Experiences of a Fighter in 2.0

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
I generally support the idea @Saephis had regarding passive damage bonuses for Fighter/Rogue skills purchased, which would be able to help scale damage without making our system insanely reliant on KOs.

I don't support any idea that goes back to having pocket scholars, because skills should matter, and excluding healers from your mods because you have a healer in your stuff isn't at all good for the game.

It means tweaking the current skills and costs for Fighter/Rogue skills, but I think the end product would be far more enjoyable.

I also think every Combat Skillset should have passively accrued abilities: Wands/Healing Pool/Backstab/Prof.

(And Artisans who wanna do some fighting can, too!)
 

Cipher

Newbie
In the RPG Rock/Paper/Scissors, Casters typically are expected to be able to handle Fighters, Fighters can dispatch Rogues, and Rogues can take on Casters. This being said - the game has way too many take out effects which are way too available and leads to these sort of situations. Why take damaging spells, when you can take defensives and take outs instead, and on the off chance you actually need damage - use a wand? Allowing fighters swing more often doesn't really solve the issue - bind is second level spell.
It kinda does feel like most of those voting on the rules are playing casters from the current 2.0, doesn't it?
 
I honestly don't know what characters each of the owners play (heck, since there isn't a resource that identifies the owners of each chapter, there are chapters where I can't even identify the owner). However, I play a scout and I like the general idea of the rules changes I am seeing. I think some specifics need work, but I agree with theory on principle and think it is a healthy change for the game.

Admittedly, I have the luxury of perspective in the above statement. I can say, as a matter of fact and experience that the debate between the chicken and the egg (body bloat and damage bloat), precisely which came first. Damage bloat drove body bloat, not vice versa (similar to how magic item bloat drove take-out effect/defensive bloat). I suspect that many (not all) of the owners were able to attest to this in their discussions, and that historical fact drove these changes. But, at the same time, I can see how anybody who has been playing the game for 20+ years would have a limited perspective where the above may not appear to be so clear-cut. And given such a limited perspective, I can fully understand why these changes, in principle, would look bad for the game / fighters.

Also, I will acknowledge that some details of these proposals are somewhere between weak and bad. And I think a lot of the general opposition is due to focusing on those bad details (ie. I hate this one specific change, therefore I have a negative feeling about the concept in general). It is human nature to focus on the negatives and on specific details.

But, as someone who will be significantly affected by these rules, I can state that I would prefer they were implemented exactly as is (warts and all) than for the rules to remain unchanged (though I would more prefer that the spirit of the rules changes are preserved and that specific details are improved upon).

-MS
 
Last edited:

Polare

Count
Alliance Rules
Moderator
Seattle Staff
It kinda does feel like most of those voting on the rules are playing casters from the current 2.0, doesn't it?
I can definitely attest that the Owners play a wide variety of character types.

For what it's worth (I don't have a vote, but I do have some influence in the 2.0 ruleset) my three main characters are a Celestial Scholar, a Rogue, and an Earth Templar (and played a Fighter in the past). Personally, I feel that the rules for all three are vastly improved in 2.0, but the one who is improved the *least* is the Celestial Scholar - primarily because he relies on giant sacks of magic items which will be getting hugely nerfed (which is a good thing for the system, even if bad for him).
 

Muir

Fighter
I honestly don't know what characters each of the owners play (heck, since there isn't a resource that identifies the owners of each chapter, there are chapters where I can't even identify the owner). However, I play a scout and I like the general idea of the rules changes I am seeing. I think some specifics need work, but I agree with theory on principle and think it is a healthy change for the game.

Admittedly, I have the luxury of perspective in the above statement. I can say, as a matter of fact and experience that the debate between the chicken and the egg (body bloat and damage bloat), precisely which came first. Damage bloat drove body bloat, not vice versa (similar to how magic item bloat drove take-out effect/defensive bloat). I suspect that many (not all) of the owners were able to attest to this in their discussions, and that historical fact drove these changes. But, at the same time, I can see how anybody who has been playing the game for 20+ years would have a limited perspective where the above may not appear to be so clear-cut. And given such a limited perspective, I can fully understand why these changes, in principle, would look bad for the game / fighters.

