Suggestions On how to make Melee (rogue/fight/pal/barb) More Compelling

[Pray]

From JE Sawyer:

-- "The classes that people feel are most in need of versatility will have priority for Talents, so if people would like to discuss the specific ways in which they would like to see fighters and rogues (for example) change, that would be helpful to know."

 

So, lets get cracking, people - (Sorry if I already missed a thread on this, but I haven't seen it)

 

For me, it's very clear, there are four goals that need to be achieved to make not only Fighters and Rogues more compelling, but all of the melee-centric classes.

 

1) They need talents that allow us to focus them towards heavily offensive,  defensive, or even mixed builds if we so choose (yes, that even means a plate-armored tank rogue, or a full offensive paladin, or an archer centric Fighter, if i so choose.) I'd personally like to see melee-centric rangers (Aragorn, anyone?)

 

2)  Use talents to make these champions more or less high maintenance - if this means "buying" active abilities with talents, than so be it. I for one do not like to play a game where any of my characters feel like they are being less active, and just acting like auto-attack bots or soaks - others may not feel this way. Therefore, use compelling talents to help players decide which way they want their fighters/rogues to play, etc. "Less maintenance," should not be a design goal of a class, but a class should not feel overburdening would be a universal class goal, i'd think.

 

3) Rogues and Fighters especially need to feel like the masters of martial prowess - they need to have powerful per encounter abilities that give them that martial umph - maybe there are currently abilities that I am not aware of, but I am woe to see so many passives abilities given to fighters when casters are getting 1-2 ACTIVE on use abilties to choose from every level up. If you go about doing this through talents (as mentioned above) or as set class rewards, I personally do not care - but give them something. I can't forget Barbarians, and to a slightly lesser extent paladin's, also - Giving powerful and compelling per-encounter abilities prevents them from feeling high maintenance while also giving them options and versatility.

 

4) The melee classes need to have ways to circumvent rest/cast times - some of their abilities should be instant. This gives melee classes a more visceral feel and while i know this is probably something MANY people here will rue me for, i dare say it gives them a slightly more twitchy yet immersive interaction. The player FEELS a bit more of the melee - while casters get flashy animations and booms, melee needs some of that RIGHT NOW feeeling. Isn't that the benefit of being melee? Give melee ways to feel like they can change combat right this second. "Oh lawd, that caster is about to nuke my whole team, good thing I have this fighter right here to save my ass, he's got that pomel strike ability that he can use instantly." I think this argument makes melee classes in general much more compelling. If melee has a) closed the gap, and b) put themselves at significantly increased risk, then they should be rewarded with a little more instant gratification in their kit.

 

Here are some examples of abillties that i would LIKE to see from melee classes-

-- Paladin -  

Flash of Blinding Light: The Paladin emanates a flash of blinding light from his hand, blinding the target for the next melee attack from the paladin, which he makes instantly. If flash of blinding light is a success, the follow up melee attack will have a significantly increased chance to crit

Veil of Overwhelming Soul: The Paladin's soul overflows with energy, emanating powerful light that surrounds him and his nearbye allies. Allies within the light are harder to hit and enemies in the light receive an increased chance to miss. Lasts for 3 seconds, once per rest. Receives duration benefit from intelligence. After the emanation, the paladin receives  a 15% stamina hit for his reckless spirit.

Soul Infused Strike - At the cost of 10% of his/her stamina, the paladin makes a soul infused strike, his weapon(s) infused with power from his soul. The damage is proportionite to half of the stamina lost, and the paladin receives a 25% increase in attack speed for 6 seconds. 3 Per Encounter.

(Side note, I feel like these abilities also subscribe to the goal of no wasted builds)

 

--Fighter -

Pressing Assault - In a display of reckless abandon, the fighter makes three successive blows instantly, two for heavy weapons, but abandons all defensive ground, halving all of his defensive checks (minus DT).  Twice per encounter.

Pomel Strike - The Fighter makes an instant sudden strike with the handle of his weapon, having a drastically increased chance to interrupt the targets current attack. Once per encounter.

Leap Strike - The fighter negates disengagement/engagement and instantly leaps to a target within 3-4 tiles away. Only available after the fighter has felled an enemy.

