Experiences of a Fighter in 2.0

mythic

Knight
Owner
Calgary Staff
In my opinion, the (slooooooow) build scaling at higher levels effectively "caps" this. I don't see a need for a hard cap :)
True, but there are players on here saying that 8s are low, 10s are low, 25s are "okay" and then discussion of 30s. So even though build slows down, is there a number players would be striving for? Some players think 10s are fine, 30s are okay etc.

Cap is not the right word I am looking for. But somewhere, there needs to be an overall goal. So if someone wants to "race to 20s" then cool, that they can do. If everyone thinks 15s are where all day swings should be, that is where the scale can come in properly. To create a scale, you need to know where a feasible goal is. So, as an example, the players all think 12s are a great all day number when you are 200 XP in, if you do nothing else but by Proffs, then we can actually build a scale that works to that goal.

In the OP, if a Fighter did nothing but buy profs, at 204 XP (so they match the 5s being thrown with wands which takes 203 Scholar build), they would be swinging 10s all day with a 1HD, 14s with a 2HD or bow. Is that "enough"?

This issue that has already been brought up is bloat. Even in our Chapter, going on 6 years, we are needing to send out Monsters with 1000s of body to make it an interesting fight and with tons of protectives so they are not 2 shotted down. So scaling the constant damage is required.

Scaling could be tweaked for sure. That is why we are running playtests. To find out if things are not working.

Resolute may be in need of a tweaking to stop an effect as well as leave a PC with 1 body (player's choice to Resolute a Sleep or Eviscerate and keep fighting). We will have to see.

Please note, my main is 31st, currently swings 21 from behind. In the new rules he will be down to 10s from behind. I'm okay with that change. Others may not be and that is their prerogative. But somewhere we need to find a balance.

If players have some other ideas on Fighter skills they would like to see in game, chat with an Owner and they can take it to the others.
 

Graham Wolsey

Scholar
Denver Staff
Marshal
@mythic you mention you need to scale monsters with 1000s of body. Do you not also give these monsters resist magic or other immunities? Why is body bloat an issue but not resist magic bloat?
 

Kasuni

Squire
True, but there are players on here saying that 8s are low, 10s are low, 25s are "okay" and then discussion of 30s. So even though build slows down, is there a number players would be striving for? Some players think 10s are fine, 30s are okay etc.

Cap is not the right word I am looking for. But somewhere, there needs to be an overall goal. So if someone wants to "race to 20s" then cool, that they can do. If everyone thinks 15s are where all day swings should be, that is where the scale can come in properly. To create a scale, you need to know where a feasible goal is. So, as an example, the players all think 12s are a great all day number when you are 200 XP in, if you do nothing else but by Proffs, then we can actually build a scale that works to that goal.

In the OP, if a Fighter did nothing but buy profs, at 204 XP (so they match the 5s being thrown with wands which takes 203 Scholar build), they would be swinging 10s all day with a 1HD, 14s with a 2HD or bow. Is that "enough"?

This issue that has already been brought up is bloat. Even in our Chapter, going on 6 years, we are needing to send out Monsters with 1000s of body to make it an interesting fight and with tons of protectives so they are not 2 shotted down. So scaling the constant damage is required.

Scaling could be tweaked for sure. That is why we are running playtests. To find out if things are not working.

Resolute may be in need of a tweaking to stop an effect as well as leave a PC with 1 body (player's choice to Resolute a Sleep or Eviscerate and keep fighting). We will have to see.

Please note, my main is 31st, currently swings 21 from behind. In the new rules he will be down to 10s from behind. I'm okay with that change. Others may not be and that is their prerogative. But somewhere we need to find a balance.

If players have some other ideas on Fighter skills they would like to see in game, chat with an Owner and they can take it to the others.
I can see where you're coming from!

I guess where I come from is that I'm ok with some things on the field having 1000's of body. These shouldn't be *every* fight, but occasionally, you have your "big bad" dragon or specific storyline person who needs to be on the field for awhile. They're a grind, but I don't see that as a bad thing, so long as you *also* have other things on the field to engage. That huge 3000 body monstrocity is for those who are down to team up to grind it. Personally, I love those fights, and so do other people I know of! Not everyone does though - and that's why there has to be variety on the field.

I think it's more a matter of what your players want too.

Do they not like those monsters? Send out more things with ~200-300 body and 2-3 defensives for highbies, and just have them spawn over and over (with fresh lootz each time!).

