Jump to content
Infinitron

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

Recommended Posts

I think we should wait and see for the most part with this change. Giving different classes different Stamina/Health ratios is actually a suggestion that had been brought up in one of the Health discussion threads. As was giving different classes different numbers of allowed "knockouts" before they die.

 

Seems a bit kludgy to me, but I suppose it's like having the different D&D hit dice for the various classes. I'd almost rather see the ratio change as a result of level advancement.


"It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

are you sure about josh quote on that? am not actual suggesting you are wrong, because we don't know. our recollection is that he said you could play a wizard in PoE same as an ie wizard. conversely, we recall josh making a point that fighters in the ie games were equally efficacious at defense and offense (perhaps excessively so... for some reason, "massive" is a word that sticks in our noggin regarding ie fighter capacity to deal damage) and that were something they were getting away from with the PoE fighter... but we could be wrong on that. am honest not certain. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

There was a post somewhere where Josh said they added offensive abilities to Paladins because their previous version didn't feel IE-y enough.

perhaps Gromnir is missing relevance. in that post about the paladins, did josh discuss classes in general or fighters specific? if the initial goal were to make PoE paladins play more like ie paladins, then am understanding why josh would think they need some offensive tuning, 'cause even now, our paladin contributes less to the overall offensive efficacy o' our party than perhaps any other class we have played. paladin buffs may be adding to the offensive capabilities of the party overall, but from a practical standpoint, successful battles resolved with our paladin character take twice as long to conclude. it is very possible that you are reading a specific observation about PoE paladins and are attempting to generalize about all PoE classes.

 

"Josh has said many times that a player should be able to build a class so that it "feels" the same as the IE games."

 

am seeing confusion. bobbin's assumption runs very much contrary to how rogues and fighters were described in the developer updates. it were made quite clear that the PoE fighter and rogue would be different than the ie iterations of those classes. nevertheless, perhaps based on simple naming quirk and a single misinterpreted post regarding paladins, bobbin made an understandable assumption that all PoE classes with the same names as ie classes should be customizable so that they is playable like their bg2 and iwd2 counterparts, yes? 

 

furthermore, there seems to be less resistance to the PoE changes in ranger, monk, and barbarian. this may simply be because they were less popular. sure, we has seen complaints about pretty much every PoE class, but the "boring" stuff seems largely reserved for fighters and rogues... and Gromnir when he complains about PoE priests. am not certain that such complaints is fair, but am increasing convinced that the problem with fighters and rogues specifically ain't so much that they is dull to play, but that they aren't proper bg2 and iwd2 incarnations.

 

HA!  Good Fun!

 

ps the priest is not actual boring to play, just so long as you have a second heal-bot priest in your party to do the traditional, dull buffing and stamina boosting.

Edited by Gromnir

"Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."--Justice Louis Brandeis, Concurring, Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think we should wait and see for the most part with this change. Giving different classes different Stamina/Health ratios is actually a suggestion that had been brought up in one of the Health discussion threads. As was giving different classes different numbers of allowed "knockouts" before they die.

 

Seems a bit kludgy to me, but I suppose it's like having the different D&D hit dice for the various classes. I'd almost rather see the ratio change as a result of level advancement.

 

 

Well, they've already got that in the form of different HP/lvl up for each class. This is basically just compounding that class-ingrained difference in survivability (I don't mind that - YMMV).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I made two suggestions for powers fighters could have that I think would help in this thread. What do you think of them?

 

It would be good to link your posts as I'm come into the end of this thread.

 

 

Long post where I muse about things, with suggestion at the end: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68384-josh-says-poes-fighters-and-rogues-arent-boring/?view=findpost&p=1507205

 

Suggestion #2: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/68384-josh-says-poes-fighters-and-rogues-arent-boring/?view=findpost&p=1507551

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they're a bit inflexible.