 

 

--All classes - (talents)

Hot Swap: The character receives a penalty free weapon swap, once per encounter (passive)

Execution: At the cost of a significant hit to their defensive attributes, the character may make a melee strike with a 2 handed weapon that has a guaranteed chance to hit, critically strike, and does slightly increased damage. The ability has normal weapon attack time, x2, and normal recovery time x2. The enemy must be >25% stamina, and under a control or impaired effect. Unlimited uses. 

 

Here are just a couple of my ideas of what i'd like to see from melee. Abilties that have draw-backs and are not spam-happy (both low maintenance and some risk-reward) and give you that feeling that melee is a little more in your face and is more responsive then their ranged and caster counterparts.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Pray

[IndiraLightfoot]

Pray: Great initiative, and very nice suggestions!

 

Obviously, there's the thread on Josh and fighter/rogue not being boring over at the Combat & Mechanics, where he posted those comments. 

 

So, I'll paste over the replies from there, when he specifically asked for this. Then I vote for this thread to be moved to Backer Beta: Discussion.

 

 

Fighters: I'm not sure this is even a possibility, but at least a split between ranged fighter, sword-and-board fighter, 2-weapon fighter and 1-weapon specialist fighter.

 

Rogues: If we at least would get a sneakier, less "fighter-like" rogue, and then a powerful assassin kind of Corvo-rogue, I'd be happy.

 

 

 

I don't think it's particularly useful to argue about whether or not fighters and rogues are subjectively "boring", but we can productively talk about whether or not they have a varied list of abilities and, just as important, if they are tactically interesting to use in the context of PoE's combat.  If people say things like BG's fighters and rogues felt more versatile, of course I'm going to argue against that because I don't think BG's fighters and rogues were very versatile.  BG:EE and BG2's fighters and rogues (with kits) were much more versatile than BG's, but that's a different statement entirely.

 
They do have a varied list of abilities and I find them interesting in the context of my play-style. I enjoy characters who are exceptionally good at holding the line.
 
However, talents. This:
 

What I would like to do (and always wanted to do) is allow all characters, not just rogues and fighters, to have more options via Talents -- and if that means characters should be allowed to select Talents at first level as well, that's fine.  But we still need to actually implement them.  The issue has never been that we don't have ideas for Talents (we have a doc full of them), but we have scope limitations.  The classes that people feel are most in need of versatility will have priority for Talents, so if people would like to discuss the specific ways in which they would like to see fighters and rogues (for example) change, that would be helpful to know.

Yes.
The only thing we need to shape the characters we want to play is being able to select talents frequently.

Combat style talents at level one would do wonders for customization, I think. If someone wants to play a ranged fighter or rogue, let them select a talent that increases the efficacy of all ranged weapons. Same for dual-wielding, two-handed weapons, weapon and shield and single weapon.


***

Also, I don't think it should be a must for all classes to get talents at the same rate (I suppose this won't be very popular), but what if:

Warrior classes (fighter, rogue, barbarian, paladin, ranged, monk) get talents at level 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12.
Caster classes (wizard, chanter, cipher, druid, priest) at level 1, 3, 6, 9, 12.

The difference is only 2 talents.
I'd be fine with everyone having access to 7 talents, of course.  

 

 

 

 

if people would like to discuss the specific ways in which they would like to see fighters and rogues (for example) change, that would be helpful to know.

I'm glad you asked. I have posted these elsewhere, but here goes again.

I would like the option to build a ranged fighter, minus Mr. Bear. Ranger gameplay is cool, but it's not like a "pure" sniper. It's qualitatively different.

I would also like the option to build a "musketeer" -- someone who opens up with a volley, then switches to melee.

Currently this does not work very well, because the fighter's talents are so very melee-centric, while the rogue's are about mobility and sneak attack.

My proposal would be to open up the fighter class altogether. The current tanky fighter is fine, but I would like to be able to make a damager build, a disabler build, or a ranged build also.

