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

[Gromnir]

 

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.

 

to a degree, the bb fighter is boring compared to the other PoE classes. as josh described in the developer update, the fighter is meant to be low maintenance. every few seconds you gotta do Something with your mage or cipher or druid. the fighter stands in the midst o' a mob and gets hit. perhaps you focus on a spell caster or particular power foe with the fighter and attempt to knockdown him/her/it. hey, you might even need decide when to boost your defense, but the fighter's role, and one of its chief benefits, is that it is a low maintenance tank. if you wanna play a higher maintenance tank, PoE has the barbarian... and perhaps the monk. we said elsewhere that we don't get the boring rogue criticisms at all, but we do comprehend the claims that the PoE fighter is boring compared to other PoE classes.  so, choose the barbarian, yes?

 

however, what strikes us as enlightening is that many/most folks making suggestions to improve the PoE fighter is either trying to make the class play more like a bg2 fighter with boosting weapon specializations and various nifty offensive powhaz and/or they is offering "improvements" that subvert the design goals of the class. the PoE fighter is a low maintenance tank. most o' the suggestions for the PoE fighter we has seen thus far in this thread is either more appropriate to the barbarian, or they belong to the rogue. the barbarian is a tank that is s'posed to be more hands-on. the rogue is the weapons-based heavy hitter. 

 

using ie class names may have been a mistake. more than a few folks can't, or don't wanna accept that a PoE fighter is s'posed to have a different role than a bg2 or iwd2 fighter. 

 

another oddity worthy of note. some o' the same folks complaining about how frenetic PoE combat is were also complaining that the PoE fighter is boring. if combat is too fast and complex, then a low-maintenance tank would seem to be a boon to such people. for folks who were seeming overwhelmed by the pace o' PoE combat, having a damage sink that you do not need to babysit strikes us as a powerful motivating factor for desiring to have a fighter in your party.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[frapillo80]

Another example might be (I'll be exaggerating things a bit): the Fighter resembles a Wall from Magic the Gathering. Let's say a thorny wall, that also damages attackers. And it has also the option of being a Greater Wall or a Super Wall. You cannot get any lower maintenance than a wall, granted. You cannot get any duller than a wall, either. I mean, I know very little about Magic, but if a had to choose a Magic card to build an interesting and tactically fun RPG class upon, well, a Wall would probably be among my last options.

And it's not a problem of maintenance: having a class that most of the time is low maintenance us fine. But whenever the flow of the battle doesn't make soaking hits in melee a priority, what can the fighter do (apart from knockdown)? Be a wall just the same, and soak hits in melee. Every class more or less has some ability to actively try and change at least a bit the flow of battle (or die in the attempt in some cases). The fighter can only be a wall, and walls are passive melee soakers, so no option to take any risks in exchange for a possible greater/different payoff.

I agree about not changing the level of maintenance much, and that the fighter's active options should't be offense/dps related. But let the poor thing be More Than Just a Wall, because otherwise the fact that the fighter's only possible function is actually so crucial just exacerbates the issue, at least from the impression I get.

Edited September 25, 2014 by frapillo80

[Sensuki]

far more interesting than a BG fighter of similar level.

I really disagree with this, The PE Fighter is not more interesting than the IE Fighters.

 

 

another oddity worthy of note. some o' the same folks complaining about how frenetic PoE combat is were also complaining that the PoE fighter is boring. if combat is too fast and complex, then a low-maintenance tank would seem to be a boon to such people. for folks who were seeming overwhelmed by the pace o' PoE combat, having a damage sink that you do not need to babysit strikes us as a powerful motivating factor for desiring to have a fighter in your party.

I think the Fighter is inflexible, and I don't find the combat too 'frenetic', but I don't find the combat smooth - it's currently pause with real time, not the other way around.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Sensuki

[AlperTheCaglar]

I just properly started indulging myself with PoE properly, but all I can say is this--

 

Fighter was murdered in 3.5ed and 4th ed with the arrival of "cooldown" abilities a la WoW. I don't mean to be close-minded about such abilities, but a fighter's appeal and tradition in AD&D is that he had the unique specialization potential, making him a dependable workhorse in melee, and a very very powerful disher of damage once you had him properly protected from any hindrances from enemies / environment.