I would be nice if you got a feat talent every level (or at least every other level) and could really differentiate builds with that. Some fighter active abilities should be made fighter exclusive talents so that players could choose between active or passive abilities and melee or ranged combat. I would rethink several classes in this way. The player should have a tad more agency in creating character concepts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think it may be a good idea to look at some feats with 4th ed defenders to make them more interesting. There's a whole slew of different types of defenders in 4th ed D&D and maybe PoE can take some of those feats from them. However, a problem could be is the developers may want to introduce new types of defenders in the expansion or sequel, so they have to be careful with what feats they introduce. Otherwise there may new classes introduced later and those defenders could be gimped. There's not much choice for Fighters (only two) in 4th ed as Defenders and I could see Obs introduce new defenders like the Battlemind, Swordmage and Warden into a sequel.

 

The design of 4th ed and PoE defenders is that they can't do more DPS than the heavy hitters and won't be as good at ranged weapons. So my suggestion is to look at the two 4th ed D&D Defender Fighters that are the Knight and Weaponmaster and see about mixing up some of those feats. Maybe it'd work, maybe it won't. Our group never played Fighters in 4th ed so I have little experience with them.

 

The main thing is they shouldn't be able to do more damage than the heavy hitters, because then players will just take the fighter  It would unbalance them. If there was a talent that made them as good as a heavy hitter, then that would make that talent mandatory for players. The Fighter would be the default choice for players if they can outperform a heavy hitter in both DPS and defence. Also this is not about the spirit of the IE games. This is a new IP paying homage to the IE games.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it may be a good idea to look at some feats with 4th ed defenders to make them more interesting. There's a whole slew of different types of defenders in 4th ed D&D and maybe PoE can take some of those feats from them. However, a problem could be is the developers may want to introduce new types of defenders in the expansion or sequel, so they have to be careful with what feats they introduce. Otherwise there may new classes introduced later and those defenders could be gimped. There's not much choice for Fighters (only two) in 4th ed as Defenders and I could see Obs introduce new defenders like the Battlemind, Swordmage and Warden into a sequel.

 

The design of 4th ed and PoE defenders is that they can't do more DPS than the heavy hitters and won't be as good at ranged weapons. So my suggestion is to look at the two 4th ed D&D Defender Fighters that are the Knight and Weaponmaster and see about mixing up some of those feats. Maybe it'd work, maybe it won't. Our group never played Fighters in 4th ed so I have little experience with them.

 

The main thing is they shouldn't be able to do more damage than the heavy hitters, because then players will just take the fighter  It would unbalance them. If there was a talent that made them as good as a heavy hitter, then that would make that talent mandatory for players. The Fighter would be the default choice for players if they can outperform a heavy hitter in both DPS and defence. Also this is not about the spirit of the IE games. This is a new IP paying homage to the IE games.

 

 

I don't mean to be rude, but what does any of this have to do with the two suggestions I made? The first doesn't increase DPS at all, it just frees them up to move around some more.

 

The second would increase DPS some, but only compared to other heavily armored characters. They'd still be slower than lightly armored characters.

 

As for the rest of it, I already said I haven't played 4E, so telling me "use some 4E ideas" is kind of useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why is there so much hate or at least distrust ? At this time the game is still too buggy to give it a fair critic. But people can at least admit that now fighters will do their job at holding the line. Does anyone remember having to make his wizard run like in a Benny Hill's sketch because a trash mob bypass a front-line of 4 fighters  ? Anyone ? Just for that the developers deserve a bit of trust. At least they will have a bit of micro-management before the level 20 (or any first high-level with peculiar abilities) or before obtaining magical items.

 

I don't know about boring but at least they have more options than the fighters in BG1 enough with the hypocrisy (or "mauvaise foi"). Maybe they need a bit of tweaking or 1/2 skills to make them competent at ranged fighting i don't know but at least it's an improvement (no more Benny Hill's wizard !!)

 

The rogues are a different matter but the idea of inflicting sneak attack under any advantageous conditions and a true evading skill add a lot of tactical options.

 

Just my humble opinion.

 

Any *right* wizard or sorcerer should have mage armor, stone skin, blur, protection from arrows, mirror image and a lot of other things that allow him to stay in the center of trash mobs group and killing them being almost invulnerable.
The only way you have a caster abusing prot spells that badly in BG is by tagging the rest function after every fight. Played as if you have a competent DM ready to bitchslap you for pulling that kind of cheap **** makes the life of your caster much more precarious.
  • Like 2

"You know, there's more to being an evil despot than getting cake whenever you want it"

 

"If that's what you think, you're DOING IT WRONG."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mean to be rude, but what does any of this have to do with the two suggestions I made? The first doesn't increase DPS at all, it just frees them up to move around some more.