Also, I will acknowledge that some details of these proposals are somewhere between weak and bad. And I think a lot of the general opposition is due to focusing on those bad details (ie. I hate this one specific change, therefore I have a negative feeling about the concept in general). It is human nature to focus on the negatives and on specific details.

But, as someone who will be significantly affected by these rules, I can state that I would prefer they were implemented exactly as is (warts and all) than for the rules to remain unchanged (though I would more prefer that the spirit of the rules changes are preserved and that specific details are improved upon).

-MS
If a proposal is being presented for playtesting, it gives the definite impression that the rules as written are intended at very least to be a viable end product, because live testing is well past the point where they should be theoretically sound.

If proposals are not, why would opposition be in any way surprising? Further, why waste everyone involved's time and energy?
 
Last edited:

James Trotta

Spellsword
Diversity Committee
In theory, I don't have an issue with the overall damage reduction, I just worry that people think it's a fix.

If the prof/backstab/wand changes go through, we're just reinventing the problem to look slightly different than it does now.
I think this is exactly right, but want to add that it seems we started looking to fix the rules from the wrong angle. It seems someone decided that damage bloat and body bloat were problems. Then we designed rules on that bad foundation. Why is bloat a bad foundation? Because when we measure the impact of the new rules we get fooled - 'oh body and damage bloat are down so mission accomplished'.

IMO, nothing is accomplished unless more players are having more fun. We should have started with human problems. 'New players are quitting after their first event' is a performance gap we can use to find good solutions. And when we measure our success we'll be looking at things that matter like how many people are returning for more events.

And given such a limited perspective, I can fully understand why these changes, in principle, would look bad for the game / fighters.
I don't know if it's only a limited perspective that explains why the rules look bad for fighters. Some of the people saying the rules look bad for fighters have been playing 20+ years. To me, the rules look bad because we're forcing high level fighters into crappy choices: min/max the system, play a broken character, play a caster, or quit.

Meanwhile, I don't see much emphasis on making new players feel useful in combat. High level casters should be feeling pretty awesome though.
 

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
I think this is exactly right, but want to add that it seems we started looking to fix the rules from the wrong angle. It seems someone decided that damage bloat and body bloat were problems. Then we designed rules on that bad foundation. Why is bloat a bad foundation? Because when we measure the impact of the new rules we get fooled - 'oh body and damage bloat are down so mission accomplished'.

IMO, nothing is accomplished unless more players are having more fun. We should have started with human problems. 'New players are quitting after their first event' is a performance gap we can use to find good solutions. And when we measure our success we'll be looking at things that matter like how many people are returning for more events.



I don't know if it's only a limited perspective that explains why the rules look bad for fighters. Some of the people saying the rules look bad for fighters have been playing 20+ years. To me, the rules look bad because we're forcing high level fighters into crappy choices: min/max the system, play a broken character, play a caster, or quit.

Meanwhile, I don't see much emphasis on making new players feel useful in combat. High level casters should be feeling pretty awesome though.
C-Casters.
 

Muir

Fighter
Yeah, but 'how do we make Earth casters feel useful instead of telling them to just play Templars' is another discussion that needs to be had, as there doesn't seem to be much will to set them up to be anything other than healbots.
 

Agnar

Newbie
Yeah, but 'how do we make Earth casters feel useful instead of telling them to just play Templars' is another discussion that needs to be had, as there doesn't seem to be much will to set them up to be anything other than healbots.
I notice that Earth casters can now get 225 points of healing per column which makes them even with the damage a Celestial caster can do per column. That's a big upgrade. But, I also notice that Healer's Grace still only gives 15 points of healing per High Magic point, whereas Elemental Burst gives Celestial casters 25 points of damage per High Magic point.
If these pools were brought closer that would allow Earth casters to use more of their spells for utility and combat.
 

Saephis

Squire
I notice that Earth casters can now get 225 points of healing per column which makes them even with the damage a Celestial caster can do per column. That's a big upgrade. But, I also notice that Healer's Grace still only gives 15 points of healing per High Magic point, whereas Elemental Burst gives Celestial casters 25 points of damage per High Magic point.
If these pools were brought closer that would allow Earth casters to use more of their spells for utility and combat.
Earth/Chaos storm is also currently suffering a decrease in damage, from being equal to Celestial-per-charge to being half-Celestial-per-charge. Standardization is so very important, yet...
 

