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

[Silent Winter]

 

I want to stun an enemy with my fighter?  I have to go through Knockdown, daze and then stun which is 3 attacks and that is if every preceding status is still in effect with my next turn. As soon as a status changes and I don't get off the next hit, I have to go through it all again. ugh, no.

I think it's more that you can choose 'stun' as a simple active ability AND you get 'stun' (plus the damage) if you go through the combo - it's an advantage for doing it all, not the only route to stun.

But anyhoo, this:

[a whole bunch of stuff] are already in the game.

makes me wonder why people are calling the fighter 'boring' - sounds pretty good to me.  Do you enjoy playing the fighter?  What, if anything, needs to be improved?

Or is it just that some people don't like the fighter's role as 'defender' and want them to be a damage-dealer (in which case, isn't that already in as higher damage over time due to more consistent hits?)  Or it's the rogue who spikes damage with sneak attacks but is less consistent overall (but people are attached to the name 'fighter')?

 

I can understanding wanting to build different builds of fighter - ranged v. melee for example or damage-soaky-tank v. dancy-swashbuckler - so we're back to talents for different styles.

[Lephys]

The rogue's sneak attack is conditional for a reason. And you can already do those effects like Blind, Hobbled, Bleed (Deep wounds) while sneak attacking and still get a bonus for sneak attack damage. As I said, with my Rogue, I can do various things but ultimately -> I want to be able to sneak attack every time.

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.

 

So I have no idea why you want to bring up something like: "prone? okay bleed effect." That's just way too OP if the game gives you a bleed effect power for free (you have a similar power called Deep Wounds) because an enemy is prone but also gives you sneak attack on top of it. Basically, the game is giving you a free power and you can keep your power in reserve. No, the sneak attack is enough and if you want the enemy to bleed, then you need to use your rogue power to do additional damage. Not because the enemy is under some effect like being prone. You're already getting additional damage with sneak attack. The game doesn't need to give you more damage for free.

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.

 

Also, the fighter is able to increase deflection, increase DT, increase the Fighters attack grazes to hits, increase number of attacks in engagement, increase defences to allies for a short time, makes it more difficult for enemies to score critical hits against them. So your suggestions like deflection boost are already in the game. The argument for combo attacks for the Fighter isn't convincing at the moment and is a mess. If you want to convince people like myself, you'll need to show how this would be implemented and in what circumstances with simple examples. None of these confusing 7 paragraph posts.

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.

 

I made an easy 4 point post showing different types of statuses and effects from damage and even that came across as convoluted. As I said, I want to stun an enemy with my fighter?  I have to go through Knockdown, daze and then stun which is 3 attacks and that is if every preceding status is still in effect with my next turn. As soon as a status changes and I don't get off the next hit, I have to go through it all again. ugh, no.

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?

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Here we go. You're missing the point Lephys. A lot of what you write either doesn't make any sense, going off on tangents or arguing for things that are already in the game. It's why I asked if you've played the beta because if you had and spent some time on it with the different classes, testing their powers including the BB Rogue and BB Fighter that are already in your party when you start playing, you would know some of the stuff you're suggesting is already in the game.

 

And suggesting things like "prone? okay bleed effect." does not make sense at all for the Rogue when the rogue already has the bleed power in the form of deep wounds. The Rogue does not need an extra hand with bleed effect because a target is prone. The Rogue ALREADY gets a helping hand with sneak attack when a target is prone. And if the rogue wants a bleed effect, it's already in the game in the form of a power for the rogue.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

[a whole bunch of stuff] are already in the game.

 

makes me wonder why people are calling the fighter 'boring' - sounds pretty good to me.  Do you enjoy playing the fighter?  What, if anything, needs to be improved?

Or is it just that some people don't like the fighter's role as 'defender' and want them to be a damage-dealer (in which case, isn't that already in as higher damage over time due to more consistent hits?)  Or it's the rogue who spikes damage with sneak attacks but is less consistent overall (but people are attached to the name 'fighter')?

 

I can understanding wanting to build different builds of fighter - ranged v. melee for example or damage-soaky-tank v. dancy-swashbuckler - so we're back to talents for different styles.