 

The second would increase DPS some, but only compared to other heavily armored characters. They'd still be slower than lightly armored characters.

 

As for the rest of it, I already said I haven't played 4E, so telling me "use some 4E ideas" is kind of useless.

 

 

You made the suggestion to give them more mobility like the fighters in the IE games? What does that mean? What is the context of more mobility like the fighters in the IE games. In the IE games, you could just sit your fighters on the front line, tank and kill enemies. Same as PoE.

 

You then said, "To keep the spirit of IE games where fighters attacked fast and hard while wearing armor". Well first, the 'spirit' of the IE game is not an argument. What does that mean? This game is not in the spirit of the IE games. It's not a spiritual successor. It's paying homage to the IE games. Secondly, what do you mean by attack fast and hard? How fast? How hard? There are penalties on armour as you increase with DT. You want to hit faster? Wear lighter armour. You want to hit hard? Use another weapon that does more damage.

 

You also say, "maybe a class talent they can take that lets them ignore some amount of armor slowdown?". So your suggestion is to take a talent that ignores some recovery time for Fighters to attack faster, thereby increasing their DPS. Well that makes the talent a mandatory talent for every player to take and the fighter is not the DPS of the party. You're trying to make them one by increasing their attack speed? Why should the fighter get this talent and not any of the other classes? What's the argument this is purely a fighter talent and not a Paladin or Rogue or Mage talent.

 

If you don't know anything about 4E, then maybe google 4E Fighter feats, the Weaponmaster and Knight and see if something there might help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: I remember Josh stating in one of the updates (sorry, no quote) that although rogues and rangers have higher spike-damage, the fighters hit more consistently and so would deliver more damage over time.  Does this bear out in the beta so far? (or is it still to buggy to tell?)

 

I ask because seeing low-ish numbers from fighter hits might be discouraging and against the idea of 'fighter' unless you notice they're also hitting more often.


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Casts Nature's Terror* :aiee: , *Casts Firebug* :fdevil: , *Casts Rot-Skulls* :skull: , *Casts Garden of Life* :luck: *Spirit-shifts to cat form* :cat:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think it may be a good idea to look at some feats with 4th ed defenders to make them more interesting. There's a whole slew of different types of defenders in 4th ed D&D and maybe PoE can take some of those feats from them. However, a problem could be is the developers may want to introduce new types of defenders in the expansion or sequel, so they have to be careful with what feats they introduce. Otherwise there may new classes introduced later and those defenders could be gimped. There's not much choice for Fighters (only two) in 4th ed as Defenders and I could see Obs introduce new defenders like the Battlemind, Swordmage and Warden into a sequel.

 

The design of 4th ed and PoE defenders is that they can't do more DPS than the heavy hitters and won't be as good at ranged weapons. So my suggestion is to look at the two 4th ed D&D Defender Fighters that are the Knight and Weaponmaster and see about mixing up some of those feats. Maybe it'd work, maybe it won't. Our group never played Fighters in 4th ed so I have little experience with them.

 

The main thing is they shouldn't be able to do more damage than the heavy hitters, because then players will just take the fighter  It would unbalance them. If there was a talent that made them as good as a heavy hitter, then that would make that talent mandatory for players. The Fighter would be the default choice for players if they can outperform a heavy hitter in both DPS and defence. Also this is not about the spirit of the IE games. This is a new IP paying homage to the IE games.

 

 

If POE fighters were like dnd4e fighters, nobody would be calling them boring. Contrary to many of the arguments in this thread, if the POE fighter ends up being boring*, for most people it won't be because it doesn't share enough with the IE fighter- it will be because it doesn't share enough with the 4e fighter(whether they realize it or not). 

 

Fighters in 4e have a lot more than 2 choices under the blanket of the Weaponmaster, because weaponmasters get powers selections and as a result, genuine options.

