Josh says: PoE's Fighters and Rogues aren't boring

[Marceror]

 

Only tangentially related, but we've already made changes to the Stamina (soon to be Endurance) and Health system that should a) make front-line characters (like fighters) more survivable in the long-term and b) make the system clearer overall.

 

The previous system kept Stamina and Health values pretty much equal.  Behind the scenes, as you took damage, a fraction of what went to Stamina would go to Health.  That fraction was smaller for barbarians with Thick-Skinned, but otherwise it was the same for all classes.

 

We now simply apply damage 1:1 to Stamina (Endurance) and Health, but Health is determined differently for different classes (but always through a multiplier).  Front-line characters are expected to take a lot of abuse and get combat-healed more often, so they have a superior ratio of Endurance to Health.  This will (well, actually it already does in our initial playtests) help prevent front-liners from forcing the party to rest after two fights even when the rest of the group has a lot of per rest abilities and Health left.  The ratios are very easy to tune, but most importantly, it is much, much clearer how everything works.

I like this. One question though: will we be able to affect the health/stamina ratio in any way, e.g. via abilities?

 

For example, I would assume that wizards have less health than fighters. One of the most fun wizards I rolled in the beta was an armored frontline wizard blasting away with those cones and lines. He would need higher health than your traditional glass cannon. Will it be possible for me to take this into account in character creation?

 

Higher Con should contribute to more endurance, and therefore more health, I would think.

[PrimeJunta]

I was more interested in the ratio. 1:1 is punishing even if you've maxed both 1's.

[Marceror]

I would hope they wouldn't go below 4:1 for wizards, since that would reduce their survivability from what it currently is. I thought the idea was to make tanks last longer, rather than make other classes less durable.

[Marceror]

I don't know if I'm just being petty, but I'm rather bothered by the idea of classes ending up with godlike health (compared to IE, D&D and similar at least).

 

If the multiplier for a fighter is, for example x6. Than a fighter with 100 endurance would have 600 health. Seems excessive. But I wouldn't want to see endurance reduced because that's going to make characters too fragile for purposes of remaining on their feet in a battle.

[Matt516]

Only tangentially related, but we've already made changes to the Stamina (soon to be Endurance) and Health system that should a) make front-line characters (like fighters) more survivable in the long-term and b) make the system clearer overall.

 

The previous system kept Stamina and Health values pretty much equal.  Behind the scenes, as you took damage, a fraction of what went to Stamina would go to Health.  That fraction was smaller for barbarians with Thick-Skinned, but otherwise it was the same for all classes.

 

We now simply apply damage 1:1 to Stamina (Endurance) and Health, but Health is determined differently for different classes (but always through a multiplier).  Front-line characters are expected to take a lot of abuse and get combat-healed more often, so they have a superior ratio of Endurance to Health.  This will (well, actually it already does in our initial playtests) help prevent front-liners from forcing the party to rest after two fights even when the rest of the group has a lot of per rest abilities and Health left.  The ratios are very easy to tune, but most importantly, it is much, much clearer how everything works.

 

When I first heard about this, I was a little apprehensive. Now thinking about it a little more, the idea is growing on me. Still not quite sure - but I've an open mind and I'm looking forward to seeing if it works.

[Sensuki]

I am a bit apprehensive because it pigeonholes the front liners more into the tanking role than ever, and also makes other classes really not quite as good at it. I am willing to give it a go, but I think that there will be problems. Currently Paladins can fill the void pretty well, but if if the ratio change is only given to front liners, they'll fall off very badly.

I don't think Stamina is that important atm because you can heal it very easily, whereas Health is way more important.

[Marceror]

I would think Paladins should have the same multiplier as fighters. Fighters already have all the defensive buffs on top of that.

 

Paladins should remain effective frontliners, slightly more offensive than fighters, but less defensive.

[Infinitron]

 

Only tangentially related, but we've already made changes to the Stamina (soon to be Endurance) and Health system that should a) make front-line characters (like fighters) more survivable in the long-term and b) make the system clearer overall.

 

The previous system kept Stamina and Health values pretty much equal.  Behind the scenes, as you took damage, a fraction of what went to Stamina would go to Health.  That fraction was smaller for barbarians with Thick-Skinned, but otherwise it was the same for all classes.