I think it's about making sure we offer variety - I don't think the 3,000 body monster is a bad thing. If it's hard to track, you can also always have a monster marshal to count the body :)

I see lots of easy solutions that don't require a change to the rules.

Overall the rules only matter for PvP in my opinion - the rest is up to plot team / scaling :)
 

Saephis

Squire
The notion that all fighters with a sensible build stop at or aspire for somewhere between 5-7 profs universally seems a bit silly, frankly, based off "affordability" of the weapon proficiency skill. "Just fill a card with take-out abilities" isn't a viable counter-point to that, in my mind, as this will eventually lead to NPCs specifically listening for high numbers and risk ignoring all other calls.

The fact that the rules-as-proposed don't actually reduce build-purchased damage via Celestial reinforce there's a class disparity on the proposed rules. The damage increase for non-blockable wand damage (that comes free) doesn't increase at an exponential rate, like weapon proficiency purchases, remember. Just XP -> Elemental Packet-delivered Damage (Also, still free), to couple with their column upon column of (possible) straight damage.
 

Kasuni

Squire
I don't think there also necessarily is an single "goal". There's probably first the goal of "I'll get to 5's!" followed by "Oh wow, I'm almost to 10!" then "Someday, I'm going to swing for 20!"

There are always new goals, until it slows down so much that it's just not realistic.

For example (celestial equivalent), Kasuni throws for 20's. I'm not planning my way up to 25's (because an 18 column will take like 10 years). I'm just stoked about 20. Other people might want 25, and that's ok! But for me, I decided to pick up double daggers instead. But 20's were a goal for *years* and it was a great feeling to strive for it.
 

mythic

Knight
Owner
Calgary Staff
@mythic you mention you need to scale monsters with 1000s of body. Do you not also give these monsters resist magic or other immunities? Why is body bloat an issue but not resist magic bloat?
I did say we had to give them tons of protectives. That includes Resist and Immunities, yes.
 

Graham Wolsey

Scholar
Denver Staff
Marshal
I did say we had to give them tons of protectives. That includes Resist and Immunities, yes.
So why scale weapon proficiency damage and not scholar spells? How is 16 deaths more conducive to a balanced encounter than swinging a 1 handed weapon for a big number?

It seems the problem being solved for is a cap in total build, however the 2.0 rules as written in [0.9] focus on melee damage and ignore spells.

Monsters will always be scaled to present a challenge for the Pcs, the problem comes when the delicate balance between classes is removed.
 

Tulbor

Artisan
alright alright, here you go.

I'm in low 30s, so my buildout is going to be vastly different, of course. I also benefit from a bunch of built sunk into blacksmithing which counts towards fighter skills, which is nice. It allows me to pick up more fighter skills without having to force the weapon prof up more.

That aside, the ramp up cost of the profs seems completely unnecessary. If the idea is to bring down the huge amounts of damage along the lines of a bunch of profs + da + monster slayer + whatever else and having a fighter hit something for 80-120 damage every shot after buffs, this has already been achieved by removing all the boosters. Now all it's doing is bringing it down to the point of people going "well why even bother being this class?"

Currently my damage is dropping from 15/20 (da/monster slayer) to 5s or 6s because to go to 8 doesn't make sense due to xp costs, and 7 is not as good of a call as 5, 6, or 8. Now, like I said, I benefit from blacksmithing being included, so I can push the other skills forward, and being low 30s, the current test build is set with a bunch of slays, parries, and everything else, because I can't push the static damage higher due to the increasing cost.

If the idea is to diversify the skill sets, then yes, that's working. But the flurry rule and the single SWING for slay/eviscerate makes it really crappy and, as pointed out, makes the disarm/stun/shatter + slay/eviscerate combo just disgusting. If the idea was to give the big hits like slay and evis more chances of landing, this isn't it, because they will still get the same defenses as before from the casters, while having almost no effect on other fighters who are wearing up to 124 armor.

Now on the subject of shatter. Yes, in the playtest described before, it seemed overpowered, but in the chapters I play in, I don't see it used often, and when it does get used, it doesn't get a lot of success. Things will still have magic on them, and will become immune to shatter. Skill store on your weapon, temporary armor points ritual on your armor, something else for your shield. You might get a bit of time where things get blown up, but it'll pass (as a blacksmith, that's unfortunate and feeds into the bigger problem I have with the current blacksmithing system all together, but that's a different subject). It's also, not completely but at least somewhat, countered by strengthening your items. Again, something that hardly ever happens, because (again, a problem with the blacksmithing profession) it's idiotically priced and stupid expensive. Why strengthen a sword, when you can just get 5 of them. Well, at least now you have a reason to strengthen.