 

 

The fighter is boring in that it plays like a meat shield front line tank. The common strategy is send tank ahead, aggro enemies, enemies dog pile on Fighter and your other characters help out with attacking enemies. Enemies die. Rinse and repeat. There's not much strategy or tactical combat when you're playing the same strategy over and over. And when you have the enemies dog pile on the Fighter, you send in your nude rogue to flank and sneak attack. The enemies usually ignore other characters 99% of the time in your party if those characters didn't aggro them.

 

Yes, the fighter can do other things like throw up defences, regenerate stamina, knockdown enemies, but it's mostly defences and pretty much the same thing over and over. The tank just sits there while the rest of your party go to town on killing enemies. There doesn't seem to be much variety with the Fighter. Also, trying to play a ranged fighter doesn't make a whole lot of sense since the fighter's role is a defender first and is supposed to be on the front line. This is very much NOT like the IE games with a Fighter. Trying to play ranged gimps the fighter. The recovery time with armour severely penalises your characters which is why there's the nude strategy with ranged characters.

 

I take it you don't have a beta key? I have one to give away if you want to try it out.

[Lephys]

Here we go. You're missing the point Lephys. A lot of what you write either doesn't make any sense, going off on tangents or arguing for things that are already in the game.

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

[Hiro Protagonist II]

You are arguing for things that are already in the game. You come up with things like a stance that gives bonuses to defences or DT. Well that is already in the game with Vigorous Defence giving defences to the fighter, and Armored Grace giving an increase with DT from armour. Instead of coming up with these 'new ideas', it's a good idea to check the game first and see if that's already in. It's like me saying the rogue should get a crippling strike power to inflict extra damage, or an escape power so the rogue can escape, or a dirty fighting power to make it easier to get a critical hit. Instead, it's a good idea to research, go over the fighters current powers and possible talents and work out ways to make the fighter more dynamic, and also makes sense in implementation. And maybe looking at 4E as well, considering PoE takes a lot from 4E. I can't see fighter combo's as the answer and I've given reasons why.

[Silent Winter]

The fighter is boring in that it plays like a meat shield front line tank. The common strategy is send tank ahead, aggro enemies, enemies dog pile on Fighter and your other characters help out with attacking enemies. Enemies die. Rinse and repeat. There's not much strategy or tactical combat when you're playing the same strategy over and over. And when you have the enemies dog pile on the Fighter, you send in your nude rogue to flank and sneak attack. The enemies usually ignore other characters 99% of the time in your party if those characters didn't aggro them.

 

Yes, the fighter can do other things like throw up defences, regenerate stamina, knockdown enemies, but it's mostly defences and pretty much the same thing over and over. The tank just sits there while the rest of your party go to town on killing enemies. There doesn't seem to be much variety with the Fighter. Also, trying to play a ranged fighter doesn't make a whole lot of sense since the fighter's role is a defender first and is supposed to be on the front line. This is very much NOT like the IE games with a Fighter. Trying to play ranged gimps the fighter. The recovery time with armour severely penalises your characters which is why there's the nude strategy with ranged characters.

I see - then it seems like we need a better enemy AI that forces the use of a more active fighter (needing to use that 'into the fray' and disengagement attacks, etc)

More talents to help the fighter be more than just a tank may help, but if we still need a tank due to enemy AI, it may not be practical.

I heard the next build (or next next build) will have an improved enemy AI so I guess we'll see.

 

I take it you don't have a beta key? I have one to give away if you want to try it out.

very generous, thanks , but I don't really have enough time to proper beta-test at the moment (posting from work so that's easy enough )

Not even sure my laptop would run it (should be building a new desktop system in November so will be ready for the final release)

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I see - then it seems like we need a better enemy AI that forces the use of a more active fighter (needing to use that 'into the fray' and disengagement attacks, etc)

More talents to help the fighter be more than just a tank may help, but if we still need a tank due to enemy AI, it may not be practical.

I heard the next build (or next next build) will have an improved enemy AI so I guess we'll see.

 

Think of Korax in BG1 with the basilisks. You send Korax in front of your party to engage the basilisks and the rest of your party mops up at range. It's very similar with the fighter. You send him up front and they dog pile on him and you mop up with the rest of your party. The enemy will dog pile on the character that aggros them. So if your wizard aggros an enemy, they will run past your front line and try and get to you wizard.

 

I made a couple of posts about this some months ago with the enemy A.I. and it seems I was right all along.

