Experiences of a Fighter in 2.0
- Thread starter Graham Wolsey
- Start date
After playing a playtest over the weekend, I feel like fighters were too easily destroyed by spell, poison, and elemental (to a lesser degree when it's damage) take-out style (binding, confine, paralysis, etc.) deliveries. Outside of loading them up with Spell Parry rituals or some racial advantages, they are too easily mowed down. There needs to be better options for fighters to defend against these effects.
I agree wholeheartedly with these statements.
Saephis
Squire
Martial, I would say, as even Archery gets pretty hosed. As-proposed/written, 2.0 would quickly devolve into people throwing birdseed at each other, exclusively, through the weekends.
Avaran
Baron
To slingshot off of Sarah's point:
I don't think the effect of Fighters losing Magic Items was really thought about. I've been harping on this point for months now -- as a Fighter who played the game for 7+ years with no magic items -- not having Magic Items SEVERELY limits the viability of Fighters. In 1.3, a Fighter without Magic Items only has Slay Burst and Eviscerate to get in, unload, and hope something sticks before being hit by a take-out effect (even soft CC).
Fighters don't have meaningful Burst any more, via Slays, because of the Slay scaling change in conjunction with the addition of more Armor being available, and generally more HP across the board.
The other affect is that Magic Items also allowed Fighters to sustain their Constant Damage. Without Magic Items, a Fighter NEEDS that higher constant damage to be a threat so that IF they can get into melee range, they can at least put some fear into their target. But with Higher body across the board, more armor available, the opposite is happening.
As a side note from our playtesting, it did not appear from our wrap up discussion that any of our player character playtesters purchased Hearty at all. We had at least five players playing a version of Fighter. I know there have been discussions about higher body totals in v2, but I have not seen them come into play in the 0.9 cycle. Excessive armor levels or ease of accessibility through items to higher temporary armor values or the speed at which armor can be refit was definitely a concern.
Thorgrim
Artisan
I am sure the response you will get to this is that monster body and armor totals are being scaled down to compensate for lower constant damage output. Yes PC's get boosts to armor value and potentially body via hearty, while monsters totals are going down, and we're supposed to believe that it will be kept that way. Even if that is the case our relative damage output compared to casters will decrease dramatically and it will just further widen the gap between scholars and fighters.
For example:
I am a fighter with 15 profs and a DA+3 currently swinging 20's with 225 build invested in prof.
I am fighting an orc champion who under 1.3 rules has 200 body and 20 armor.
It takes me 11 connected swings to kill the orc.
It takes a celestial caster 11 connected flame bolts to kill the orc.
Under 2.0 I lose my DA and I have to invest 204 build for 8 profs, allowing me to swing for 10's.
Under 2.0 the orc champion's body will drop from 200 to 100 and 20 points of armor.
It takes me 12 connected swings to kill the orc.
It takes a celestial caster 6 connected elemental bolt spells to kill the orc.
So in this example fighter effectiveness is relatively similar, however celestial caster effectiveness doubles. Now I'm all for increasing the damage output of celestial casters, I think it's silly that you should have to hit an orc will 11 flame bolts to kill it. However, if you're going to scale up their damage, you should also remove some of their take out abilities because even with the boost to damage, take outs are clearly the far superior method to dispatch an opponent.
Last edited:
Out of curiosity, how many "expendable skills" do you feel is appropriate to equate to "infinitely usable" skills in this case? Your example lists 12 connected swings (but each swing does not take anything away from your effectiveness for the rest of the day) vs 6 connected spells (of which each one takes away from the caster's abilities for the rest of the day). Staying away from takeout discussion (as you note it's kind of a different discussion), what do you feel is a fair comparison there in terms of "per-day skills/spells" vs "constant skills/spells"? 1 to 1? 10 to 1? Somewhere in between?
Evocation magic is bad, it's very rare for people to take it because takeouts are so much stronger.
I think this whole scenario is flawed as presented because the ratio isn't 2:1 it's 12:1 because one take out spell will kill the monster.
I think this whole scenario is flawed as presented because the ratio isn't 2:1 it's 12:1 because one take out spell will kill the monster.
Avaran
Baron
Weapon Skills are available to ALL classes, and EVERY class can swing for 1 (Dagger), 2 (Long Sword), or 3 (two-handed weapon) an unlimited number of times per day. Looking at the lower end of things, there isn't a vast difference in 2.0 between 2 and 5, which I think will be be the most common damage calls (followed by 10's at the higher end). Plus, with the oft-cited lower Body on NPC's (which I don't think will last long, but we'll see) 2 Normal becomes vastly more effective than it is now. To compare, I think 10's right now are pretty common, which is 500% better than 2's compared to 150% better in 2.0.
I think this is a very important point highlight - there isn't as large of a difference between the High End and Low End of Constant Damage in 2.0 as there is in 1.3, and in my mind, this lowers the overall value/effectiveness of XP spent on Constant Damage (Profs/Backstabs). This issue is made worse by the presence of take-out effects which allow for you to ignore Body/Armor and overshadows constant damage entirely.