Some things that I rather not speculate on until I actually do a playtest are flurry, usefulness of shatter, and takeout effects - although currently it certainly does feel like the new rules set is very heavily beating up the fighters by not providing any type of defenses, other then skill stores or someone backpacking you.
 

Tulbor

Artisan
Oh. A few things that might help with defense against takeouts.

There was a ritual that went something along the lines of "if the damage swung is less then 1/3rd of your armor, you don't take the carrier until your armor is breached." Hope that's still there. That's really only good for melee attacks, but when your armor can be 124 points (if the temp armor points count for this), then damn that's nice.

Skill Store items. While they don't last from event to event anymore, I'll be bothering my healer first thing at game on to load me up with magic armors and spell shields.

Spell Parry is still a ritual, right? I'm definitely getting a few of those.

3 second refit, which I was told activates the temporary points as well. A bit off this topic, but combining that with the level 5 Defender Paragon power? I get dropped to 0, I spend an eviscerate and heal for up to 200, take 3 seconds to refit my armor AND reactivate my temp points? daaaamn. Not sure how often that will be useful, but sure sounds fun!
 
My sense is that the concepts here are right, but that the numbers might need tweaking. I know this isn't the place for full on proposals, but let me give examples. If someone wants to approach an owner with them as a proposal or an owner wants to work with that, both are fine by me.

Profs/BS - I think the increasing cost is good, but I think the increments might just be wrong. I know that crit attacks have been 3 build for a fighter since the dawn of time. But it might be time to consider 2 build / crit attack and make the first trade-in for a prof be 14 build total. This makes the increment 2 build instead of 3. It eventually becomes too expensive, but the soft cap is now probably closer to 8 profs than it is to 6 profs.

Profs/Crits (BS/BA) - It used to be there was almost no cost to trade-ins. But since crits and BAs actually have more meaning in the new system, the trade-in is actually kind of rough even ignoring rolling cost. It might be a good idea for every prof to also provide 1 or 2 uses of crit attack per day.

Flurry Rule - I mentioned it earlier, but I honestly think that this might just be a case where 3 is just a little too low. Upping the number to even 4 might seriously decrease complaints about the rule.

Fighter defensive abilities - Personally, I don't see a problem with fighters being taken out by 6th+ level spells. They are incredibly limited and they are supposed to have that kind of power (I know NPCs are basically unlimited but that is a problem with monster desk/plot if they are sending out endless waves of high level wizards). I do think that fighters should have defenses against lower level spells (at least limited times per day). I think the solution to this complaint (which seems legitimate for certain spells) is to give fighters targeted defenses they can buy. Conceptually, an ability that resists shatter, another one that resists weakness, and another that resists slow would go a long way towards parity. Obviously these would be low cost skills (probably 1 build for a fighter, but significantly higher for non-fighters) with modestly low pre-reqs (maybe 1 every 10 fighter build) because they give very specific resistances.

Like I said... tweaks. I don't think you need major changes, just a number of small tweaks that synergize well into better parity. My examples above are just that, examples. There could easily be other tweaks that would similarly work.

-MS
 
Last edited:

Thorgrim

Artisan
I've said before in my feedback but I will say it again because I think it's important to keep in mind as we get bogged down in mechanics.

For every single proposed change I ask myself does this make the game more fun?

If the answer is no, there better be some good justification for why it needs to be changed.

Does scaling profs to make them so expensive that no one can reasonably afford to buy more than a handful make the game more fun?

No. Certainly not for me as a fighter.

So the next question is are the reasons for the change great enough that they justify it even if that makes the game less fun? I personally don't think so, which would leave me inclined to say don't change the rule, and try to tackle the damage bloat from another angle (which has already been done with the removal of DA, MS, RR, etc.). If others feel that it is justified and that profs must scale up in cost to reduce damage output, so be it, but fighters should be given something in return to make playing our class more fun (such as being less prone to take outs).
 