 

The Dev's are looking at changing the A.I. and I posted that the change is quite odd to me in some ways. Part of me finds it odd that an enemy will ignore the Fighter or Rogue that's doing damage to them right in their face, and then provoke opportunity attacks to try and continue to go after that Mage in your back line. Will have to see how it's implemented in the next Beta update. But this is already happening anyway in the beta to a degree with any of your back line making an enemy aggro, running past your front line and continuing on to get to the character that aggro them.

[Silent Winter]

When I first heard of the engagement mechanic it sounded a bit more 'solid' - as it is, it seems hard to tell when you are/aren't engaged and whether breaking it is easy/costly.

Definitely needs an AI improvement there - I thought one of the devs posted something along the lines of attacking a threat, so if your fighter were damaging it, it should focus on your fighter.  Also ranged enemies might attack your own back-line.

From the post you linked it sounds like some enemies are single-minded in their targets - but they should suffer disengagement attacks for running through your front line.  I hope it's not all enemies who do that - variety is the spice of A-life.

[Gralq]

Actually I want the fighter and at least one other class to be "boring".    One of the things I love about D&D games (and very similar ones like, say Drakensang -dark eye system-) is that IT IS NOT DIABLO/WoW!

 

To me WoW and diablo  -while different between them- represent the evolution of Rpg games from their core to a popular 50 million selling machine.  They are great successes, like best seller books. I read a couple of bestsellers in my life, and will never do again . I don't want popular

 

One of the elements that those games added to the formula is that all classes are the same in terms of ability: cooldown/mana cost and very balanced effects: while the arch grand super mage should be able to implode planets with his arcane powers, the warrior has an abilty with equal impact in battles thanks to his.. metal sword?

 

In this game I'll be controlling several characters, some of them will not need micro. So bring on vanilla for fighters and rogues! I don't want balance in all things, a feeble wizard has to have aces under his sleeve to be decisive while the fighter will hack slash swipe if all the cards are burnt! 

 

I think the proposed system is interesting, really.  The 'boring' abilities they have are a bit different than BG, different enough to be fun. If any I'd ask for more animations for them , one thing that I think is really boring is to watch your front line fighter do the same hack and slash animation for 40 hours while he casters get all those flashy effects .. 

[Lephys]

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.

[rjshae]

It sounds like there will be more opportunities to use the Athletics skill in PoE. In the D&D PnP game, that was one of the Fighter's chief skill contributions--swim a river, jump a gorge, climb a tree.... So in that sense they may prove more useful.

[Lephys]

It sounds like there will be more opportunities to use the Athletics skill in PoE. In the D&D PnP game, that was one of the Fighter's chief skill contributions--swim a river, jump a gorge, climb a tree.... So in that sense they may prove more useful.

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.

[rjshae]

 

It sounds like there will be more opportunities to use the Athletics skill in PoE. In the D&D PnP game, that was one of the Fighter's chief skill contributions--swim a river, jump a gorge, climb a tree.... So in that sense they may prove more useful.

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, well here's wishing there were more skills and they were attribute-based so that the classes could specialize more. But it doesn't sound like we're getting that.

[broknight]

Are there going to be insta-kills like coup de grace or non-lethal damage in this game btw?

[frapillo80]

I personally am fine with Fighters being low maintenance. But I would like them getting an offensive modal ability, mutually exclusive to Defender, that of course cannot overlap with Rogue/Barbarian dps. Some modal ability like 'bonus to attack speed and critical chance, penalty to defense values and stamina regeneration'. For when you want to take risks while in the fray: right now, the Fighter is a totally no-risk class, which dulls the things (all the offensive bonus are passive).

 

An offensive modal ability would also allow for a ranged fighter to have a modicum of sense.

[Karkarov]

Are they boring?  Maybe a little.  Are they inflexible or less interesting than their Baldur's Gate versions....  No.  Hell no.

 

The main issue both classes have is most of their abilities are passive or modal so you simply either turn them on or off with little actual interaction.  They are both very powerful if used correctly, but they are not high maintenance. 

[Gromnir]

Are they boring?  Maybe a little.  Are they inflexible or less interesting than their Baldur's Gate versions....  No.  Hell no.

