Update #81: The Front Line: Fighters and Barbarians

[rjshae]

I wouldn't mind seeing a 'Knockback' ability to drive a defender back a couple of meters using a rapid flurry of blows (and to advance accordingly). Sometimes its useful to drive a wedge into the enemy formation...

[Waswat]

 

http://pillarsofeternity.gamepedia.com/Fighter

 

On the wiki there are 16 abilities for Fighters, and there is a Knockdown ability and a Group Knockdown ability.

 

 

Thanks for the link. So basically only knockdown, the unnamed group knockdown, into the frey and crippling guard? I mean, the rest could as well just be boring stats increases. :/

Edited June 28, 2014 by Waswat

[Sensuki]

We don't know, but you will also be able to buy more actives through the Talent system.

 

I'm pretty sure you can only have 14 abilities as a level 12 character, so maybe you also get to choose.

[Your Best Buddy]

From the references to the Fighter as "she" and the portrait we get the official canon fighter class party-member is a woman. If I remember right from earlier posts, we can customize our own original party members like in Icewind Dale but the only party members which'll have their own non-romantic quests, barkstrings, and conversation nodes are the premade characters, correct?

[Bryy]

From the references to the Fighter as "she" and the portrait we get the official canon fighter class party-member is a woman. If I remember right from earlier posts, we can customize our own original party members like in Icewind Dale but the only party members which'll have their own non-romantic quests, barkstrings, and conversation nodes are the premade characters, correct?

It makes sense for the pre-made PCs to be the only ones with story attached. Otherwise, there would be no way (or it would be extremely messy) to have custom PCs have dialogue, etc.; so yes, if you so please, you can ditch the female warrior for a male warrior.

Edited June 28, 2014 by Bryy

[NWN_babaYaga]

The yound woman is definately not your ordinary date but i think she looks highly likeable.... her shape is very edgy and she has something special imo. ANd she looks very human, just not the typical trash model you see in the mags or on TV. Natural, cute and very clear-cut. I like it.

 

And she looks a bit bored to be portraied... that fits a fighter pretty well. She doesnt earn anything trough her beauty... which she has anyway!

Edited June 28, 2014 by NWN_babaYaga

[Ragniz]

 

How are fighters supposed to survive health wise without a improved stamina to health ratio?

I know they can regen a lot of stamina during a fight and have better physical defenses but that isn't going to help them in the long run while barbarians have double health and monks have the whole wound system.

Well, it might help them in the long run. We don't know just how significant those defense bonuses actually are. The language in this update is vague. All we know is that they have the highest deflection scores of any class, they have a passive armor bonus ability, and inflicting critical damage on them will be 20% harder to do. This probably means they'll be taking less damage in melee than everyone else.

 

 

And in those times when all of the above fails them, there's This:

•Unbroken (Active) - This ability can only be activated when the fighter is at 0 Stamina. When used, the fighter will stand back up with 50% of her Stamina.

^ this looks like the proverbial reset button. I like "second chance" stuff like this. Prevents the degenerate save scummer in me from reloading the game

 

 

 

How are fighters supposed to survive health wise without a improved stamina to health ratio?

I know they can regen a lot of stamina during a fight and have better physical defenses but that isn't going to help them in the long run while barbarians have double health and monks have the whole wound system.

Well, it might help them in the long run. We don't know just how significant those defense bonuses actually are. The language in this update is vague. All we know is that they have the highest deflection scores of any class, they have a passive armor bonus ability, and inflicting critical damage on them will be 20% harder to do. This probably means they'll be taking less damage in melee than everyone else.

 

 

And in those times when all of the above fails them, there's This:

•Unbroken (Active) - This ability can only be activated when the fighter is at 0 Stamina. When used, the fighter will stand back up with 50% of her Stamina.

^ this looks like the proverbial reset button. I like "second chance" stuff like this. Prevents the degenerate save scummer in me from reloading the game

 

 

More stamina won't help you if you run out of health, that's what I meant with "in the long run"

[Baudolino05]

 

 

More stamina won't help you if you run out of health, that's what I meant with "in the long run"

 

 

I guess barbarians are supposed to take WAY more damage than the other 2 tank classes (due to their lover deflexion and/or armor DT), so the better ratio of conversion of stamina damage in health damage compensates for that. Honestly 1:8 seems a little too much to me, but I've never seen the game running.  

[Sensuki]

It used to be 1:6 rather than 1:8, which they obviously found wasn't enough.