 

I can see the fighter gaining role-play abilities unrelated to his mechanical engagement abilities, but I for one, in my humble opinion, dread the cooldown and special ability mechanic that made fighters so trite for the past 10-15 years after IE games.

 

A cat can imagine that he's a fish all he wants, but she can't breathe underwater.

 

This is why World of Warcraft, and stupefied RPGs like Dragon Age 2 have tarnished the fighter's nature. He is a grunt, or a weapon master, or a killer in battle. He doesn't need to be 12030890 things at once. When I click on a fighter I want him to be the go-to guy for a direct foray into the thick of it. I don't want to juggle seven different special abilities (not tied to personality/story).

 

Fighter's were in their ideal and proper incarnation as they were in AD&D 2nd ed.

[Gromnir]

Another example might be (I'll be exaggerating things a bit): the Fighter resembles a Wall from Magic the Gathering. Let's say a thorny wall, that also damages attackers. And it has also the option of being a Greater Wall or a Super Wall. You cannot get any lower maintenance than a wall, granted. You cannot get any duller than a wall, either. I mean, I know very little about Magic, but if a had to choose a Magic card to build an interesting and tactically fun RPG class upon, well, a Wall would probably be among my last options.

And it's not a problem of maintenance: having a class that most of the time is low maintenance us fine. But whenever the flow of the battle doesn't make soaking hits in melee a priority, what can the fighter do (apart from knockdown)? Be a wall just the same, and soak hits in melee. Every class more or less has some ability to actively try and change at least a bit the flow of battle (or die in the attempt in some cases). The fighter can only be a wall, and walls are passive melee soakers, so no option to take any risks in exchange for a possible greater/different payoff.

I agree about not changing the level of maintenance much, and that the fighter's active options should't be offense/dps related. But let the poor thing be More Than Just a Wall, because otherwise the fact that the fighter's only possible function is actually so crucial just exacerbates the issue, at least from the impression I get.

the developer responses in the fighter update is enlightening. 

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66380-update-81-the-front-line-fighters-and-barbarians/?p=1461112

 

into the fray and knockdown is both considerable more than passive defensive issues.  and again, the passive defense issues further the fighter's role. so, in other words, am not seeing a valid complaint. 

 

sorry, we never played the card games other than stuff such as poker and blackjack.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[frapillo80]

Just to clarify what kind of options I had in mind (and I know, these are stupid-a** proposals, but I hope they give an idea):

 

Suppression (modal): the Fighter's attacks lower the attack rate of the target (adjusted by target level, fortitude save, etc.); the extertion stops the Fighter' own automatic stamina recovery, in addition to the bonus from Defender

 

Battering (passive): each blow lowers the target's chance to recover from Prone status (obvious synergy with Knockdown, Priest's Pillar, Ranger's companion, etc.)

 

Coordinated attacks (passive; man, what stupid names): for each companion that is attacking in melee (and only in melee) the same target as the Fighter, the latter has an increased chance of critical (this to encourage other setups than the BG1 style "one tank and 4/5 archers/gunslingers")

 

The thing I've already said about enemies targetting fallen companions: Fighter shoulders the enemy away a bit placing himself between the enemy and the fallen companion; Fighter has defenses lowered for a few seconds.

 

They are all pretty crummy, but at least they draw the picture of a veteran of the battlefield who is not at all a pwnage specialist, and even the two passives actually create opportunity for some semi-meaningful choices in battle.

 

Disclaimer: I would not dream of pushing for taunts, God forbid

Edited September 25, 2014 by frapillo80

[frapillo80]

 

 

Another example might be (I'll be exaggerating things a bit): the Fighter resembles a Wall from Magic the Gathering. Let's say a thorny wall, that also damages attackers. And it has also the option of being a Greater Wall or a Super Wall. You cannot get any lower maintenance than a wall, granted. You cannot get any duller than a wall, either. I mean, I know very little about Magic, but if a had to choose a Magic card to build an interesting and tactically fun RPG class upon, well, a Wall would probably be among my last options.