 

Josh Sawyer has claimed that talents will give fighters more options, but with so few talents to choose, that's not looking likely. How much difference can 4 talents really make? An extra prone attempt or two?

 

OTOH, the current fighter build is also not simple enough- it still has encounter resources, so you still have to do more than position and target. A genuinely low-maintenance fighter should not have targeted abilities at all, or i'd argue, even modes. A fire and forget class.

 

POE's fighter should offer a choice between a Knight type 'simple defender', and a light take on a 4e weaponmaster. The ideal would be a basic 'modal' fighter with talents that offer the choice to either boost it's modes/passives, or give some nice punchy encounter powers.

 

Also as an aside WRT 4e's other defenders, JES has played a Warden and already cited warden powers when discussing some POE fighter powers.

 

 

*We don't actually know this yet because we need the updated AI and better data on engagement in the backer beta to see how the current POE fighter truly operates.

Edited by happyelf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Josh Sawyer has claimed that talents will give fighters more options, but with so few talents to choose, that's not looking likely. How much difference can 4 talents really make? An extra prone attempt or two?

surely that depends on the talents?

If the talents are merely '+2% to hit rolls' then yeah.  At the other extreme they could combine 'uncanny dodge, counter-atttack and regeneration+10' into one talent and be a choice between that and 'combat expertise, whirlwind attack and war-cry' or something that's more OP.

It depends on how many talents there are to choose between and how powerful/specalised those talents are.  Even 3-4 talents can make a huge difference if the talents each make a real difference.

 

Perhaps talents could be used to spec your fighter to be more 'fire-and-forget' vs 'high maintenance'

e.g. 'Self reliant' - fighter hits and dodges last-targeted / nearest enemy until they drop (passive mode).

vs. 'targetted shot' - tell the fighter to aim for vitals  for the next blow with corresponding increase in damage v. chance to hit decrease (active ability).

 

^admittedly not the best examples but you get the idea


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Casts Nature's Terror* :aiee: , *Casts Firebug* :fdevil: , *Casts Rot-Skulls* :skull: , *Casts Garden of Life* :luck: *Spirit-shifts to cat form* :cat:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If POE fighters were like dnd4e fighters, nobody would be calling them boring. Contrary to many of the arguments in this thread, if the POE fighter ends up being boring*, for most people it won't be because it doesn't share enough with the IE fighter- it will be because it doesn't share enough with the 4e fighter(whether they realize it or not). 

 

Fighters in 4e have a lot more than 2 choices under the blanket of the Weaponmaster, because weaponmasters get powers selections and as a result, genuine options.

 

Josh Sawyer has claimed that talents will give fighters more options, but with so few talents to choose, that's not looking likely. How much difference can 4 talents really make? An extra prone attempt or two?

 

OTOH, the current fighter build is also not simple enough- it still has encounter resources, so you still have to do more than position and target. A genuinely low-maintenance fighter should not have targeted abilities at all, or i'd argue, even modes. A fire and forget class.

 

POE's fighter should offer a choice between a Knight type 'simple defender', and a light take on a 4e weaponmaster. The ideal would be a basic 'modal' fighter with talents that offer the choice to either boost it's modes/passives, or give some nice punchy encounter powers.

 

Also as an aside WRT 4e's other defenders, JES has played a Warden and already cited warden powers when discussing some POE fighter powers.

 

 

*We don't actually know this yet because we need the updated AI and better data on engagement in the backer beta to see how the current POE fighter truly operates.

 

And that's similar to what I've been saying all along. And as you point out with the Weaponmaster in 4E, they get powers and have genuine options. However, while PoE draws some stuff from 4E, it's not a direct port. So all those options for the Weaponmaster won't be in PoE.

 

I like the idea of mixing the Weaponmaster and Knight abilities, powers and talents into PoE to give greater choice. But the more you bring in, the more you have to balance it. Which is why 4E separates the two. And not doing it would probably lead to bad builds, or on the other hand players ignoring some powers and talents and creating cookie cutter builds.

 

Also Sawyer is mixing the 4E Warden's powers with the PoE fighter?   :blink:  err, you already have a good template with the Weaponmaster. You might be able to draw some stuff from the Knight. Why ignore all the good things with those two and go for the Warden as well? I'd be ignoring the Warden for now.