Even more specifically --

(1) Equalize ranged and melee accuracy, and add talents that let us bump one or the other. Apply this to all classes. I honestly don't see any reason you'd want to railroad any class into specifically melee or specifically ranged. We the players should be making that choice.
(2) Make all the currently built-in fighter talents optional, and let us pick the ones we want from a broader palette.
(3) Add ranged talents. Reuse some from the ranger, add some especially martial ones -- Armor Piercing Shot (2/encounter, ignores DT), Knockdown Shot, Stunning Shot etc. (for ranged build)
(4) Add a Power Attack - Cleave - Great Cleave style sequence (for damager build).
(5) Add a modal talent that reduces Damage but boosts Interrupt. Separate one for melee and ranged if you like.
(6) At higher levels, allow taking the rogue's Escape ability.

Basically, I want to feel like I'm building a character, not taking a ready-made template and running with it. While this was more or less how AD&D fighters worked, there was a lot more scope for variation in DnD3, even with vanilla rules. I would really like something like that.

I would also like to see the wizard and priest classes similarly broadened in scope. I'm missing enchantment and conjuration spells from the wizard. Perhaps they're not there because you felt it would overlap too much with the cipher (enchantment) and chanter (conjuration); I think that even so it would be worth it to have them. The cipher and chanter could still be the go-to enchanters and summoners, but the wizard should be able to do some of it. The beauty of the wizard in DnD always was the enormous variety of spells; the current selection of blasts and self-buffs with the occasional area debuff just feels one-dimensional.

Finally... I think P:E is showing a tremendous amount of promise. Please take it to the finish. I've made a bet that you won't let release slip until 2015, but I will happily lose that wager if it means that sufficient variety and polish can get added.

And... thank you for making this.

(Edit: as an aside, I just started a BG1 playthrough. I'm still finding it a little dull, but I assure you, the fighter is more versatile in terms of combat role, even on level 1. Specifically in the way he can switch between ranged and melee, damager and tank.)

 

Edited September 10, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[PrimeJunta]

I would add: go back to the way the fighter was originally envisioned. Quoting from memory: "When you see a fighter, the only thing you'll really know is that he can take a lot of punishment. You can make a ranged fighter, or a tanky fighter, or a damager fighter."

 

Right now we only really have the tanky one. Fighters are no better than other classes at ranged or damager, and worse than many. That's just not right.

[Wombat]

Coincidentally, I just suggested possible high/low maintenance and offensive/defensive builds for every single class, too, in the thread mentioned here.

 

Not sure about ranged, though.  I'm yet to figure out how ranged classes actually work.  In PoE, Rangers are considered as the best ranged class who rely on physical attacks but they have melee animal companion and share their stamina with them.  I tried to keep the companion behind while letting the ranger just shoot enemies but, due to the teleporting enemy bug, I gave up my little experiment.  I think Rogues can be a decent ranged with the Reckless Assault mode and Sneak Attack, then again, it needs more testing.

[rjshae]

I'd like to see some Maneuvering talents that allow a Fighter to manipulate the opponents positioning on the battlefield, such as pressing them back (Might) or flipping positions (Agility). Primarily, these would be used to try to shift a foe into a spot where they can be flanked. Of course, these could be used against you as well... but more's the challenge.

[Pray]

I'd like to see some Maneuvering talents that allow a Fighter to manipulate the opponents positioning on the battlefield, such as pressing them back (Might) or flipping positions (Agility). Primarily, these would be used to try to shift a foe into a spot where they can be flanked. Of course, these could be used against you as well... but more's the challenge.

Displacement (All Classes - 20+ Resolve or 25+ Might) - The champion pushes through his enemy, displacing his enemy and filling his location. 

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I would add: go back to the way the fighter was originally envisioned. Quoting from memory: "When you see a fighter, the only thing you'll really know is that he can take a lot of punishment. You can make a ranged fighter, or a tanky fighter, or a damager fighter."

 

Right now we only really have the tanky one. Fighters are no better than other classes at ranged or damager, and worse than many. That's just not right.

 

Can you link that quote? I know it's from memory but I don't ever recall a quote like that. In fact, in the Backer update # 81, the Fighter seemed to be the tank on the front line all along. They're the classic 4th ed Defender role and that's what they do. There's not much scope in 4th ed as even the Heavy Hitter Fighters like the Slayer are also on the front line. The PoE Fighter seems more defender than anything else.