And it's not a problem of maintenance: having a class that most of the time is low maintenance us fine. But whenever the flow of the battle doesn't make soaking hits in melee a priority, what can the fighter do (apart from knockdown)? Be a wall just the same, and soak hits in melee. Every class more or less has some ability to actively try and change at least a bit the flow of battle (or die in the attempt in some cases). The fighter can only be a wall, and walls are passive melee soakers, so no option to take any risks in exchange for a possible greater/different payoff.

I agree about not changing the level of maintenance much, and that the fighter's active options should't be offense/dps related. But let the poor thing be More Than Just a Wall, because otherwise the fact that the fighter's only possible function is actually so crucial just exacerbates the issue, at least from the impression I get.

the developer responses in the fighter update is enlightening.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66380-update-81-the-front-line-fighters-and-barbarians/?p=1461112

 

into the fray and knockdown is both considerable more than passive defensive issues. and again, the passive defense issues further the fighter's role. so, in other words, am not seeing a valid complaint.

 

sorry, we never played the card games other than stuff such as poker and blackjack.

 

HA! Good Fun!

So Into the Fray means a Fighter, let's say, armed with stiletto yanks an enemy that is outside his melee attack range (else what's the point if the enemy is already within engagement distance) into attack range? Does it use up a Grappling Hook? Or the Fighter just needs to be wearing a yellow-and-black ninja outfit and to yell "COME HERE!" very loud?

 

I'm honestly failing to see the tactical flexibility: if I'm getting it right, apart from the fact that it's the enemy entering the fighter's engagement area instead of viceversa (not much of a difference, given how the Fighter's high defenses shrugh engagement attacks off), it seems to be the equivalent of the fighter taking a step forward. Besides, I have the feeling that knockdown by itself, in an interrupt heavy game like PoE, is not exactly a world-changer.

Edited September 25, 2014 by frapillo80

[Gromnir]

 

 

Another example might be (I'll be exaggerating things a bit): the Fighter resembles a Wall from Magic the Gathering. Let's say a thorny wall, that also damages attackers. And it has also the option of being a Greater Wall or a Super Wall. You cannot get any lower maintenance than a wall, granted. You cannot get any duller than a wall, either. I mean, I know very little about Magic, but if a had to choose a Magic card to build an interesting and tactically fun RPG class upon, well, a Wall would probably be among my last options.

And it's not a problem of maintenance: having a class that most of the time is low maintenance us fine. But whenever the flow of the battle doesn't make soaking hits in melee a priority, what can the fighter do (apart from knockdown)? Be a wall just the same, and soak hits in melee. Every class more or less has some ability to actively try and change at least a bit the flow of battle (or die in the attempt in some cases). The fighter can only be a wall, and walls are passive melee soakers, so no option to take any risks in exchange for a possible greater/different payoff.

I agree about not changing the level of maintenance much, and that the fighter's active options should't be offense/dps related. But let the poor thing be More Than Just a Wall, because otherwise the fact that the fighter's only possible function is actually so crucial just exacerbates the issue, at least from the impression I get.

the developer responses in the fighter update is enlightening.

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66380-update-81-the-front-line-fighters-and-barbarians/?p=1461112

 

into the fray and knockdown is both considerable more than passive defensive issues. and again, the passive defense issues further the fighter's role. so, in other words, am not seeing a valid complaint.

 

sorry, we never played the card games other than stuff such as poker and blackjack.

 

HA! Good Fun!

So Into the Fray means a Fighter, let's say, armed with stiletto yanks an enemy that is outside his melee attack range (else what's the point if the enemy is already within engagement distance) into attack range? Does it use up a Grappling Hook? Or the Fighter just needs to be wearing a yellow-and-black ninja outfit and to yell "COME HERE!" very loud?

 

I'm honestly failing to see the tactical flexibility: if I'm getting it right, apart from the fact that it's the enemy entering the fighter's engagement area instead of viceversa (not much of a difference, given how the Fighter's high defenses shrugh engagement attacks off), it seems to be the equivalent of the fighter taking a step forward. Besides, I have the feeling that knockdown by itself, in an interrupt heavy game like PoE, is not exactly a world-changer.

 

am trying not to laugh, not 'cause you made a joke, but 'cause your reply is funny. in a game where the monk gets tougher with injuries and mages is hurling fireballs, this is the feature that breaks your suspension o' disbelief?  okie dokie. and if you genuine don't see the added flexibility o' a tanky character being able to taunt or yank a particular foe from distance, then am gonna need far too much time and space to enlighten.  am s'posing we could start with tic-tac-toe and observe that placing an X in a box compels your opponent to block your move or lose, but one would think that such fundamentals is obvious.  