 

We now simply apply damage 1:1 to Stamina (Endurance) and Health, but Health is determined differently for different classes (but always through a multiplier).  Front-line characters are expected to take a lot of abuse and get combat-healed more often, so they have a superior ratio of Endurance to Health.  This will (well, actually it already does in our initial playtests) help prevent front-liners from forcing the party to rest after two fights even when the rest of the group has a lot of per rest abilities and Health left.  The ratios are very easy to tune, but most importantly, it is much, much clearer how everything works.

 

When I first heard about this, I was a little apprehensive. Now thinking about it a little more, the idea is growing on me. Still not quite sure - but I've an open mind and I'm looking forward to seeing if it works.

 

 

 

It does sound a bit risky. Classes with an inherent health advantage seem like they could easily become "must have" for most players, since the game is strongly pushing you to survive as long as possible and minimize resting, with its resting mechanic and lack of healing.

 

I thought that the trade-off of having to choose between a party with a long adventuring day (lots of high health "front-line class" characters) and a party with a short adventuring day (few or no high health "front-line class" characters) wasn't something this game wanted to have. That's why priests aren't health healers, right?

 

On the other hand, if we accept that those front-line classes really are rigidly "front-line" in their usage in a way that the other classes aren't, then maybe it all balances out. (Of course, the people who wanted more flexibility for Fighters won't like that...)

Edited September 11, 2014 by Infinitron

[Sensuki]

Paladins don't have as much offensive capability as Fighters though ?

 

Priests are healbots but they don't heal your strategical resource.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Sensuki

[Marceror]

If I were to guess at a good starting multiplier I might do it this way:

 

Wizards: x4 (keeps them on par with current)

Priests, Rangers, Druids, Chanters, Ciphers, Rogues: x5

Fighters, Paladins, Monks: x6

Barbarians: x8

 

 

EDIT: If too OP, monks perhaps slide down to x5.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Marceror

[Marceror]

Though technically speaking, I guess the barbarian would need to be at a x9 or x10 in order to be improved from what they are currently. Or perhaps they receive a feat that somehow improves the x8, similar to how they receive a feat currently that gives them more staying power. Not sure what they feat would look like. Maybe it just adds an additional x2 modifier, but damn they are going to have a lot of health.

 

 

 

Paladins don't have as much offensive capability as Fighters though ?

 

Priests are healbots but they don't heal your strategical resource.

Well I think they get the same attack bonuses. And at least the Paladin can use Flames of Devotion once per encounter for a nice offensive boost.

 

They also get their auras and lay on hands to even things out. I'm okay with their role being different, but they at least need to be able to hold their own as a tank, just not do it as well as a fighter.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Marceror

[Sensuki]

Well they already don't tank as well as the Fighter.

 

And I'm just a bit concerned because I've been asking for more class flexibility ... not less.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Sensuki

[Marceror]

Well they already don't tank as well as the Fighter.

 

And I'm just a bit concerned because I've been asking for more class flexibility ... not less.

I hear you on the flexibility. I'm not great with the idea that all fighters have "very high" melee ability and "low" ranged, but that's another conversation.

 

I'm generally okay with how Paladins are less effective tanks than fighters, but I wouldn't want to see them diminished further in this capacity. That's why I am suggesting that they have the same multiplier as fighters if this new endurance/health multiplier system is instituted.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Marceror

[IndiraLightfoot]

Sensuki: Most of us want more class variety, not less, that's for sure, heh! I see the point you guys are making, and this system could very well lock some classes even more into one single role, which would be sad. But, and this is a big but, if Josh & Co really will diversify for instance fighter, ranger and rogue, into at least ranged weapon roles and melee/engagement roles, this health with multiplier system could be good news. Imagine a really health-heavy fighter at the back, specializing in crossbow. Cool, huh? Or a slightly helath-deprived damage dealer rogue assassin at the front. Then it becomes a smorgasbord of options.

Edited September 11, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Infinitron]

And I'm just a bit concerned because I've been asking for more class flexibility ... not less.