[Sabotin]

Fighters have the highest deflection, so they take the least weapon damage just by default. I think the improved stamina:health conversion is more of a crutch for barbs to make them viable for longer terms. For example if the barb takes double the dmg of a fighter, then he goes down twice as fast each encounter and stay at same health over time. For the reason of the change, I would guess that during playtesting barbarians had to either rest too often or use their abilities too sparingly compared to other classes.

 

I think the advantage of fighters would be their high base. You can react to other classes using their powerful abilities to counter them or minimize the effect. I'd assume that harder to do with a fighter and they're able to keep constant pressure. You don't really wanna waste resources on him, but you can't really ignore him.

[Sensuki]

You just have to feed the Barbarian more stamina spells / potions to stay alive in an encounter. In a way Barbarians are a damage soak.

[Beholder]

Nothing to say, really, if this post is approved this will lift restriction from moderator. ) That said have a nice day, boyz and gals !

[nikolokolus]

I'm torn. Barbarians sound fun, but I like my melee people to carry shields because I like shields (because they can have colours and heraldry and can just really complete an ensemble) and barbarians don't really seem like a class that would rely heavily on shields.

 

Then again, berserkers used shields, so why shouldn't barbarians?

 

Probably because when I think 'barbarian' I think 'Arnold Schwarzenegger in a loincloth'.

 

This should asuage your fears.

 

[Stun]

More stamina won't help you if you run out of health, that's what I meant with "in the long run"

Here's what Josh has said about a fighter's survivability in relation to the other front liners:

 

Fighters will almost always outlive barbarians in any one-on-one situation. Barbarians are supposed to be better at dealing damage to groups. The reason they have the better conversion rate for Stamina:Health is because they generally wind up taking a lot more damage than fighters. Fighters also have other abilities I've mentioned before, like Armored Grace, which gives them increased DT from armor. I don't think I've mentioned Into the Fray, but that ability allows them to attack Reflexes to yank someone into melee from a (short but worthwhile) distance away. Keep in mind that Carnage only applies when the barbarian's melee attack actually hits. Because they have lower Accuracy, they're less likely to land that initial hit. Staying in the fight and reliably dealing damage are the two things that fighters are best at. They're much better at both than the barbarian is.

I interpret this to basically mean... perfect balance. In the long run, having lower health + higher defense will end up being exactly equal, survival-wise, to having higher health and lower defense.

 

And this is exactly the type of automatic, unbreakable 'balance-no-matter-what' design philosophy that I dislike in RPGs. But never mind me.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Stun

[tajerio]

 

More stamina won't help you if you run out of health, that's what I meant with "in the long run"

Here's what Josh has said about a fighter's survivability in relation to the other front liners:

 

Fighters will almost always outlive barbarians in any one-on-one situation. Barbarians are supposed to be better at dealing damage to groups. The reason they have the better conversion rate for Stamina:Health is because they generally wind up taking a lot more damage than fighters. Fighters also have other abilities I've mentioned before, like Armored Grace, which gives them increased DT from armor. I don't think I've mentioned Into the Fray, but that ability allows them to attack Reflexes to yank someone into melee from a (short but worthwhile) distance away. Keep in mind that Carnage only applies when the barbarian's melee attack actually hits. Because they have lower Accuracy, they're less likely to land that initial hit. Staying in the fight and reliably dealing damage are the two things that fighters are best at. They're much better at both than the barbarian is.

I interpret this to basically mean... perfect balance. In the long run, having lower health + higher defense will end up being exactly equal, survival-wise, to having higher health and lower defense.

 

And this is exactly the type of automatic, unbreakable 'balance-no-matter-what' design philosophy that I dislike in RPGs. But never mind me.

Except that Josh explicitly says, in the very same statement you quoted above, that in a one-on-one situation, the fighter will almost always outlive the barbarian. So how are you getting from there to "perfect balance" in terms of survivability?

[Stun]

Yeah, one on one. As in, a fight against a single opponent. But the issue was in the long run - Ie. against all encounters types, all day long, level after level...

Edited June 30, 2014 by Stun

[tajerio]

Yeah, one on one. As in, a fight against a single opponent. But the issue was in the long run - Ie. against all encounters types, all day long, level after level...

Fair enough if that's your point. But then that quotation from Josh you presented as evidence for that view isn't really relevant.