 

if you claim you  don't see value o' knockdown or into the fray, we suspect you is arguing for the sake of doing so rather than having a genuine concern. in most such pnp games and crpgs, such abilities run the risk o' being over-powered. *shrug* there isn't a need to respond 'cause we clear will never be able to convince somebody that they is incorrect if they ain't being serious or reasonable,  and lord knows the developers, the folks who can actually change the features in the game, don't need Gromnir's tedious erudition.  additional response would be pointless.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[frapillo80]

I'll tell you, so you can add it to the rest of your tedious erudition and double it in size: it's called sarcasm.

I have no problem with suspension of disbelief, but I see Into the Fray as you describe it as a tool that allows the Fighter to stay even more rooted to the spot, making him even more similar to a Wall from MtG; a crude equivalent of taunt, which I personally consider a dumb mechanic; and a cheap shortcut for cutting corners on AI. Since it's fine to suspend disbelief indefinitely, just call it "teleport enemy".

 

 

On one thing I agree with you: the name "Fighter" is misleading, maybe "Eric" would be more appropriate, from the shield kid in D&D cartoons.

 

P.S. Clumsy patronizing in the hope of making sound the interlocutor a whiny child and by contrast appear somewhat clever is a rather stale technique, even for you.

Edited September 25, 2014 by frapillo80

[Gromnir]

*eye roll*

 

confronting you with a clumsy reply is what gots your shorts in a twist, but am not knowing you well enough to say if your response is typical or stale. 

 

whether you think the mechanic is dumb is irrelevant. so too is your peculiar change between into the fray being the equivalent o' a free movement or conversely, is forcing the fighter to be rooted.  doesn't matter. josh has stated many times now, and recently too so you can't use the "late to the party" silliness as an excuse, that with 11 different classes you necessarily needs define the role o' each class. the role o' the fighter is straightforward and has been explained. people who keep wanting to give powhaz that will alter the role o' the fighter is either not reading developer posts or is being willful obtuse. the fighter is a low maintenance damage sink that will do predictable and reliable damage. knockdown and into the fray is powerful abilities that make it far less boring than the bg fighter, while reinforcing the advantages o' the classes role. the tactical options o' the fighter, within the scope o' its role, is quite varied.

 

perhaps you do not believe that the role itself is of value. karkarov were worried about this point as it seemed limited to him. you, after a number o' posts and acting like a "whiny child" may finally have had an epiphany that results in you stating similar concerns... albeit you did so with far less style and were less convincing o' there being a potential problem. you don't like a low maintenance damage sink with a reliable damage output? great. even so, asking for changes to add tactical flexibility ignores PoE class structure and the role o' the fighter.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[frapillo80]

perhaps you do not believe that the role itself is of value.

HA! Good Fun!

I said previusly, and quite clearly "the fact that the fighter's only possible function is actually so crucial actually exacerbates the issue". You know, that almost sounds like implying that I consider the role in itself, well, crucial.

 

Ahhh, the unfathomable mysteries of elementary logic...

 

But please do keep on with the patronizing, it's actually starting to come across as cute.

[Gfted1]

They should give similar powers as the ToB Fighter. That would give Fighters a shot in the arm. Maybe in the expansion...

[Gromnir]

 

perhaps you do not believe that the role itself is of value.

HA! Good Fun!

I said previusly, and quite clearly "the fact that the fighter's only possible function is actually so crucial actually exacerbates the issue". You know, that almost sounds like implying that I consider the role in itself, well, crucial.

 

 

 

which is why your recent post referencing the d&d cartoon character is particular enlightening. you have a little hizzy fit and then you get clarity?  don't feel bad. it happens. as Gromnir has noted many times in this thread, what folks say about the PoE fighter is countered as sooon as we see what they want to do to improve the fighter. you observe the role, even note the value o' the role (a mischaracterization as barbarian and even monk may serve adequately as tanks even if they cannot do so as does the fighter) then ask for changes that would change the role. is... amusing.