Second point:
Spells are far less expendable than they are in 1.3 with the addition of Meditate. This means that spells are guaranteed to have some kind of effectiveness - the damage/effect resolves, is defended, or is meditated back later.
Third point:
Combat fatigue is going to be a real thing. I don't mean getting tired of swinging pipe or throwing packets. I mean having to stand there and fight an NPC for multiple minutes. How long is it going to take to land those Melee swings? Even swinging for 10, I guarantee you it's not going to be 10 straight swings that land (unless there is a huge skill disparity). Even with 2-3 PC's on one, it's going to take a fair amount of time to kill the NPC with just damage. Again, the effectiveness of spells shines through.
One thing I want to point out from the "Clarifications of Intent on 2.0 changes:" post stickied in this forum:
Please keep in mind that intended balance is *not* for single characters. I would (hesitantly) state that it should never have been about single characters. Alliance is intended for a coherent team of PCs working together. While there are certainly cases where individuals can (and should!) shine, soloing all the time is not one of them.
In 1.3, I'll start pretty categorically that Fighters are the end-all be-all class. Much of this is due to Magic Items in the current system. I can be a 40th level Fighter with a 40th level Scholar in my pocket. I *cannot* be a 40th level Scholar with a 40th level Fighter in my pocket - the Ritual system simply doesn't allow for that. Clearly, opinions differ on how much the skill system contributes to that difference, but suffice it to say that it also plays a part on how useful a character is throughout the entire day.
Part of the stated intent of 2.0 is to support teamwork. This means both in a single fight and throughout the day. It is entirely possible that 2.0 has swung one way or the other too far; I don't think anyone would say that it is 100% perfect as-is. However, I *do* personally believe that 2.0 is far better balanced for a well-tooled team than 1.3 is, which is almost always most optimal at the high end as a team of Fighters (since they can get that lovely high body total, high output consistent damage that doesn't run out, and pockets of scholar-reproducing magic items).
Fighters alone shouldn't be able to succeed or excel in every scenario. Neither should casters (or any other class). Hopefully everyone is on the same page about that. What the Owners want in 2.0 is for every class to feel important and useful - but also to need other classes to succeed.
Please keep that in mind when you're talking about respective balance. In 2.0, a Fighter teamed up with a Scholar should, IMO, be generally more efficient than a two-Scholar team over the course of a day. Classes and characters are absolutely intended to work together, not in a vacuum. That's part of the stated 2.0 intent.
So when you're talking about a single Fighter facing off against a single Scholar, you're definitely talking about a situation that is *not* the focus of 2.0. It's worth talking about and considering, but it's also worth spending some time and brainpower on what that Fighter can do when he's properly supported by a Scholar (and vice versa).
-Bryan
Please keep in mind that intended balance is *not* for single characters. I would (hesitantly) state that it should never have been about single characters. Alliance is intended for a coherent team of PCs working together. While there are certainly cases where individuals can (and should!) shine, soloing all the time is not one of them.
In 1.3, I'll start pretty categorically that Fighters are the end-all be-all class. Much of this is due to Magic Items in the current system. I can be a 40th level Fighter with a 40th level Scholar in my pocket. I *cannot* be a 40th level Scholar with a 40th level Fighter in my pocket - the Ritual system simply doesn't allow for that. Clearly, opinions differ on how much the skill system contributes to that difference, but suffice it to say that it also plays a part on how useful a character is throughout the entire day.
Part of the stated intent of 2.0 is to support teamwork. This means both in a single fight and throughout the day. It is entirely possible that 2.0 has swung one way or the other too far; I don't think anyone would say that it is 100% perfect as-is. However, I *do* personally believe that 2.0 is far better balanced for a well-tooled team than 1.3 is, which is almost always most optimal at the high end as a team of Fighters (since they can get that lovely high body total, high output consistent damage that doesn't run out, and pockets of scholar-reproducing magic items).
Fighters alone shouldn't be able to succeed or excel in every scenario. Neither should casters (or any other class). Hopefully everyone is on the same page about that. What the Owners want in 2.0 is for every class to feel important and useful - but also to need other classes to succeed.
Please keep that in mind when you're talking about respective balance. In 2.0, a Fighter teamed up with a Scholar should, IMO, be generally more efficient than a two-Scholar team over the course of a day. Classes and characters are absolutely intended to work together, not in a vacuum. That's part of the stated 2.0 intent.
So when you're talking about a single Fighter facing off against a single Scholar, you're definitely talking about a situation that is *not* the focus of 2.0. It's worth talking about and considering, but it's also worth spending some time and brainpower on what that Fighter can do when he's properly supported by a Scholar (and vice versa).
-Bryan
I think this quote is very illuminating considering the direction of the 2.0 rules.
I also think its flat wrong. The Master Construct scroll would like to have a word with you about having a Fighter in your pocket.