 

You're also correct in that with the Beta, it is buggy, and we'll just have to wait and see how new updates with A.I. and engagement will fair with the Fighter. Also, we have to see what talents are brought into the game and see what options and choices they offer. It does come across as rather bland at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Josh Sawyer has claimed that talents will give fighters more options, but with so few talents to choose, that's not looking likely. How much difference can 4 talents really make? An extra prone attempt or two?

surely that depends on the talents?

If the talents are merely '+2% to hit rolls' then yeah.  At the other extreme they could combine 'uncanny dodge, counter-atttack and regeneration+10' into one talent and be a choice between that and 'combat expertise, whirlwind attack and war-cry' or something that's more OP.

It depends on how many talents there are to choose between and how powerful/specalised those talents are.  Even 3-4 talents can make a huge difference if the talents each make a real difference.

 

Perhaps talents could be used to spec your fighter to be more 'fire-and-forget' vs 'high maintenance'

e.g. 'Self reliant' - fighter hits and dodges last-targeted / nearest enemy until they drop (passive mode).

vs. 'targetted shot' - tell the fighter to aim for vitals  for the next blow with corresponding increase in damage v. chance to hit decrease (active ability).

 

^admittedly not the best examples but you get the idea

 

 

Leaving aside the issue of Talent power level between classes, there's still only so much you can do with four options. And that's across multiple levels. Assuming you forgo a boost to weapon accuracy, which is a hard sell.

 

As for your second point, one of the main stated goals of talents is to move classes up and down in complexity as an option. My concern is that POE Fighters are headed for a situation where the difference between their simple and complex talent builds are a few uses of knockdown more or less.

Edited by happyelf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's similar to what I've been saying all along. And as you point out with the Weaponmaster in 4E, they get powers and have genuine options. However, while PoE draws some stuff from 4E, it's not a direct port. So all those options for the Weaponmaster won't be in PoE.

 

I like the idea of mixing the Weaponmaster and Knight abilities, powers and talents into PoE to give greater choice. But the more you bring in, the more you have to balance it. Which is why 4E separates the two. And not doing it would probably lead to bad builds, or on the other hand players ignoring some powers and talents and creating cookie cutter builds.

 

Also Sawyer is mixing the 4E Warden's powers with the PoE fighter?   :blink:  err, you already have a good template with the Weaponmaster. You might be able to draw some stuff from the Knight. Why ignore all the good things with those two and go for the Warden as well? I'd be ignoring the Warden for now.

 

You're also correct in that with the Beta, it is buggy, and we'll just have to wait and see how new updates with A.I. and engagement will fair with the Fighter. Also, we have to see what talents are brought into the game and see what options and choices they offer. It does come across as rather bland at the moment.

 

 

I'm not saying the Poe fighter should be like the 4e fighter, perish the thought!

 

Honestly i'm kind of tired of hearing about how group combat means we have to put the fighter back in its box. I get it, in fact IIRC I made the point about multiple pcs to manage on another forum way back, before the devs even mentioned it, but sooner or later we need to talk about a class as a whole class, not a muggle/grog used simply as a meat shield.

 

As for the weaponmaster, that sort of design is what is, if anything, missing from the POE fighter- if people are saying it's dull, and it can't be more of a striker (as it arguably was in IE), then, by definition, it has to be a more dynamic defender. 

 

I don't think 4e separated the Knight and the Weaponmaster for reasons of balance per se. They did it because the Weaponmaster is the very popular early 4e version of the fighter, while the Knight along with the Slayer, is the less popular throwback fighter from the later 'essentials' line.

 

The Knight isn't a bad build, but it's very simple. It's a good point of reference in these discussions because it mainly relies on positioning. But the other side of the coin is the Weaponmaster, and fighter design should look at those two extremes. As written in 4e it is hard to combine them, but that doesn't have to apply to POE fighter builds. 

 

The same goes for the 4e Warden, I don't see the problem with looking to it. It's kind of a more doughy mid-range defender, which I can see elements of in the POE Fighter. Again, it's a useful point of comparison, especially since Sawyer has played one.

