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

[IndiraLightfoot]

Hiro: Yep! You got a point here. I liked it, since I instinctively saw a potential for more variation between classes, but I somehow missed that it locks in class types even harder, at least if they are kept as one trick ponies.

[Pray]

I think it's very important that we get this point across to OE and Sawyer. Amazing observation Hiro and friends.

 

I suggested talents (in the relevant thread) available to all classes that will increase their health multiplier by 1 which can be purchased twice:

Made of Iron (I & II) -

 

I think that's a pretty solid idea that instantly makes the classes all more versatile.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Pray

[PrimeJunta]

Yep, @Pray, that's a much better idea.

 

More class versatility, not less.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

@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.

 

It does describe them as a tank and how they are in the game.

 

As it currently is in the beta:

 

- They are dependable and flexible. They're dependable on the front line and flexible in their attacks on the front line. True.

- They're able to shift between a variety of attacks modes on the front line by alternating between high damage, maintaining a strong defense, weakening opponents, and dealing harsh  retribution to those who attack his or her allies on the front line. True.

- They can specialize in a variety of weapons, including bows, crossbows, and even firearms. True.

- They're unlikely to outclass rangers at their own game. True. Because they are a front line class and giving them ranged weapons won't be as affective. Viable? Maybe, Effective? ???

- Fighters can be 'almost' as dangerous at a distance as they are up close which is true. They are more dangerous on the front line which is true than at range as it currently is. The 'almost' is meaningless to me because it hasn't been defined. If a Fighter does 100 damage with melee and 60 with ranged, well that's almost as good.

 

Okay, I inserted the 'on the front line' in those quotes to make the point clearer but those quotes even without the 'on the front line' still stand with how the class is in the beta.

 

Now if people have assumed every class in the game can be changed from melee to ranged on a whim with selecting different attributes and skills, then it won't work. It may for some, but not all depending on their role. And the fundamental reason is they have pre-defined roles despite their class. A tank will always be on the front line. That's their job. When you think in terms of 'roles' and not 'classes', it makes sense. A Striker (heavy hitter) can both be melee and ranged, a defender can't. A defender can't be at the back because they're not defending anymore and their ranged attacks will be less than a melee attack. You're not being a defender anymore, you're trying to be a striker? I don't know why a defender would be at range. It doesn't make sense to me.

 

The same with a wizard. Their main role is crowd control, not defending on the front line which is why I've seen posts say they suck on the front line with heavy armour in the beta. Are they viable? Maybe. I wouldn't try it. Are they effective as a defender? Probably not as I've never tried it and because they're not a defender.

 

And this is a problem with 4th edition. When you take on a role, you can't change it.** You're stuck with that role. If you're a defender, you'll always be a defender. You can try and turn a controller (Wizard) into a striker (Sorcerer) but it won't be as good as it's a pre-defined role. And the GM would be questioning why you would want to do that and not take the Sorcerer class. And it's why 4th ed has the Sorcerer as the Striker and not the Wizard. You choose your role and class. Not your class and try and change it to what role you want it to be. If you want to change your role, you create another character. That's what we did. And that's similar with roles in PoE. When you make your character at the start of the game and it's a defender, more than likely it will always be a defender, such as the fighter. You might be able to change some classes in the game because PoE is not a straight 4th ed port, but a class like the Fighter you can't. It's in the name - defender.

 

** Of course with 4th ed, it has multi-classing at character creation with two classes, but my group found multi-classing gimped your character and it was better to go with single classes.

 

But I find these debates are all academic now. We're three months away from release and classes like the Fighter will always be a front line character. That will never change no matter what you do and what talents are introduced. It doesn't make sense to me to have your defender as a ranged character. Some other classes might be able to change but I doubt it. With the proposed new stamina/health system, classes will be locked into their pre-defined roles even more. eg. a class like the Wizard will be locked into range combat, not melee. Talents will not be enough to change these roles.

[morhilane]

@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.

 

Fighter in PoE is not a pure tank, it has the best melee accuracy available among the melee classes, which correlate directly into DPS, and only the Rogue sneak attacking or some classes trading defense for offense can do better burst.

 

You only lose that melee damage efficiency by engaging the defensive mode (it's not always on). They can still use ranged weapons, nothing stop them from picking them up or even specializing in them, you will want to increase their Dex though because their accuracy with ranged weapon is low.

[Monte Carlo]

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.

 

B...but...this is the spiritual successor to the IE games. Right?

[Gromnir]

 

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.

 

B...but...this is the spiritual successor to the IE games. Right?

 

actual, "spiritual successor" is not something obsidian ever claimed... not that such a descriptor actual means anything. haven't we been down this road? 

 

observations from an earlier thread:

 

the bb fighter is a functional mmo tank, and we ain't made our own fighter as yet to see what we may do to customize the class different. nevertheless, our 5th level fighter clear has far more options in combat than did any ie equivalent... and that includes an iwd2 fighter, which were the 7th or 8th improvement/incarnation o' the ie games. am not understanding criticisms that rogues is boring as they has considerable encounter abilities, and when we mix cipher with rogue escape, we get many extreme interesting results. oh, and as noted above in this thread, am thinking we might be playing paladin wrong because battles took literal 2x as long to finish with a paladin main as any other class we has played, and that is all but monk and fighter at this point. however, we ain't played paladin since the patch, so...

 

anywho, our real concern is paladin. of the classes we played, which is almost all, paladin is least efficacious. we got buttons to push and abilities to activate with the paladin, but the paladin, based on admitted very limited gameplay, is weak. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 11, 2014 by Gromnir

[Monte Carlo]

Gotcha! I knew you couldn't help yourself.

[Gromnir]

I knew you couldn't help yourself.

am always getting irony and hypocrisy confused.

 

*chuckle*

 

in any event, is more happenstance than anything that led us to respond to this thread. have been confining self mainly to bb and mechanics portions o' board, so your plan, if plan it were, was odd. if not for mention of paladins in title, we woulda' ignored. am serious that we believe we is playing paladins wrong. is hard to believe they is as ineffectual as we is playing them.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[rjshae]

"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.

 

Thinking back to D&D v3.5, the flexibility of the Fighter class came about largely because of the mass of Feats they could choose. It was also true in that system that Rangers could outclass a Fighter in ranged combat. But that didn't stop Fighters from gaining proficiency with a ranged weapon, did it?