The two are not exclusive. We see plenty of non-Celestialists in Master Constructs.
Were I to rebuild my 45th level primary into what I feel is the absolute most solo-efficient character (in 1.3), it would without a doubt be:
- a Fighter
- with almost nothing other than Profs, Parries, and Stun Limbs
- Spirit Stored into a Master Construct
- with my existing magic items rebuilt by thirds into defenses (cloak/bane/spell parry), utility (Cure Mortal Wounds, Purify, Release, etc.) and offense (DA/Slayers/Prison primarily, with others to taste)
That's a character swinging 30s with every swing, with lots of immunities and 50+ defenses, and horrendous amounts of defensives/utility per-day spells (probably the "useful spell levels" equivalent of a 6-column Scholar). Any other class can't do nearly as much, mostly because you can't stack DAs like you can Expanded Enchantment.
It's also an absolutely ridiculous character which is incredibly difficult to scale for and throws the concept of teamwork out the window.
I don't know what your personal experiences are, but as someone playing a 45th level PC with oodles of Magic Items, and seeing many other characters the same, I'd definitively say that's (at least in my experience) the most powerful high-level character in 1.3. You don't start seeing this "high level Fighters are best" tendancy until you start seeing multiple level 40+ characters with hundreds of Rituals each, but once you do, there's no unseeing it
-Bryan
I don't know what your personal experiences are, but as someone playing a 45th level PC with oodles of Magic Items, and seeing many other characters the same, I'd definitively say that's (at least in my experience) the most powerful high-level character in 1.3. You don't start seeing this "high level Fighters are best" tendancy until you start seeing multiple level 40+ characters with hundreds of Rituals each, but once you do, there's no unseeing it
-Bryan
I don't understand what this has to do with Fighter skills or weapon profs though. Why isn't removing expand enchantment sufficient to fix 100% of this problem? Why do you then ALSO need to crush Fighters and Rogues by removing the only thing they are good at?
Avaran
Baron
I certainly agree with this. It's one of the reasons I am very much in favor of the Magic Item change!
I think that unless NPC's are built to withstand many caster takeout effects, two Scholars will be more effective than a Scholar+Fighter, mostly because the Fighter is utterly dependent on the Caster for all packet-related defenses (purposefully not including Magic Items). This very much promotes a "Line" style of fighting, which I really hate, almost wholly because I feel like a resource sponge. And when fighting in a line, it is a lot harder to dodge packets, for me, than if I am skirmishing (which is partly why I do that so much).
Most of the time, I'm thinking more about group encounters, town battles, and mods that are run at events and how those tend to play out (at least in my experience); basically, it's "If I were on plot...what would I do?" followed by "If I were a player, what would I do?"
You know the best, most efficient ways to take out an NPC built with Fighter skills/abilities as a Caster. You also know how dangerous an NPC caster is to a Fighter who doesn't have Magic Items and only "dumb defenses" to rely on. If it's just the two of us versus one high level caster...I feel like my character would be a liability because Polare would have to worry excessively about me if he were to want me to not get taken out. Triple-tap spells and I'm done for without Spell Parry. Triple Tap Poison or Elemental, I'm just done. I can't cloak effects, can't bane them. I just take them. This feels pretty terrible. I know how to fight, and how to be efficient, etc. You know how I fight (very conservatively generally and Skirmish at night). It feels like that play style is going to be overly burdensome and be excessively difficult to maintain without the payoff of dropping meaningful damage on a target, or meaningful take-out effects that reward being able to get in close to a target.
Saephis
Squire
Seeing as how few Fighters of high-level Seattle has/has had and how numerous Celestial Scholars, dripping with magic items it has, I feel Seattle's demographics speak to the superiority of different classes.
When I went after my Spirit Forge going from Earth Scholar to (now) Fighter, I strongly considered going Celestial Scholar because it was, frankly, the strongest 'build' out there, without relying on years of gameplay resources to make a character entirely self sufficient.
I went fighter, ultimately, because it was needed and because I didn't want to contribute to the problem that was (and still is) developing into the Celestial Scholar being the Master Class of high level. Best at sustained damage, best at defensives, and best at burst damage. 2.0, as seen thus far, does nothing to diminish that perception, but only widens the disparity between Celestial Scholars and literally everything else.
When I went after my Spirit Forge going from Earth Scholar to (now) Fighter, I strongly considered going Celestial Scholar because it was, frankly, the strongest 'build' out there, without relying on years of gameplay resources to make a character entirely self sufficient.
I went fighter, ultimately, because it was needed and because I didn't want to contribute to the problem that was (and still is) developing into the Celestial Scholar being the Master Class of high level. Best at sustained damage, best at defensives, and best at burst damage. 2.0, as seen thus far, does nothing to diminish that perception, but only widens the disparity between Celestial Scholars and literally everything else.
I'd love to see DATA on these questions. How many of different classes are played actively in different chapters and at what levels?