 

Even as far back as Backer update # 71, they were always envisioned as being on the front line. "We will be doing three more class pair updates in the future: The Leaders of the Band (chanters and priests), The Front Line (fighters and barbarians), and The Mob Rulers (wizards and druids)."

[Pray]

 

I would add: go back to the way the fighter was originally envisioned. Quoting from memory: "When you see a fighter, the only thing you'll really know is that he can take a lot of punishment. You can make a ranged fighter, or a tanky fighter, or a damager fighter."

 

Right now we only really have the tanky one. Fighters are no better than other classes at ranged or damager, and worse than many. That's just not right.

 

Can you link that quote? I know it's from memory but I don't ever recall a quote like that. In fact, in the Backer update # 81, the Fighter seemed to be the tank on the front line all along. They're the classic 4th ed Defender role and that's what they do. There's not much scope in 4th ed as even the Heavy Hitter Fighters like the Slayer are also on the front line. The PoE Fighter seems more defender than anything else.

 

Even as far back as Backer update # 71, they were always envisioned as being on the front line. "We will be doing three more class pair updates in the future: The Leaders of the Band (chanters and priests), The Front Line (fighters and barbarians), and The Mob Rulers (wizards and druids)."

 

Well, to be blunt, even if they never said it, it SHOULD BE that way. :D 

[Hiro Protagonist II]

Yeah I know. Talents may change some things but from experience with 4th ed, it's very hard to play a character that's not doing their role. You can do it, it's just not as effective as doing what their intended role is and makes encounters harder because a mob ruler is trying to be a heavy hitter, defender trying to do something else, and it just makes encounters harder than they should be. That's how I see it with PoE. Some classes are suited doing only one role and while they can do other roles, they don't do it as effectively. 

 

The Fighter in PoE is a defender. That's their role and while you can do other roles and equip them with ranged weapons, choose skills and talents to support that build, it may well turn out that it's underpowered than you would expect it'd be. Viable but not as good as what their intended role is. With 4th ed, you play to their roles and I see a similar thing with PoE.

[Wombat]

Yeah, I'm torn between the fixated but solid role and possible flexibility.  So, let's say, we'd better forget about 1) defensive/offensive build options.  After all, what the devs could appears to end up with giving as many as valid options through Talents and Abilities as Sawyer wrote-hopefully, there will be some rooms left for interesting active abilities/talents which make these "passive"* classes into more high maintenance ones if the devs use the resources well.

 

* At least, the word sounds less subjective than something like "boring" to my ears.

[Pray]

 

Yeah, I'm torn between the fixated but solid role and possible flexibility.  So, let's say, we'd better forget about 1) defensive/offensive build options.  After all, what the devs could appears to end up with giving as many as valid options through Talents and Abilities as Sawyer wrote-hopefully, there will be some rooms left for interesting active abilities/talents which make these "passive"* classes into more high maintenance ones if the devs use the resources well.

 

* At least, the word sounds less subjective than something like "boring" to my ears.

 

At the very least, i would say options are always good :D

[Pray]

Yeah I know. Talents may change some things but from experience with 4th ed, it's very hard to play a character that's not doing their role. You can do it, it's just not as effective as doing what their intended role is and makes encounters harder because a mob ruler is trying to be a heavy hitter, defender trying to do something else, and it just makes encounters harder than they should be. That's how I see it with PoE. Some classes are suited doing only one role and while they can do other roles, they don't do it as effectively. 

 

The Fighter in PoE is a defender. That's their role and while you can do other roles and equip them with ranged weapons, choose skills and talents to support that build, it may well turn out that it's underpowered than you would expect it'd be. Viable but not as good as what their intended role is. With 4th ed, you play to their roles and I see a similar thing with PoE.

 

You say that the Fighter's role is a defender, as if it's set in stone. You act as if it must be, because it currently is - well i'm passionate about this because a) I really want this game to succeed, and b) there's still time to change it.

 

This is a video game - the rules are ones we make - there's just no reason why it has to be that way. Fun and interesting builds are often a big part of the joy of playing games with character development. It's one of the pinnacles of western RPG's where class restrictions are often less stringent. There's just absolutely no reason why the fighter must be the defender. There's no reason why he can't defend offensively. There's no reason he can't be an archer.