 

folks don't even know what they is doing, and they invariably balk when confronted.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 25, 2014 by Gromnir

[Gfted1]

Ooooh, and kits! Hopefully they will introduce kits in the future. I need a way to create a Cavalier.

[frapillo80]

 

 

 

perhaps you do not believe that the role itself is of value.

HA! Good Fun!

I said previusly, and quite clearly "the fact that the fighter's only possible function is actually so crucial actually exacerbates the issue". You know, that almost sounds like implying that I consider the role in itself, well, crucial.

 

 

 

which is why your recent post referencing the d&d cartoon character is particular enlightening. you have a little hizzy fit and then you get clarity? don't feel bad. it happens. as Gromnir has noted many times in this thread, what folks say about the PoE fighter is countered as sooon as we see what they want to do to improve the fighter. you observe the role, even note the value o' the role (a mischaracterization as barbarian and even monk may serve adequately as tanks even if they cannot do so as does the fighter) then ask for changes that would change the role. is... amusing.

 

folks don't even know what they is doing, and they invariably balk when confronted.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Cute!

 

Well guess what: if the role is perceived as dull/inflexible/boring/limited, of course the proposed changes will aim at changing/expanding/variating such role. I'm blown away, really.

By the way, the argument you never get tired of using, "you don't like feature X, but you are wrong in that, and that is because the status of things you say you don't like is actually intentional. And because it's intentional it would be wrong and misguided to change anything about it" is not especially clever.

 

Ok, enough. My original intention was just to talk about possible increases in flexibility of the Fighter's role, that's all.

Edited September 25, 2014 by frapillo80

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

perhaps you do not believe that the role itself is of value.

HA! Good Fun!

I said previusly, and quite clearly "the fact that the fighter's only possible function is actually so crucial actually exacerbates the issue". You know, that almost sounds like implying that I consider the role in itself, well, crucial.

 

 

 

which is why your recent post referencing the d&d cartoon character is particular enlightening. you have a little hizzy fit and then you get clarity? don't feel bad. it happens. as Gromnir has noted many times in this thread, what folks say about the PoE fighter is countered as sooon as we see what they want to do to improve the fighter. you observe the role, even note the value o' the role (a mischaracterization as barbarian and even monk may serve adequately as tanks even if they cannot do so as does the fighter) then ask for changes that would change the role. is... amusing.

 

folks don't even know what they is doing, and they invariably balk when confronted.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Cute!

 

Well guess what: if the role is perceived as dull/inflexible/boring/limited, of course the proposed changes will aim at changing/expanding/variating such role. I'm blown away, really.

By the way, the argument you never get tired of using, "you don't like feature X, but you are wrong in that, and that is because the status of things you say you don't like is actually intentional. And because it's intentional it would be wrong and misguided to change anything about it" is not especially clever.

 

Ok, enough. My original intention was just to talk about possible increases in flexibility of the Fighter's role, that's all.

 

thank you for responding. you is compounding and adding to your folly. would be soooo easy to go with straw man + irony given your recent elementary logic comment, but we will forbear. too easy.  

 

please note that we observed that  karkarov were dubious about the vanilla fighter's role and you don't see us being critical o' him, yes? is 'cause he is not in denial. is 'cause he has been consistent. you, on the other hand... well, is no sense being mean 'bout your shortcomings. can scroll back up now that you is aware that you were posting at cross-purposes with yourself and either accept that the criticisms you garnered were accurate even if you not see as fair, or...

 

you don't like PoE fighter? fine. sadly, am wondering just how long it will take you to realize how your criticisms and suggestions ain't helping solve that problem, if it is a problem.

 

sheesh

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Lephys]

I don't think the Fighter is "boring." I just think it might be a little more constrained than it needs to be. I think the Build-A-Fighter arena is a bit smaller than the other class's arenas, is all. It's a yummy dish that could possibly use a little spice, not a bland dish that needs spice.

 

As I said earlier, my main "issue" (for lack of a better word) with the Fighter is that it doesn't really have anything unique to the class that feels distinct from the other classes (except the multiple-engagement Defender modal, which seems a bit lackluster compared to all the other class's unique capabilities/functions).

 

- Every other class can alter their defense rating in some way (gear, buffs, etc.)