Edited June 30, 2014 by tajerio

[Baudolino05]

Yeah, one on one. As in, a fight against a single opponent. But the issue was in the long run - Ie. against all encounters types, all day long, level after level...

 

How's the contrary preferable? Does anyone really miss the "your wizard sucks at the beginning of the campaign and after few levels automatically kicks asses better than any other class" thing of the oldest D&D editions? 

 

As long as classes have specific strengths and weaknesses the overall balance HAS to be maintained, level after level, from the beginning to the end of the campaign. At least in a game that is about party-based "tactical-challenging combats". If PoE were a White Wolf like RPGs, I wouldn't mind about overall balance, but it's not the case...

Edited June 30, 2014 by Baudolino05

[Karkarov]

How's the contrary preferable? Does anyone really miss the "your wizard sucks at the beginning of the campaign and after few levels automatically kicks asses better than any other class" thing of the oldest D&D editions?

Not me.

 

Stun is just reading too much into it.  They are balanced in the sense that they are both "equally good" tanks.  But tanking is situational.  In a situation where it is one on one against a huge Ogre the Fighter is the better tank, period.  In a situation where it is 10 man eating snurbluffins the Barbarian is the better tank, period.  That's balanced in a sense but odds are good your party is not going to have a Fighter, a Barb, and a Monk.  You are probably just going to have one, maybe two of the above.  There will always be a situation where your choice was suboptimal, or where one clearly out performs the other.

[forgottenlor]

 

 

How are fighters supposed to survive health wise without a improved stamina to health ratio?

I know they can regen a lot of stamina during a fight and have better physical defenses but that isn't going to help them in the long run while barbarians have double health and monks have the whole wound system.

Well, it might help them in the long run. We don't know just how significant those defense bonuses actually are. The language in this update is vague. All we know is that they have the highest deflection scores of any class, they have a passive armor bonus ability, and inflicting critical damage on them will be 20% harder to do. This probably means they'll be taking less damage in melee than everyone else.

 

 

And in those times when all of the above fails them, there's This:

•Unbroken (Active) - This ability can only be activated when the fighter is at 0 Stamina. When used, the fighter will stand back up with 50% of her Stamina.

^ this looks like the proverbial reset button. I like "second chance" stuff like this. Prevents the degenerate save scummer in me from reloading the game

 

 

 

How are fighters supposed to survive health wise without a improved stamina to health ratio?

I know they can regen a lot of stamina during a fight and have better physical defenses but that isn't going to help them in the long run while barbarians have double health and monks have the whole wound system.

Well, it might help them in the long run. We don't know just how significant those defense bonuses actually are. The language in this update is vague. All we know is that they have the highest deflection scores of any class, they have a passive armor bonus ability, and inflicting critical damage on them will be 20% harder to do. This probably means they'll be taking less damage in melee than everyone else.

 

 

And in those times when all of the above fails them, there's This:

•Unbroken (Active) - This ability can only be activated when the fighter is at 0 Stamina. When used, the fighter will stand back up with 50% of her Stamina.

^ this looks like the proverbial reset button. I like "second chance" stuff like this. Prevents the degenerate save scummer in me from reloading the game

 

 

More stamina won't help you if you run out of health, that's what I meant with "in the long run"

 

There are big advantages to not being hit much and as hard other than what one sees on the surface. For example if a priest restores a set amount of stamina or regenerates a set amount of stamina, a fighter who has taken less damage will be healed much more efficiently than a barbarian. Also a barbarian who falls in the middle of a fight will expose your weaker characters, whereas the fighter may continue to hold the gap.  That could make the difference in winning a difficuIt encounter. I think these are good tradeoffs for the Barbarian's possible greater health in the long run,

[Gfted1]

In a situation where it is 10 man eating snurbluffins the Barbarian is the better tank, period.

Barbarians are supposed to be better at dealing damage to groups. The reason they have the better conversion rate for Stamina:Health is because they generally wind up taking a lot more damage than fighters.

DPS does not equal Tanking.

[Baudolino05]

 

How's the contrary preferable? Does anyone really miss the "your wizard sucks at the beginning of the campaign and after few levels automatically kicks asses better than any other class" thing of the oldest D&D editions?

Not me.

 

Stun is just reading too much into it.  They are balanced in the sense that they are both "equally good" tanks.  But tanking is situational.  In a situation where it is one on one against a huge Ogre the Fighter is the better tank, period.  In a situation where it is 10 man eating snurbluffins the Barbarian is the better tank, period.  That's balanced in a sense but odds are good your party is not going to have a Fighter, a Barb, and a Monk.  You are probably just going to have one, maybe two of the above.  There will always be a situation where your choice was suboptimal, or where one clearly out performs the other.