 

The developers are giving us a framework for champions, and how we build off that should be a huge part of what makes building your own squad fun. How you decide to best make your party is up to you, even if it's "sub-optimal." But even then, there's no reason why an alternative path has to be sub-optimal in an ideal world. Balance will always be an issue, but in a single player game, balance does not need to be paramount. The most important thing is that many different builds be compelling for one reason or another. If that is the case, then "overpowered" and "optimal" becomes subjective and contextual.

 

Just like there will likely be muscle wizards and tank barbarians. There will likely be tank druid and even ranger builds - Isn't this the joy of creativity? 

 

But i guess there's a reason fallout 1-2 are my favorite RPG's of all time; there's no classes at all.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Pray

[PrimeJunta]

Can you link that quote? I know it's from memory but I don't ever recall a quote like that.

Looked it up. Didn't find it. I think it may have been Tim Cain in one fo the videos.

 

Here's Josh's first post on the fighter, though, which is fairly close in spirit, and IMO the current tank is quite far from the class described here.

 

Update #15:

 

"Fighter - Fighters are men and women trained to use a wide variety of traditional weapons in brutal combat. They are often put in -- or put themselves in -- harm's way and are built to take an extraordinary amount of punishment. Though not traditionally as mobile as the monk nor as likely to dish out individually withering attacks as a rogue, fighters are dependable and flexible, able to shift between a variety of attack modes that alternate between high damage, maintaining a strong defense, weakening opponents, and dealing harsh retribution to those who attack his or her allies. Some fighters build up arsenals of feints, knockdowns, and special attacks rather than rely on the “slow and steady” approach.

 

"And while fighters are often thought of as being primarily melee-based, they can specialize in a variety of weapons, including bows, crossbows, and even firearms. They're unlikely to outclass rangers at their own game, but fighters can be almost as dangerous at a distance as they are up close. Though it may not look like it to see them in battle next to wizards and priests, fighters are just as able to tap into the power of their souls to devastating effect: accelerating their attacks to a superhuman speed, striking foes with such power that nearby opponents are knocked off their feet, and maintaining a phenomenal endurance that allows them to rapidly bounce back from even terrible wounds."

[Hiro Protagonist II]

That's doesn't refute my point. If anything it reinforces it.

 

The first paragraph doesn't mean anything. It just says things like Fighters can dish out high damage but not as much as a rogue (heavy hitter), have a strong defense (defender), put themselves in harms away (defender), knockdowns (melee), etc. Nothing about ranged but has some melee stuff like the knockdown ability which is in the game.

 

The second paragraph also says and confirmed what I said about being able to do other stuff and being 'viable' but not as good. "They're unlikely to outclass rangers at their own game, but fighters can be almost as dangerous at a distance as they are up close." Define 'almost'? Well that tells me it's less than what they can do in melee. So that confirms they're more of a melee class and that's where their strength is.

 

Play to their strengths. If you want other builds like ranged builds, they'll still be viable but won't be as good as a melee fighter. And the update confirms it.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

Update #15:

 

 

 

"And while fighters are often thought of as being primarily melee-based, they can specialize in a variety of weapons, including bows, crossbows, and even firearms. They're unlikely to outclass rangers at their own game, but fighters can be almost as dangerous at a distance as they are up close. Though it may not look like it to see them in battle next to wizards and priests, fighters are just as able to tap into the power of their souls to devastating effect: accelerating their attacks to a superhuman speed, striking foes with such power that nearby opponents are knocked off their feet, and maintaining a phenomenal endurance that allows them to rapidly bounce back from even terrible wounds."

 

This is all I want for a fighter - versatile with all kinds if weapon setups, including ranged ones, and able to specialize in all those fields. The ranger can keep one of its roles as ranged beasts, and speaking of which, they have their totemic bond with an animal companion, wilderness lore, tracking, survival, etc.