 

Yeah, but this is a symptom, not the cause. Giving fighters more health relative to other classes is simply an acknowledgement that they will always be taking more damage than other classes, due to their "lack of flexibility" (usually on the front line, not as good at ranged, etc)

 

Remember, D&D did do the same thing (even if not for paladins), and it wasn't a problem for you there. If even the "flexible" AD&D fighter got more health than other classes, then the PoE fighter definitely needs that too!

Edited September 11, 2014 by Infinitron

[Marceror]

Sensuki: Most of us want more class variety, not less, that's for sure, heh! I see the point you guys are making, and this system could very well lock some classes even more into one single role, which would be sad. But, and this is a big but, if Josh & Co really will diversify for instance fighter, ranger and rogue, into at least ranged weapon roles and melee/engagement roles, this health with multiplier system could be good news. Imagine a really health-heavy fighter at the back, specializing in crossbow. Cool, huh? Or a slightly helath-deprived damage dealer rogue assassin at the front. Then it becomes a smorgasbord of options.

Ideally this system won't nerf any class. It will just make some of them more effective at pushing through more battles. So I don't see how this system is locking any of the classes out of something that they can do currently.

[IndiraLightfoot]

[overly concerned mode]

Recall the Josh quote on city encounters being designed as harder, since resting (inns) are easy access there?

Isn't this health multiplier yet a fix to prop up the rest mechanics system first and foremost? 

Infinitron put the words right into my mouth: "fighters will always be taking much more damage than other classes due to their 'lack of flexibility'."

Are such huge health pools really needed? Or are they symptoms of fighters always taking a little damage (instead of the old system of a few hits and quite a few misses), so there is some damage/health-ratio inflation going on?

Changing how "to hits" work and how damage is dealt is perhaps easier than shoehorning the system into some over-complicating health, endurance and resting cycles?

EDIT: Btw, I'm actually surprised how fast combat encounters are resolved in BG:EE (playing it now) compared to PoE. And obviously, the excitement, the "to hit"-roll is there at the forefront. Will my character hit or not? The swish-swooshing in the IE games (and in NWN1+2) is pretty rare in low-level playing (unless you try to take on too powerful foes, but then you'll die in seconds), it rather becomes slightly more prominent at higher levels, often an armour/protection race behind it all.

 

[/overly concerned mode]

Edited September 11, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Infinitron]

Or are they symptoms of fighters always taking a little damage (instead of the old system of a few hits and quite a few misses),

 

I don't think that has anything to do with it.

 

Again, fighters in AD&D got more health than most other classes as well, and barring ranged weapon cheese in BG1, that was because they needed it.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Infinitron

[Doppelschwert]

Well they already don't tank as well as the Fighter.

 

And I'm just a bit concerned because I've been asking for more class flexibility ... not less.

 

Well, they can still make some kind of talent that gradually ups the ratio for the spellcasting classes, which IMO is also the better solution to class flexibility. If you play them defensively from the back, the talent is uninteresting, and if you play them upfront, there is your choice.

Also, in a party with more spellcasters, there are also more ways to CC the enemy and stuff, so if you play your strenghts accordingly, it should still be viable without making the frontliners mandatory.

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

Or are they symptoms of fighters always taking a little damage (instead of the old system of a few hits and quite a few misses),

 

I don't think that has anything to do with it.

 

Again, fighters in AD&D got more health than most other classes as well, and barring ranged weapon cheese in BG1, that was because they needed it.

 

 

I may be dead wrong here. But combat variety itself in the IE games was pretty fantastic, and one reason for that was that in one fight your frontline party members didn't get a scratch against an evenly strong foe or a few enemies. Some of it came down to good rolls, and some of it because of the skill of the player. In another, they took some damage. In yet another, they were almost dead. Am I alone here in thinking that kind of variation in combat outcomes was fab? I reckon on the contrary that the PoE beta missing any comparable combat system has a pretty big impact on the "feels" of combat and the fun of it. Please, never forget gameplay. Ask yourselves whether the combat is fun and varied enough.

Edited September 11, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[aeonsim]

I am a bit apprehensive because it pigeonholes the front liners more into the tanking role than ever, and also makes other classes really not quite as good at it. I am willing to give it a go, but I think that there will be problems. Currently Paladins can fill the void pretty well, but if if the ratio change is only given to front liners, they'll fall off very badly.

 

I don't think Stamina is that important atm because you can heal it very easily, whereas Health is way more important.

