a condition for a potential combo maneuver to follow. I think one of the reasons Fighters get seen as so simple is because of the factors they deal with; Their class is often reduced to simply handling the simple factors that everyone has: defense, attack power/damage, etc. The enhanced engage-ability of Fighters in PoE is a start, but, in my opinion, they could really use something else to set them apart, functionally, from other classes. If you put a Fighter up beside a Wizard, the Wizard doesn't just do the same thing the Fighter does, but does some of them way better. The Wizard feels functionally different. As does the Ranger. The Ranger does things with ranged weapons that others can't do, and has a companion with whom he shares health resources. What does the Fighter do? Basically nothing everyone else doesn't already do (other than engage 3 peeps at once), but he has adjusted numbers/capabilities. I think it'd be great if he felt like he manhandled foes in such a way that other classes could not. A lot of positioning-based stuff was mentioned. I think that's a great idea. Combos is another. And pretty much anything along those lines; something that allows the Fighter to actively function distinctly from the other classes. Not that there won't be a good bit of overlap, but the Fighter need's a class's worth of distinction, since so many others get that (Ciphers, Chanters, Wizards, etc.). Heck, simple as it is, even Rogues have their own mechanic (affliction-based effects). The Fighter gets... the best melee fighting parameters, and good defenses?

I'm not sure where you're getting "lots." For one thing, it's ambiguous. For another, it's inaccurate, even if taken to mean "quite a great number of times." I don't know how to explain to you how factors affect the need to pause other than "did something occur that I COULD pause in response to?", so perhaps we're at an impasse. Doesn't matter. "Optimal" doesn't care if you're dealing with a game, or an imaginary scenario in your mind, or what. It just cares if there is a goal, and if there are actions and factors affecting the completion of that goal. Which there are in driving. Sure you can. In driving, in general, the goal is to get somewhere. If the goal is simply the act of driving (a joyride, if you will), then you've already accomplished it, leaving nothing for optimization. So, we're talking about what's actually applicable to the original reference; PoE combat and pausing. Driving's goal is to reach a destination. Combat's goal is to achieve combat victory. Anywho, in driving, even if the goal is to get to your destination as quickly as possible, that still doesn't mean "the faster you drive, the better," or that driving slowly isn't prudent at all. If there's a sharp curve, and you drive rather speedily, you could wind up out of commission, and never reach your destination. If there's traffic, you have to adjust what you're doing to account for the actions of the vehicles around you. Which, incidentally, brings me to an interesting observation. In video game combat, you claim that pausing essentially as often as you can is optimal, for the purposes of reacting to everything that's happening around you. But, I present you with a road trip example, and you suggest that there wouldn't be any reason, whatsoever, not to just go balls-to-the-wall and complete your goal as aggressively as possible. You're contradicting yourself. That, and you're still blatantly ignoring all the present factors. The optimal way to just complete one combat encounter is meaningless in a vacuum, since it's always going to be in the context of using your limited free time in the day to play the game, with the ultimate goal of playing through the entire game. So, taking a year just to get through the whole game, to most people, would not be optimal. If that's optimal to you, then splendid. But, that doesn't make it absolute. But it is to finish it faster than as-slowly-as-possible. So I still have a point. Just not the one you marked moot and deemed the only possible point. You still don't seem to realize that there's absolutely no point in limiting pausing. Pausing every .0003 seconds doesn't gain me anything. I can't even process what's happened in that amount of time. Also, leaving the game paused for 7 days straight doesn't gain me anything, as I STILL only get to issue the exact same quantity of orders and deal with the exact same game-time actions and responses. You said an alternative would be to make the the game turn-based, but that doesn't change anything, either, since, by your line of reasoning, the optimal way to play a turn-based game is to take an infinite amount of time considering things. I'm sorry, but your reasoning is flawed, because you're ignoring entire factors (such as time/speed in efficiency -- even if your goal isn't to completely minimize time -- or the fact that real life time has consequences in real life no matter what, and that you can't spend game time without spending real-life time). If you think it isn't, then more power to you. I'm just sharing the info. You can do with it as you please.