Edited September 11, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Pray]

 

 

Update #15:

 

 

 

"And while fighters are often thought of as being primarily melee-based, they can specialize in a variety of weapons, including bows, crossbows, and even firearms. They're unlikely to outclass rangers at their own game, but fighters can be almost as dangerous at a distance as they are up close. Though it may not look like it to see them in battle next to wizards and priests, fighters are just as able to tap into the power of their souls to devastating effect: accelerating their attacks to a superhuman speed, striking foes with such power that nearby opponents are knocked off their feet, and maintaining a phenomenal endurance that allows them to rapidly bounce back from even terrible wounds."

 

This is all I want for a fighter - versatile with all kinds if weapon setups, including ranged ones, and able to specialize in all those fields. The ranger can keep one of its role as ranged beasts, and speaking of which, they have their totemic bond with an animal companion, wilderness lore, tracking, survival, etc.

 

I personally feel the ranger needs to lose it's title as "best archer" and reset that too "has a spirit bond with a pet." I'll be significantly upset if melee rangers aren't a thing, and I think lot's of people want to hold on to these tags as if their lives depended on it, which for some reason wants people to close the boundaries of the classes into comfortable boxes.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Pray

[Pray]

That's doesn't refute my point. If anything it reinforces it.

 

The first paragraph doesn't mean anything. It just says things like Fighters can dish out high damage but not as much as a rogue (heavy hitter), have a strong defense (defender), put themselves in harms away (defender), knockdowns (melee), etc. Nothing about ranged but has some melee stuff like the knockdown ability which is in the game.

 

The second paragraph also says and confirmed what I said about being able to do other stuff and being 'viable' but not as good. "They're unlikely to outclass rangers at their own game, but fighters can be almost as dangerous at a distance as they are up close." Define 'almost'? Well that tells me it's less than what they can do in melee. So that confirms they're more of a melee class and that's where their strength is.

 

Play to their strengths. If you want other builds like ranged builds, they'll still be viable but won't be as good as a melee fighter. And the update confirms it.

 

You seem to WANT it to be this way. Can I ask why?

 

And while ultimately what you take from these passages is highly subjective, I think you're sandbagging your analysis a little far in your direction.

 

If anything, these passages leave a lot of things open ended.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

You say that the Fighter's role is a defender, as if it's set in stone. You act as if it must be, because it currently is - well i'm passionate about this because a) I really want this game to succeed, and b) there's still time to change it.

 

This is a video game - the rules are ones we make - there's just no reason why it has to be that way. Fun and interesting builds are often a big part of the joy of playing games with character development. It's one of the pinnacles of western RPG's where class restrictions are often less stringent. There's just absolutely no reason why the fighter must be the defender. There's no reason why he can't defend offensively. There's no reason he can't be an archer.

 

The developers are giving us a framework for champions, and how we build off that should be a huge part of what makes building your own squad fun. How you decide to best make your party is up to you, even if it's "sub-optimal." But even then, there's no reason why an alternative path has to be sub-optimal in an ideal world. Balance will always be an issue, but in a single player game, balance does not need to be paramount. The most important thing is that many different builds be compelling for one reason or another. If that is the case, then "overpowered" and "optimal" becomes subjective and contextual.

 

Just like there will likely be muscle wizards and tank barbarians. There will likely be tank druid and even ranger builds - Isn't this the joy of creativity? 

 

But i guess there's a reason fallout 1-2 are my favorite RPG's of all time; there's no classes at all.

 

 

You misunderstand me.

 

Going from the updates, the role has always been intended that the Fighter is a defender first and foremost. All the updates confirm this. They are primarily a melee class first and that's where their strengths are. Yes, you can make other builds and they will still be 'viable', but their main strength is on the front line, not away from it.

 

I find this to be a terrible design compared to other games. It pigeonholes the class. The fighter in 4th ed is inflexible as well as I have played 4th ed for years. I enjoyed 4th ed with my rogue as my character is cheesy, OP and a whole lot of fun, I just don't enjoy playing some of the other classes like the fighter and I will never play it in pnp. I have since moved onto other pnp games but I understand the class of the Fighter and it's role as a defender. There's not much you can do in 4th ed other than sit there and take it and there are better 'defenders' than the fighter in 4th edition imo.