 

It depends on what they do to stamina though doesn't it, if all classes have the same amount of Stamina but different amounts of Health then the ratio of Stamina to Health effectively becomes the number of times they could be knock out before being killed in combat (at least before you take into account healing), which makes a fair bit of sense to me. A fighter thus can take being knocked out (0 stamina) more times than a mage before they die. Also if they share the same stamina to a certain degree they have the same level of hardiness in that they can take the same amount of instantaneous damage or damage over time (with out healing) before being knocked out of combat.

 

Of course once you take into account healing for stamina then it does come back to the fact that if it's 30:180 (S:H) for a fighter vs say 30:120 for a mage then as long as there is constant healing the fighter can continue 50% longer before death. However the nice thing about this is that the Mage with the same DT as a fighter and spells to boost defence can stay in the front line with the fighter for 2/3rd of the time before they need to back up and use other abilities, and with the right spells they may be able to stay in the front line for as long or longer than a fighter. You could argue that for mage's, druids & chanter that part of there health is there summons, fight in the front line till the health gets low then drop a summon in your place and back up to provide ranged support while still having one of your abilities absorbing the damage.

 

Also it offers some interesting choices you could kit out your fighter in light armour and a high damage weapon to maximise there DPS and a mage with heavy armour and use the cone aoe spells and they may survive a similar amount of time in the front line and possibly do a similar amount of Damage (the fighter to single targets the mage to multiple).

 

Admittedly it does seem to mostly just change how easy it is to understand the system rather than to dramatically change the core mechanic.

[Pray]

Giving "frontliners" bigger health multiples only further reinforces the role stereotypes (FIGHTERS ARE TANKS). How about we shift this sort of thing to talents, and let the player decide how his fighter should be played. 

 

(All Classes) - Made of Iron (I) Increases the stamina to health multiplyer by 1.

Made of Iron (II) Increases the staimina to health multiplyer by an additonal 1.

 

This prevents us from reinforcing class roles, and allows for versatility in ALL the classes.

 

By adding these simple talents and not forcing them upon certain classes, we've already opened up a significant amount of play styles across all classes!

[IndiraLightfoot]

Pray: Not a bad idea at all!

 

I'd also like to suggest that the attribute Resolve would make you go on, despite bad "health", and still perform at 100%, so it could give some kind of boost to health as well, whereas CON should affect Stamina (now re-named to Endurance, acc. to Josh).

Edited September 11, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Silent Winter]

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.

I agree there should be a way to end combat state and then be able to transition areas - like getting far enough away.

I was just going with what is, rather than what I'd like to be. - The proposed solution works for the current system.  Changing system means a knock-on effect for Obs to consider. 

Still, guards at an entrance needn't move away - and once you leave combat state, your invisi-party is visible again and has to go back and fight those guards.

Your 'using it to go through a dungeon' example brings up a good point - 'combat mode' should stop once you're out of sight of enemies (or far enough away) for this to not be overly expoitable.

I don't know if I'm just being petty, but I'm rather bothered by the idea of classes ending up with godlike health (compared to IE, D&D and similar at least).

 

If the multiplier for a fighter is, for example x6. Than a fighter with 100 endurance would have 600 health. Seems excessive. But I wouldn't want to see endurance reduced because that's going to make characters too fragile for purposes of remaining on their feet in a battle.

Good point but in D&D you could heal health - so your health (endurance) was the pool and your long-term health (heal-spells) were whatever you had the spells/potions for - in theory, a lot more than 6x.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Silent Winter

[Pray]

Pray: Not a bad idea at all!

 

I'd also like to suggest that the attribute Resolve would make you go on, despite bad "health", and still perform at 100%, so it could give some kind of boost to health as well, whereas CON should affect Stamina (now re-named to Endurance, acc. to Josh).

 

If anyone is familiar with TENACITY in League of Legends, I think that would be a more akin to what resolve. "a firm determination to do something."

 

Resolve should reduce controls, stuns, and DOTS by a % duration. So 50 Resolve would reduce these effects by half (i'm really unfamiliar with what a reasonable resolve stat could look like in context, so it's the jist i'm going for here). 

 

Characters with high resolve would be hard to control, and would pursue their course of action more fervently, and also be interrupted less often.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Pray