 

And of course, all this awaits more patching of the BB. Right now it's really hard to have fighters do much but park up front and burn their prones. It's not really fair to judge them based on that.

Edited by happyelf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it can't be more of a striker (as it arguably was in IE), then, by definition, it has to be a more dynamic defender. 

 

I think this is the important point we have to look at. Needs to be more or a dynamic defender. And I only see that through powers and talents. And with that in mind, it can't put out the same or more DPS as a striker because then it makes those heavy hitters like the rogue less desirable because they don't have the defence of a defender. It would go back to the IE types of characters which PoE is trying to avoid to a degree.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do remember that the number of levels per talent is subject to change. I made a prediction (that I still stand by) that by the time the game comes out it will be 1 talent for every 2 levels, not 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the Fighter built up some kind of resource, from doing generally fighty things? Then, "spent" that resource to either produce more offensive or more defensive (or even more support-related) effects with his abilities?

 

I know that's really general, but I'm just curious if maybe such a mechanic would make it easier for the Fighter to still be a stout/hardy "defender" while not still just being a meatshield.

 

Also, maybe (alternatively, OR in conjunction with this mechanic) some type of combo system would work well? The Chanter already has this, so it wouldn't be some completely unique/isolated new design to tackle. Maybe you just have several different ability types. Something pretty clear-cut, and you have different effects for the following ability (within 3 seconds or something?) depending on the specific ability types used.

 

I really think something like that could be applied to the Rogue, as well (even more easily, probably, since the Rogue already functions on a conditional ability based on the number of Afflictions present), to make it more versatile in what it does. Instead of simply "Sneak Attack procs and you do more damage," a handful of effects could be introduced, depending on the types of afflictions present. Or, maybe some other "triggers" that actively produce an affect based on the afflictions present. You could have an active-use attack that boosts a particular affliction, for example. The enemy's bleeding? Maximize that bleed. That sort of thing. Instead of just "keep afflictions on them to keep proc-ing the same effect to keep doing maximum damage."

 

It's interesting how dynamically the conditions for Sneak Attack can be met, but the result seems to be strangely monotonous. It kinda feels like the Rogue just gets an intermittent buff.

 

*shrug*. Just me thoughts.


Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if the Fighter built up some kind of resource, from doing generally fighty things? Then, "spent" that resource to either produce more offensive or more defensive (or even more support-related) effects with his abilities?

 

I know that's really general, but I'm just curious if maybe such a mechanic would make it easier for the Fighter to still be a stout/hardy "defender" while not still just being a meatshield.

 

There's already the monk and cipher who do the 'build up resources through doing' idea - but that makes sense lore-wise for them.  I can't see much of 'fighter hits 5 enemies, then he can use 'super swing' working out well.  On a very basic level you could have 'tippy tappy hit a single enemy 5 times then catch him off guard with a huge blow for extra damage' or something but I don't want the fighter to turn into a monk/cipher resources build.

 

Also, maybe (alternatively, OR in conjunction with this mechanic) some type of combo system would work well? The Chanter already has this, so it wouldn't be some completely unique/isolated new design to tackle. Maybe you just have several different ability types. Something pretty clear-cut, and you have different effects for the following ability (within 3 seconds or something?) depending on the specific ability types used.

this is a better idea - fighter combo-attacks.  Fighter could learn more combos as the game goes on (ideally by training with experts but if  not, then abstracted at level-up with talents).

 

I really think something like that could be applied to the Rogue, as well (even more easily, probably, since the Rogue already functions on a conditional ability based on the number of Afflictions present), to make it more versatile in what it does. Instead of simply "Sneak Attack procs and you do more damage," a handful of effects could be introduced, depending on the types of afflictions present. Or, maybe some other "triggers" that actively produce an affect based on the afflictions present. You could have an active-use attack that boosts a particular affliction, for example. The enemy's bleeding? Maximize that bleed. That sort of thing. Instead of just "keep afflictions on them to keep proc-ing the same effect to keep doing maximum damage."

 

It's interesting how dynamically the conditions for Sneak Attack can be met, but the result seems to be strangely monotonous. It kinda feels like the Rogue just gets an intermittent buff.