 

Do I think it should be better? Of course. But consider the MMO/4th ed type of fighter, how the fighter is played in those games and also consider PoE does take a fair bit from 4th ed D&D. I don't think you can do much to change it into a ranged character and still get the same or more damage output. It just hasn't been designed that way. There's a lot of design decisions I don't like with PoE, but that's for another time.

[IndiraLightfoot]

Pray: Yeah. I agree 100%! I was tired when I wrote that. Look closely and it says "one of its roles". I should have typed in one more sentence: "And then please add a melee ranger with light armour and no shield, perhaps two weapon fighting specialist, as an option."

Edited September 11, 2014 by IndiraLightfoot

[Hiro Protagonist II]

You seem to WANT it to be this way. Can I ask why?

 

And while ultimately what you take from these passages is highly subjective, I think you're sandbagging your analysis a little far in your direction.

 

If anything, these passages leave a lot of things open ended.

 

LOL.

 

Go to the Backer Beta forum. You should see my posts. Pretty much everything that's been done with PoE is NOT what I wanted with a spiritual successor to the IE games.

 

And I'm not being subjective or sandbagging or selective quoting. There is no open ended passages. They read as it is. It's people who have misinterpreted or played the 'viable' card all the time that's being subjective and trying to change the meanings. The updates are as clear as day. The Fighter has always been a primarily front line character and while you can make it ranged, it won't put out the same or more damage as melee. The updates say that.

 

And over the last two years when I bring up stuff like this like some classes being pigeonholed, etc, I have someone argue with me saying, "dude, that's like your opinion man. Other builds will be viable. The game hasn't even come out."

 

Well now it's time for me to show these guys that this was intended all along. The updates confirm it.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[Wombat]

We all have our own preferences but, judging from the latest info about Health/Stamina implementation, the devs seem to differentiate front-liners from ranged characters despite of what they wrote in the past. Like it or not, the change will be most likely to make it more difficult to swap these roles just relying on how you build them.

[Pray]

 

You seem to WANT it to be this way. Can I ask why?

 

And while ultimately what you take from these passages is highly subjective, I think you're sandbagging your analysis a little far in your direction.

 

If anything, these passages leave a lot of things open ended.

 

LOL.

 

Go to the Backer Beta forum. You should see my posts. Pretty much everything that's been done with PoE is NOT what I wanted with a spiritual successor to the IE games.

 

And I'm not being subjective or sandbagging or selective quoting. There is no open ended passages. They read as it is. It's people who have misinterpreted or played the 'viable' card all the time that's being subjective and trying to change the meanings. The updates are as clear as day. The Fighter has always been a primarily front line character and while you can make it ranged, it won't put out the same or more damage as melee. The updates say that.

 

And over the last two years when I bring up stuff like this like some classes being pigeonholed, etc, I have someone argue with me saying, "dude, that's like your opinion man. Other builds will be viable. The game hasn't even come out."

 

Well now it's time for me to show these guys that this was intended all along. The updates confirm it.

 

Well lets hope for both our sakes that Sawyer and OE comes in big, and we get the class variety that we all want.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

I very much doubt it. As Wombat pointed out above and what's being discussed in this thread, and I noticed people in this thread like PrimeJunta liking it, this will push classes like the Fighter into more of a melee front line character even more.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[PrimeJunta]

@Hiro Yes, in the subsequent updates the fighter was clearly specced as a defender/tank. That's why I'd like them to go back to the original vision, which, as the quote I showed you, was clearly much more versatile than that:

 

"Fighters are dependable and flexible, able to shift between a variety of attack modes that alternate between high damage, maintaining a strong defense, weakening opponents, and dealing harsh retribution to those who attack his or her allies ... while fighters are often thought of as being primarily melee-based, they can specialize in a variety of weapons, including bows, crossbows, and even firearms. They're unlikely to outclass rangers at their own game, but fighters can be almost as dangerous at a distance as they are up close."

 

This does not describe the fighter as it currently exists, namely, a pure tank. I would like them to roll back to that original vision.

[PrimeJunta]

I very much doubt it. As Wombat pointed out above and what's being discussed in this thread, and I noticed people in this thread like PrimeJunta liking it, this will push classes like the Fighter into more of a melee front line character even more.

You're right, Hiro. My liking it was hasty. On further reflection I'm not sure I like it much at all.