- Other classes all (or at least most of them?) have the capability to cause a knockdown effect

Etc.

 

I think the Fighter could definitely benefit from a little bit of tweaking to give him not just a strong role, but a strong class function/core. And, similarly, I think Rogue's (while it at least exists) could be spruced up a bit, too, as "conditions? Well then... MORE DAMAGE!" is, admittedly, mildly stale in tactical terms. You have dozens of combinations of effects (afflictions) that can be in place, and only one effect that results from any of that (with a "second" effect that's basically a bolstered form of the same effect).

 

It really comes down to the question "What can I do that other classes can't?" Obviously "more damage" isn't the answer, so what's left is simply the mechanism that generates the bonus damage -- Sneak Attack. No one else, as a function of their class, generates any bonus effect from the existence of afflictions on a given target.

 

Annnywho, I just don't think this is a matter of "are we gonna fix these classes or are they going to remain horrendously broken?!". But, this is the beta, and feedback's kinda what you do in a beta. To improve where possible.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Lephys

[frapillo80]

 

 

 

 

 

perhaps you do not believe that the role itself is of value.

HA! Good Fun!

I said previusly, and quite clearly "the fact that the fighter's only possible function is actually so crucial actually exacerbates the issue". You know, that almost sounds like implying that I consider the role in itself, well, crucial.

 

 

which is why your recent post referencing the d&d cartoon character is particular enlightening. you have a little hizzy fit and then you get clarity? don't feel bad. it happens. as Gromnir has noted many times in this thread, what folks say about the PoE fighter is countered as sooon as we see what they want to do to improve the fighter. you observe the role, even note the value o' the role (a mischaracterization as barbarian and even monk may serve adequately as tanks even if they cannot do so as does the fighter) then ask for changes that would change the role. is... amusing.

 

folks don't even know what they is doing, and they invariably balk when confronted.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Cute!

 

Well guess what: if the role is perceived as dull/inflexible/boring/limited, of course the proposed changes will aim at changing/expanding/variating such role. I'm blown away, really.

By the way, the argument you never get tired of using, "you don't like feature X, but you are wrong in that, and that is because the status of things you say you don't like is actually intentional. And because it's intentional it would be wrong and misguided to change anything about it" is not especially clever.

 

Ok, enough. My original intention was just to talk about possible increases in flexibility of the Fighter's role, that's all.

thank you for responding. you is compounding and adding to your folly. would be soooo easy to go with straw man + irony given your recent elementary logic comment, but we will forbear. too easy.

 

please note that we observed that karkarov were dubious about the vanilla fighter's role and you don't see us being critical o' him, yes? is 'cause he is not in denial. is 'cause he has been consistent. you, on the other hand... well, is no sense being mean 'bout your shortcomings. can scroll back up now that you is aware that you were posting at cross-purposes with yourself and either accept that the criticisms you garnered were accurate even if you not see as fair, or...

 

you don't like PoE fighter? fine. sadly, am wondering just how long it will take you to realize how your criticisms and suggestions ain't helping solve that problem, if it is a problem.

 

sheesh

 

HA! Good Fun!

Cuter and cuter. No, please, do be mean about my shortcomings and folly. I'm so scared of forum bogeymen.

 

And please keep enlightening me with argumentations such "the fighter's current role is crucial, therefore nothing should be changed about it".

I'll tell you what: an invulnerable, 1000+ damage-per-hit dealing warrior would play an even more crucial role for the party. Does it mean it would be good design, or that nothing should be changed about it?

I thought I had said "enough", because I didn't want to keep contributing to pollute the thread. Of course, it did not work. Let's save time, and just stay away from me, in case shoddy argumentations are contagious.

Edited September 25, 2014 by frapillo80

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

 

 

perhaps you do not believe that the role itself is of value.

HA! Good Fun!

I said previusly, and quite clearly "the fact that the fighter's only possible function is actually so crucial actually exacerbates the issue". You know, that almost sounds like implying that I consider the role in itself, well, crucial.

 

 

which is why your recent post referencing the d&d cartoon character is particular enlightening. you have a little hizzy fit and then you get clarity? don't feel bad. it happens. as Gromnir has noted many times in this thread, what folks say about the PoE fighter is countered as sooon as we see what they want to do to improve the fighter. you observe the role, even note the value o' the role (a mischaracterization as barbarian and even monk may serve adequately as tanks even if they cannot do so as does the fighter) then ask for changes that would change the role. is... amusing.