 

The main issue both classes have is most of their abilities are passive or modal so you simply either turn them on or off with little actual interaction.  They are both very powerful if used correctly, but they are not high maintenance. 

in the developer thread for barbarians and fighters, you were one of the only persons who observed that the the fighter seemed kinda like a vanilla tank.  'pon reflection, you were the lone person who made such an observation.  josh explained the PoE fighter's role, and then there were much rejoicing... save for some folks who wanted to turn the thread into a balance debate. in any event, folks were recognizing, accepting and seeming pleased with the role o' the PoE fighter.  what is truly amazing to us is we has seen some folks from this thread who posted in the developer update thread for fighters... and yet they act shocked that the PoE fighter does not play like a bg fighter.

 

regardless, am agreeing that the PoE fighter is more interesting than their bg counterparts. the bb fighter is low maintenance, but we have numerous options in combat. given the role o' the PoE fighter, we don't understand the complaints... save that many folks is wanting the PoE fighter's role to be different. more than a few folks folks complaining o' boring want the PoE fighter to play like the bg fighter. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[curryinahurry]

For people like me who are looking for the ability to build Fighters in different weapons style specialties:

 

 

Very nice update. One thing that caught my attention - you have only mentioned weapon specialisations... Is there an option (like in the AD&D/IE games) to choose a weapon *and shield* specialisation? Or do the fighters automatically gain the ability to use one-handed weapon(s) together with shield without specialisation? Are there any special uses for the shields in PoE? Can you perform attacks with them?

 

We do not currently have "style" specializations, but it's something we'd like to do if there's time.  If so, it would be implemented as a Talent that a variety of characters could take.  Shields don't inherently have special abilities beyond boosting the wielder's Deflection and slowing their overall weapon attack rate.

 

 

 

I would encourage anyone looking for such 'styles' to keep on Obsidian to implement talents like; 'sword &shield', 'ranged' 'twohanded/reach' & 'two weapon'.  Also to encourage talents that are specifically tied to the styles.  With the mere implementation of 8 talents, the fighter class would become much more varied and interesting.

 

BTW, after playing through with the BB Rogue to 8th level, it has grown on me quite a bit.  Blinding shot and hobble (correct name?) are both great in combat when used in the right combo (knockdown + hobble vs Sevis and he was down for 20s) I would like to see rogues with talents that encourage more crowd control and inflicting disabilities vs straight damage.

[frapillo80]

 

 

Are they boring? Maybe a little. Are they inflexible or less interesting than their Baldur's Gate versions.... No. Hell no.

 

The main issue both classes have is most of their abilities are passive or modal so you simply either turn them on or off with little actual interaction. They are both very powerful if used correctly, but they are not high maintenance.

in the developer thread for barbarians and fighters, you were one of the only persons who observed that the the fighter seemed kinda like a vanilla tank. 'pon reflection, you were the lone person who made such an observation. josh explained the PoE fighter's role, and then there were much rejoicing... save for some folks who wanted to turn the thread into a balance debate. in any event, folks were recognizing, accepting and seeming pleased with the role o' the PoE fighter. what is truly amazing to us is we has seen some folks from this thread who posted in the developer update thread for fighters... and yet they act shocked that the PoE fighter does not play like a bg fighter.

 

regardless, am agreeing that the PoE fighter is more interesting than their bg counterparts. the bb fighter is low maintenance, but we have numerous options in combat. given the role o' the PoE fighter, we don't understand the complaints... save that many folks is wanting the PoE fighter's role to be different. more than a few folks folks complaining o' boring want the PoE fighter to play like the bg fighter.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Fighters are definitly a step up from BG1/2. And it's not a bad thing that they play different. My problem is that as a class, they have no option to take a risk in exchange for a different payoff, therefore, inflexible (and dull) compared to other classes (I'm not saying compared to BG1/2 fighters).

Their current declination is: tank -> tanker -> tankest. Defender is a no-brainer. Then you have the 0-risk Guardian or Unbending or Vigorous Defense. The rest is passive. No way to change even a little bit the flow of battle, apart from a couple of knockdowns. No risks.

If fallen companions were targettable by enemies, they could get some ability like shoulder-charging against the enemy that is wailing onto the fallen companion, create separation and put themselves between the enemy and the companion, at the price of defense lowered for a few seconds. Stuff like this, not dps modes/ability in order to turn them back into BG1/2 fighters.