That's what I like about the rogue, in theory at least - they take advantage of the situations set up by themselves or others.  Being able to inflict more statuses themselves with a follow-up strike may be needed (can't remember off-hand how much they can do) but the main thing is to make them more viable in melee (from what I hear, many players are just giving them a bow due to poor survivability in melee).  Not as hardy as a fighter, just able to make more uses of tactical positioning / escaping danger through cunning.

  • Like 1

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Casts Nature's Terror* :aiee: , *Casts Firebug* :fdevil: , *Casts Rot-Skulls* :skull: , *Casts Garden of Life* :luck: *Spirit-shifts to cat form* :cat:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Also, maybe (alternatively, OR in conjunction with this mechanic) some type of combo system would work well? The Chanter already has this, so it wouldn't be some completely unique/isolated new design to tackle. Maybe you just have several different ability types. Something pretty clear-cut, and you have different effects for the following ability (within 3 seconds or something?) depending on the specific ability types used.

this is a better idea - fighter combo-attacks.  Fighter could learn more combos as the game goes on (ideally by training with experts but if  not, then abstracted at level-up with talents).

 

 

Fighter combo attacks? Can you give some specific examples? When I think of Fighter combo attacks, all I can think of is Street Fighter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Fighter combo attacks? Can you give some specific examples? When I think of Fighter combo attacks, all I can think of is Street Fighter.

 

 

LOL, sorry, I don't mean SF style.  I just meant that  fighters may be able to learn combinations such as parry-thrust / feint-backhand or (for a more active example) choosing to attack weak then next attack is strong makes it stronger than if just attacking strong all the time.  Or if you follow a swing with a thrust, you have a chance to unbalance your opponent and then get a free attack/interrupt/free-disengagement/whathaveyou.  If knockdown is followed by attack, it could be replaced with 'stomp' (though then we're into animation extras so it's probably a no-go)

(An attempt to bring out the feel of combat by using more than just 'attack')

 

Needn't be just for attacks - defensive combinations could produce different results - and defend-attack combos.

 

 

It would take better ideas to make it work (ie 'fun') but in theory it could make the fighter a more active class (though personally, I'm fine with the fighter being as described in the updates).

Edited by Silent Winter
  • Like 1

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Casts Nature's Terror* :aiee: , *Casts Firebug* :fdevil: , *Casts Rot-Skulls* :skull: , *Casts Garden of Life* :luck: *Spirit-shifts to cat form* :cat:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really follow. So you're suggesting a feat would grant two different standard actions instead of one at the same time? If that's the case, that's way OP and it is like Street Fighter. Even 4E doesn't do that. The closest would be doing a minor and standard in the same turn.

 

If you're trying to get two actions going during the fighters turn, you might be able to introduce Minor actions. eg. A minor action power could give you a small bonus to your defences by taking a defensive stance while your standard attack may knock an enemy prone.

 

But then minor actions should be given to all classes and not just the Fighter. One problem I see in trying to introduce minor actions is the combat is a total mess at the moment, including the recovery time and when you could use your minor action. Something like this would be better for turn based games where you could select different powers during a turn with Action Points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^not really trying to get 2 for the price of one - more that combining 2, one after the other, would produce a different result than the 2 separately.

You're right that it's easier to do that in a TB game - I'm just following up on Lephys' suggestion and brainstorming possibilities.

Minor actions, as you suggest, is one way to introduce the idea.  I like the idea of fighters using different stances with different effects, even if it's as simple as 'defensive'/'aggressive'/'mobile (light on feet and dancing)'/whatever


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

*Casts Nature's Terror* :aiee: , *Casts Firebug* :fdevil: , *Casts Rot-Skulls* :skull: , *Casts Garden of Life* :luck: *Spirit-shifts to cat form* :cat:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They've said pretty clearly that they want fighters to be a simpler class. I would prefer a more complex fighter, but I don't think we're going to get one.

 

Do remember that the number of levels per talent is subject to change. I made a prediction (that I still stand by) that by the time the game comes out it will be 1 talent for every 2 levels, not 3.

 

That's a pretty minor change, and the thing is, it's not every class that needs this.

Edited by happyelf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...