MaxIrons

Squire
Oregon Staff
Marshal
So, I like crunching numbers. I don't know why. With that said I broke down damage into the following categories:
Static (Able to be done forever, basically, weapon attacks)
Burst (Able to be done multiple times, against multiple targets, but still limited via time or quantity)
Single (One and Done)

I will be using the term damage per build as DPB and this does not take magic items or paragon paths into account. These are core numbers only.

A few things stood out when comparing Fighters to Scholars.

The first is obvious, static damage becomes increasingly prohibitive as is part of the design. Assuming for non-small/non-2 handed weapons, everyone can get 1 Static DPB with a weapon skill. (Fighters can technically get 1.5 with One Handed Blunt). Fighter static DPB then increases at .067 DPB, .056 DPB, .048 DPB.... until the 10th Prof at .022 DPB where it flattens out. For scholars it starts off ugly, .025 DPB, and just gets uglier .021 and worse from there.

The second is that Single damage has a weird build curve comparison between Fighters and Scholars. Celestial scholars on a full column get a flat 9 DPB against single targets, with a maximum of 45 damage on a target in one shot from battle magic. High magic can provide 8.3 DPB single damage with the upper limit per shot of number of 9th level spells x 5 damage. Fighters DPB efficiency actually goes up the more slays/improved slays you buy. Starting at 6.25 DPB with the first slay/improved slay combo, it then goes to 7.5 DPB with the second , and increasing without limit to 20 DPB at the 12th purchase and beyond.

The third is that while it always costs a Fighter 3 build to get Burst damage, at .667 DPB, C Scholars get this for free when increasing their Single damage.

My conclusions from this are as follows:

When at any point it's more cost effective for a scholar to increase static damage than a fighter, we're probably being too punitive on static damage efficiency.
Fighters who focus on single target damage are actually more efficient at it than scholars (weird, right?)
Celestial Scholars are the kings of burst damage build efficiency, infinitely better at it than fighters because wands do not cost any additional build to give said burst damage.

Not addressed:
"Take Out" abilities, these are beyond the limited scope of what numbers I crunched.
Protections, for the same reason.
Difference in hitting the target via weapon/packet. With every class having Meditate, eventually the ability will either blow a defense or do the listed damage. I do not address the quantity of Burst/Single attacks here either.

Proposed solutions:

Weapon Proficiency costs 3 + the number of Weapon Proficiencies they already possess, but only requires you to turn in 4 Critical Attacks. Thus the DPB is fighter .067, .063, .058 with .04 at 10 Profs and so forth while for scholars it is .025, .024, .024, .023 and so on. If that's too generous, we could use 3 + 2 times the number of Weapon Proficiencies. With this system in place, the cost for static damage could increase without limit as it's only 1/3 as punitive than the current 2.0 system.

Wand Use could be a skill similar to Critical Attack, in that it allows the user to deal damage from a wand equal to the number of Wand Use charges utilized for 10 minutes, thus normalizing Burst damage across the board.
 

Kasuni

Squire
I've said before in my feedback but I will say it again because I think it's important to keep in mind as we get bogged down in mechanics.

For every single proposed change I ask myself does this make the game more fun?

If the answer is no, there better be some good justification for why it needs to be changed.

Does scaling profs to make them so expensive that no one can reasonably afford to buy more than a handful make the game more fun?

No. Certainly not for me as a fighter.

So the next question is are the reasons for the change great enough that they justify it even if that makes the game less fun? I personally don't think so, which would leave me inclined to say don't change the rule, and try to tackle the damage bloat from another angle (which has already been done with the removal of DA, MS, RR, etc.). If others feel that it is justified and that profs must scale up in cost to reduce damage output, so be it, but fighters should be given something in return to make playing our class more fun (such as being less prone to take outs).
I want to echo this - I wholeheartedly agree with both this approach to any rule change, and of the assessment of this change.
 

Avaran

Baron
After having devoted significant time play testing the new proposed rules I wanted to write about my experiences, not about a specific rule, but about my experience holistically with the rule set. Specifically, I wanted to talk about being a Fighter.

To be clear, I don't mean a Templar or a Scout. I don't mean a Fighter with some ranks of magic. I mean taking Fighting skills.