 

 

Exactly.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Baudolino05

[Stun]

 

Yeah, one on one. As in, a fight against a single opponent. But the issue was in the long run - Ie. against all encounters types, all day long, level after level...

 

How's the contrary preferable?

 

I can give you about 10 reasons why the contrary is preferable. But this morning I only have time for one.

 

Here goes. I don't like my single player combat rulesets to be mechanically, soullessly, and rigidly Balanced. That's why. I want to be able, after a few playthroughs, to discover a build that blows away the rest. Conversely, I want to be able, after a few more playthroughs, to discover a truly underpowered build and then challenge myself to beat the game with it. This will let me know that real Human *art* was behind the creation of this game, not some undeviating, soulless, 'Balanced. At. All. Costs.", mathematical formula.

 

BG1, BG2, and Icewind Dale positively oozed of the former. And that's why they're still great to play 14+ years later. While crap games like Dungeon Siege 1, and Dragon Age 2 suffered from droves of the latter and thus aren't worth the box they came in.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Stun

[Karkarov]

DPS does not equal Tanking.

That's a gross misunderstanding by people who don't know what tanking really is.

 

Tank's will never be the big damage dealers, no matter how good the barbarian is at aoe he will never out aoe a wizard for example.  Ponder this though.  You are monster, you see two people to attack.  One is a caster and the other is some dude in armor.  You attack the caster right?  Obviously he is more dangerous (a misnomer from the get go but that is for another post) now imagine the guy in armor can physically get in your way and hit you with attacks that are not strong but land and prevent you from getting by?  You have to deal with him first right?  Imagine the same scenario except now the guy can't hit you.  Suddenly you can just walk past him and it doesn't matter.  He can "engage" you all day, but if all you have to do is walk away and he misses then there is no real risk is there?

 

A tank needs to be able to hit and damage the enemy too, if you can't hit the enemy you are no threat, if you are no threat they will ignore you, being ignored is the worst thing that can happen to a tank.  Hence the reason we call one of the core concepts of tanking "Threat Management".  It is about staying just a big enough threat to force the enemy to attack you instead of someone else.  You can't do it if you can't actually do damage on some level.

 

Tanking at it's most basic level is just the oldest form of Crowd Control in existence.  If you can make the enemy hit you instead of someone else you control his position, if you control the enemies position you control his movement, if you control his movement you control the battle, if you control the battle you win.

Edited June 30, 2014 by Karkarov

[Karkarov]

Oh Joy, I feel another "The Infinity engine games sucked!" rant from Karkarov coming on.

 

...

 

Here goes. I don't like my combat rulesets to be mechanical, soulless, and rigid. That's why. I want to be able, after a few playthroughs, to discover a build that blows away the rest. Conversely, I want to be able, after a few more playthroughs, to discover a truly underpowered build and then challenge myself to beat the game with it. This will let me know that real Human *art* was behind the creation of this game, not some undeviating, soulless, 'Balanced. At. All. Costs.", mathematical formula, which ALWAYS leads to nothing more than Totally equal builds, regardless of class or level or gear.

First off, I never said they sucked.  I said they could be better and the D&D rules system never works in a PC environment and isn't well balanced.  I have played BG2 plenty of times, I have bought it 3 times, I have the extended edition, I still own my original jewel case with the cd's and the ring bound instruction manual.

 

BG2 isn't the greatest game of all time though and held to the standards of modern games is not up to snuff.  Hence why I am so excited for Eternity a game made with the same design principles but with modern design progression in mind and free of the D&D ruleset.

 

Also it is impossible to have "totally equal builds" when the design is intended from the ground up to make every class different.  A Rogue and a Cipher may do the same job but they will never do it the same way or be equally good in all scenario's.  So what you are calling "balance" is wrong already.  They are "equally good" in the long run if you count the whole game as one encounter, they are not and never will be "equally good" from one actual encounter to another. 

 

If the idea that one class and one build isn't just so OP it is the best possible character is that abhorrent to you.... well maybe you need to go back to playing D&D based games.  Of course even D&D doesn't follow that concept anymore, that's kind of a sign by the way.  Or you can play the games you seem to despise like Diablo 3 that are actually designed for min maxers.