 

folks don't even know what they is doing, and they invariably balk when confronted.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Cute!

 

Well guess what: if the role is perceived as dull/inflexible/boring/limited, of course the proposed changes will aim at changing/expanding/variating such role. I'm blown away, really.

By the way, the argument you never get tired of using, "you don't like feature X, but you are wrong in that, and that is because the status of things you say you don't like is actually intentional. And because it's intentional it would be wrong and misguided to change anything about it" is not especially clever.

 

Ok, enough. My original intention was just to talk about possible increases in flexibility of the Fighter's role, that's all.

thank you for responding. you is compounding and adding to your folly. would be soooo easy to go with straw man + irony given your recent elementary logic comment, but we will forbear. too easy.

 

please note that we observed that karkarov were dubious about the vanilla fighter's role and you don't see us being critical o' him, yes? is 'cause he is not in denial. is 'cause he has been consistent. you, on the other hand... well, is no sense being mean 'bout your shortcomings. can scroll back up now that you is aware that you were posting at cross-purposes with yourself and either accept that the criticisms you garnered were accurate even if you not see as fair, or...

 

you don't like PoE fighter? fine. sadly, am wondering just how long it will take you to realize how your criticisms and suggestions ain't helping solve that problem, if it is a problem.

 

sheesh

 

HA! Good Fun!

Cuter and cuter. No, please, do be mean about my shortcomings and folly. I'm so scared of forum bogeymen.

 

And please keep enlightening me with argumentations such "the fighter's current role is crucial, therefore nothing should be changed about it".

I'll tell you what: an invulnerable, 1000+ damage-per-hit dealing warrior would play an even more crucial role for the party. Does it mean it would be good design, or that nothing should be changed about it?

I thought I had said "enough", because I didn't want to keep contributing to pollute the thread. Of course, it did not work. Let's save time, and just stay away from me, in case shoddy argumentations are contagious.

 

still wanna make this about Gromnir being mean? 

 

*sigh*

 

and again, you pointed out to us that you recognized the near essential aspect o' the bb fighter... Gromnir actual disagreed and observed that while the fighter's role were unique, a barbarian and monk could serve as a tanky kinda character. is this an ADD thing with you? you don't recall your own posts or replies on this same page?  you can keep doing strawman stuff if you want, but is making you look increasing nutty.

 

am all in favor of making changes to the classes... Gromnir has offered a few change suggestions. nevertheless, am repeating our self at this point. can scroll back up and see where you is in error... or not. 

 

oh, you said "enough"?  odd, looks like you is still responding. guess you were disingenuous and self-contradictory on this issue as well. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[zimcub]

I think that the whole reason why bg2 fighters were versetile was because of the constant movement with runing in and out of fire, and blocking paths or running away, that happened in combat.

From what i see the PoE fighters are basically ToB fighters without the movement. (if you don't count multiclassing)

They play pretty much like NWN2 fighters, who had abilities like knockdown, with the ability to switch from defense at the expense of offense etc.

It sounds like a great thing, but no one will tell you that NWN2 was known for it's great combat.

[frapillo80]

You are right on everything, Gro-Gro. I must be really stupid as you say. First, I keep replying, which is stupid enough. Gromnir says that the fighter's role as a tank is unique, but that monk and barbarian kind can of tank too: that'd just what I'd call unique. I didn't get that before, for being stupid. And recognizing the essential tanking role of the fighter implies that it should be his only role, it's so obvious. How embarassingly stupid of me. I'll start pushing for a healing-only priest, since healing others is a crucial role as well. That should make both classes so much fun to play.

Yo man, you've enlightened another rage monkey. Be proud of yourself!

 

The only reason I keep replying is that the House motto here is "Never put up with any stupid-a** patronizing". I'm sorry, I really can't help not putting up with that kind of thing, that's a flaw of me. Especially when it comes from some ridiculous 15 year dramatis persona that makes the patronizer the forum equivalent of that Shermanator guy from American Pie.

 

It's not the schools, man, it's the dumb teachers.