[Karkarov]

in the developer thread for barbarians and fighters, you were one of the only persons who observed that the the fighter seemed kinda like a vanilla tank.  'pon reflection, you were the lone person who made such an observation.  josh explained the PoE fighter's role, and then there were much rejoicing... save for some folks who wanted to turn the thread into a balance debate. in any event, folks were recognizing, accepting and seeming pleased with the role o' the PoE fighter.  what is truly amazing to us is we has seen some folks from this thread who posted in the developer update thread for fighters... and yet they act shocked that the PoE fighter does not play like a bg fighter.

 

regardless, am agreeing that the PoE fighter is more interesting than their bg counterparts. the bb fighter is low maintenance, but we have numerous options in combat. given the role o' the PoE fighter, we don't understand the complaints... save that many folks is wanting the PoE fighter's role to be different. more than a few folks folks complaining o' boring want the PoE fighter to play like the bg fighter. 

That's correct Gromnir I was an early naysayer and Sawyer made a post explaining things and such and such.  My current stance is wait and see.  As the BB stands there is no way to get a "real" picture of the fighters depth because the fighter can only go to level 8 or so.  We don't know their full range of skill options or how the stat changes may effect it.  Additionally there is always time to add some new powers if needed.

 

My main point in my earlier post isn't so much that I love the PoE fighter as it exists now, only that it is very good at what it is designed to do and is kind of boring to play while still being far more interesting than a BG fighter of similar level.  I would like all classes to have some level of maintenance that makes them a bit more hands on.  They don't all need to be mage level hand holding but I would like to see a bit more for the Fighter and Rogue.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Karkarov

[Lephys]

For people like me who are looking for the ability to build Fighters in different weapons style specialties:

 

 

 

 

Very nice update. One thing that caught my attention - you have only mentioned weapon specialisations... Is there an option (like in the AD&D/IE games) to choose a weapon *and shield* specialisation? Or do the fighters automatically gain the ability to use one-handed weapon(s) together with shield without specialisation? Are there any special uses for the shields in PoE? Can you perform attacks with them?

 

We do not currently have "style" specializations, but it's something we'd like to do if there's time.  If so, it would be implemented as a Talent that a variety of characters could take.  Shields don't inherently have special abilities beyond boosting the wielder's Deflection and slowing their overall weapon attack rate.

 

 

 

I would encourage anyone looking for such 'styles' to keep on Obsidian to implement talents like; 'sword &shield', 'ranged' 'twohanded/reach' & 'two weapon'.  Also to encourage talents that are specifically tied to the styles.  With the mere implementation of 8 talents, the fighter class would become much more varied and interesting.

 

That's a good point. Heck, maybe what sets the Fighter apart as a class is simply the functional equivalent of multiple class-specific talents selected at character creation, in the form of these "styles."

 

Or, to put it another way, the Fighter doesn't necessarily need to have built-in/persistent arrays of options for combat style at his disposal, just to be a flexible class. If you got to sort of tweak your Fighter at creation, to more offensive, or more defensive, or more CC-ish, etc., he could remain pretty passive/modal/low-maintenance, but you'd still get to tailor him a bit so that he wouldn't be restricted to only one type of Fighter (defensive, currently).

[curryinahurry]

^  I was not necessarily thinking that a 'style' would be chosen at character creation, more that it be a mid-level talent once the player has had a chance to explore the system.  That isn't critical.  What I'd like to see come out of such 'syles' are certain advanced offensive, active use feats for each one (called shot, 2h/reach AoE, shield bash, whirlwind attack, etc.) that makes the class have additional strategies in combat.  

 

I also think the fighter should have 1 offensive modal like power attack that should be exclusive of defender.  My BB party had 2 fighters...and its a pretty powerful set-up.  The one thing that would make it really fun to play is if my PC fighter had some more offensive moves/modes that could play off BB Fighter;s vanilla tanking.

[Lephys]

Well, it doesn't have to be at character creation. However, why save intra-class character distinction until halfway through the game, I always say...

 

Just... Fighters fight, but, how they fight is kind of up in the air. So, it just seems like getting to tailor your Fighter to various weapons/fighting-styles is sort of the strength of Fighter unique-i-fication (which is totally a word).

[curryinahurry]

I think that however it's done, what the class is going to require is the same talent/feat accumulation as 3.xE...that is a talent/feat every other level.  That seems like a pretty fair trade-off to me...more customization for a class that requires a bit less management.

 

BTW,  I might try your newly discovered word with some of my local Chinese consultants just to see if it makes their heads explode trying to pronounce it