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
Earth/Chaos storm is also currently suffering a decrease in damage, from being equal to Celestial-per-charge to being half-Celestial-per-charge. Standardization is so very important, yet...
Earth Storm is still technically equivalent, as I believe the changes would cause Earth Storm to double against undead, where current Earth Storm is fixed at 10 Damage, and "5 Spell Healing" would be double to ten. As a result, Earth Storm's Healing aspect would not be weakened outside of packet limitations, and made potentially stronger via Storm Manipulation and Potency.

Chaos Storm would, as you put it, be garbage.
 

Saephis

Squire
Earth Storm is still technically equivalent, as I believe the changes would cause Earth Storm to double against undead, where current Earth Storm is fixed at 10 Damage, and "5 Spell Healing" would be double to ten. As a result, Earth Storm's Healing aspect would not be weakened outside of packet limitations, and made potentially stronger via Storm Manipulation and Potency.

Chaos Storm would, as you put it, be garbage.
The *five elemental options* for Magic Storm would also double against creatures with similar to Undead:Earth reactions (Read: Flame Elemental vs Ice Magic Storm), so still half, by comparison.
 

JeffL

Newbie
Denver Staff
Is the Rock/Paper/Scissors = Fighter/Mage/Rogue model something that is actually set at the heart of Alliance rules? Meaning, is that the basic philosophy of the rules set (or of the ARC)?

To me it seems like a very un-helpful mental model to start from. I think it tends to allow us to dodge important questions about utility and fun by redirecting the conversation. I truly want all classes to contribute to all combats that are not specifically designed to be about one aspect of the game (i.e., I don't care to think about a fighter who enters a mage-duel tournament.)
 

Alavatar

Baron
Is the Rock/Paper/Scissors = Fighter/Mage/Rogue model something that is actually set at the heart of Alliance rules? Meaning, is that the basic philosophy of the rules set (or of the ARC)?

To me it seems like a very un-helpful mental model to start from. I think it tends to allow us to dodge important questions about utility and fun by redirecting the conversation. I truly want all classes to contribute to all combats that are not specifically designed to be about one aspect of the game (i.e., I don't care to think about a fighter who enters a mage-duel tournament.)
I asked a similar question back on page 5, but never received an answer. See below for the quote.

To me, solving the "problem" requires defining the roles of the base PC classes. For instance, is it supposed to be a Rock/Paper/Scissors paradigm? Or is it supposed to be a Tank/DPS/Utility paradigm?

If the former, then I argue that defenses are not as important because the Rock (fighter) vs. Scissors (Rogue) would only be lacking defense against Poison. However, the Scissors (Rogue) vs. Paper (Scholar) suffers from a Rogue's inability to consistently remove a Scholar from a fight.

But, if the roles are intended to be a Tank/DPS/Utility paradigm then I would argue the current design of Fighters is woefully inadequate to perform the Tank role. They don't have enough consistent damage to represent a meaningful threat to an adversary and are very susceptible to instant take-out effects, whether they are from Elemental, Poison, or Spell. Rogues can pass as DPS ... but can also fulfill the Utility role, same as Scholars. But I would argue that a Scholar is better than a Rogue in both of those roles.

After the underlying class design paradigm is established then I think we can move forward with identifying potential solutions.
 

Muir

Fighter
I still find that argument compelling. Fighters are definitely not adequate to be tanks without the MI system, and cutting their damage output drastically makes them bad at being DPS as well, so lacking any healing abilities I'm not sure what their intended role is.
 

JeffL

Newbie
Denver Staff
5 Constant Damage all day is their intended role.
The problem is that steady damage doesn't relate to a "tank" role. To be a tank you need to be the focus of damage and be able to soak a lot of it before you go down.
 

tieran

Duke
Gettysburg Staff
Marshal
Fighters can soak damage.

The thing that prevents them from being tanks (which is really the scout/rogue role) is that they have no easy/affordable way to mitigate disabling carrier attacks once their armor is breached.

So, they're great for that first 40-60 points, but after that, whether they are at 1 body or 200, it doesn't matter because they are eating that drain (or whatever) carrier.

Which is what casters are for: either earth to remove debuffs or celestial (or just a guy with scrolls) casting mend armor to keep the fighter up.

But solo, no, not tanky.
 
Top