Edited September 26, 2014 by frapillo80

[frapillo80]

I think that the whole reason why bg2 fighters were versetile was because of the constant movement with runing in and out of fire, and blocking paths or running away, that happened in combat.

From what i see the PoE fighters are basically ToB fighters without the movement. (if you don't count multiclassing)

They play pretty much like NWN2 fighters, who had abilities like knockdown, with the ability to switch from defense at the expense of offense etc.

It sounds like a great thing, but no one will tell you that NWN2 was known for it's great combat.

And on top of that NWN2 (unmodded) didn't allow to multiclass companions, which made playing with the dwarf as a plain fighter excruciatingly dull (I always saw the monk conversion a really forced way to try and fix this problem, since they recognized that forcing players to use him as a plain fighter would be...well...just plain cruel). Edited September 26, 2014 by frapillo80

[Gromnir]

You are right on everything, Gro-Gro. I must be really stupid as you say. First, I keep replying, which is stupid enough. Gromnir says that the fighter's role as a tank is unique, but that monk and barbarian kind can of tank too: that'd just what I'd call unique. I didn't get that before, for being stupid. And recognizing the essential tanking role of the fighter implies that it should be his only role, it's so obvious. How embarassingly stupid of me. I'll start pushing for a healing-only priest, since healing others is a crucial role as well. That should make both classes so much fun to play.

Yo man, you've enlightened another rage monkey. Be proud of yourself!

 

The only reason I keep replying is that the House motto here is "Never put up with any stupid-a** patronizing". I'm sorry, I really can't help not putting up with that kind of thing, that's a flaw of me. Especially when it comes from some ridiculous 15 year dramatis persona that makes the patronizer the forum equivalent of that Shermanator guy from American Pie.

 

It's not the schools, man, it's the dumb teachers.

nah, its you, not the teachers.

 

"Ok, enough. My original intention was just to talk about possible increases in flexibility of the Fighter's role, that's all. "

 

and

 

"I thought I had said "enough", because I didn't want to keep contributing to pollute the thread."

 

and yet here you is with this kinda post?  at best you are a hypocrite.

 

and again, the fighter's role is not essential. am having a hard time believing this ain't getting through. however, it is vanilla tank. other classes fill the roles you want the fighter role to be expanded to. and yeah, am questioning your intellect if you don't see that it took you a considerable number o' posts to get to the realization that your real problem were with the role o' the PoE fighter. as we noted elsewhere, other folks have questioned the necessity o' such a role and Gromnir were able to have intelligent and polite discourse with those folks. your problem (one such problem) is that you don't even realize who the clown is... clown mixing metaphors and bad logic. 

 

bizarre. or not bizarre. this is guy who is surprised that PoE combat is too similar to iwd in spite o' that being a stated goal on the kickstarter page, while at same time complaining that absence o' a mention o' kill xp on the kickstarter page prevented him from realizing that kill xp would be in the game... even though such info were emailed starting with update #7. you don't read. when you do read, you don't believe or don't comprehend. can't blame on Gromnir persona neither as it is clear that you don't comprehend when obsidian explains either. 

 

tragic. how much more before you show us that you were serious 'bout not wanting to further pollute the thread?  am guessing not before a mod steps in. *sigh* leaves Gromnir having to play the adult... ironic.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[frapillo80]

What? Have you read anything I've posted at all, or you just labeled it as noise and skipped it as you always claim to do? But you are right, this is becoming moderators' work, so, it's been a pleasure, I feel blessed by your, ehm, words, and many apologies to the rest of the posters.

[frapillo80]

Ok, I can't help it, putting up with stupid-a** patronizing (and a lot of dumb misquoting, as anybody who will actually read the xp thread will realize). The moderators threat, to a n00b from someone who evidently enjoys a special status when Iit comes to being an obnoxious-a**, is always a classy touch.

 

So I guess this is my goodbye to the forum, but a last though for Grominator, because I still wonder about how he came to be like this:

 

Now, I understand that your life peaked sharply about 14 years ago when some half-orc BG2 mob was named after your avatar, and it's been all downhill ever since. But that's only because you've been giving far too much importance to that moment: developers name minor characters after their obnoxious neighbour, dog, or favourite hooker all the time. So get a grip, man.

 

HA! GREAT fun!