Please read this with an open mind. It took a long time to write this and an even longer time to playtest through all of these new rules and give them a fair shake. This isn't about any one particular rule, but rather how the rules as a group effect the class that I play. About how this new rule set directly effects a customer's experience. Please... please... please I'm begging you, don't get defensive, instead please help me find fun playing this class. What can we do with these rules to make playing a Fighter an enjoyable experience again? While this thread and its focus is on Fighters, (which is what I have focused my play testing on) most of it applies to Rogues and their situation as well. Finally, I don't address Paragon Paths here. I actually found a lot really enjoyable about playing a Warleader, but each class in Alliance gets really cool Paragon Paths. Unless we plan to scrap them for Scholars, I don't see how having a mandatory path makes Fighters fun. This thread doesn't even address what is a problem under the current rules: Casters get High Magic and Formal Casting to "cap" their build progression with something really cool and flavorful. What do Fighters get? Where is their endgame? What pulls a person to play a *Fighter* rather than a Templar? Is the game all homogenization at the top end?

---

My play test experience as a Fighter has been miserable. I went from feeling like a contributing member of battle to a walking pillar without the ability to interact with the fight except when spending 10 critical attacks. This experience has been compounded with each new version of the rules. Each one seems to stack on additional penalties for engaging in melee combat while taking away carrots that were given to the class to make it "playable". Without hyperbole, I am unclear what role Fighters are supposed to play in the new system that is not accomplished almost as well by another class. Even being a hit point sponge (unfun), is no longer accomplished in [0.9]. Monsters can literally walk past many of our Fighters who "Flurry" for 6 (2, 2, 2) in fights without Critical Attacks to get to the targets of value and contribution in the fight.

One of our Rogues actually chuckled, "Now you know whats its like to be a Rogue fighting from the Front".

Some examples:

1. A powerful Scholar was going around the battlefield wrecking havoc. While he is distracted I sneak up behind him and attack him. He has no idea I am there until I am tagging him with weapon blows. Having purchased more Weapon Proficiency abilities than anyone else play testing I swing for the highest base damage in the play test with one-handed weapons: 6 normal. Being the last fight of the day I have used my Critical Strikes so I cannot augment this number.

I deal my 18 points and then "reset" my stance while he turns around chuckles and kills me with some 1st and 3rd level spells (Stone Bolt, Bind (Arms), Bind (Legs).

This is an incredibly frustrating experience that could have been replicated by my 160 build character fighting a brand new player with armor. There isn't really a more ideally situation for me engaging on the caster as a fighter aside from "have more Eviscerates" which was the advice I was given.

2. Another player is moving around the battlefield with a sword and shield. They are normal colored and not red in any way. I approach and use two disarms and an eviscerate. The call returned to me is "no effect, no effect, no effect". Why? Through the Totemic Paragon Path shields can be "claws" now and no where in the rules does it say there needs to be any indication of if they are a "claw shield" or a normal shield that can be disarmed. Due to the new rules my Disarms are "expended" and my Eviscerate is gone until I can meditate it back later. Given players can wait 2 whole seconds before calling any defenses (or that your blow doesn't effect them) there is no way for me to know if the player is just slow to drop their shield, immune to the effect, or just didn't hear me the first time until I have wasted the abilities.

Given the new flurry rule its really a poor tactical decision to follow up the disarm with regular damage because they can pick up their shield while I'm "resetting my stance".

3. During a wave fight several "trash" monsters are attacking. This is when a Fighter is supposed to shine! No one is going to want to use their big things on this engagement! Unfortunately, all the scholars just got out their wands and starting throwing 5 damages at them. Most were dead before they even reached the group and the heartier ones that did reach the group weren't phased by a fully landed set of 18 damage, instead they were finished off by the casters throwing wand charges for almost the same amount.

Throughout the play test incoming damage against the PCs was largely irrelevant, while takeout effects were the main source of PCs being eliminated from the fight for any amount of time. The other fighters, especially ones that built for "hearty" and "armor" felt largely pointless and unable to engage with the fight in a meaningful way. Watching the guy with 60 points of armor have it all removed by a 1st level spell (stone bolt) to pop his Spellshield and a 3rd level spell (Shatter) was incredibly disheartening for him. He had spent 25 build to wear a hard to get (and expensive) tag only to have it negated in an instant with a single 3rd level spell.

4. A group of 3 Fighters went to approach a caster to kill him. Knowing we were going to try to kill a caster we made sure that we all had spellshields. On the approach one was stone bolted and Slept, another was Disarmed and Confined. Thankfully the third person got there and was able to land a full flurry on the caster! The set delivered was "12 normal (x10 critical attacks spent), 30 normal (slay), Eviscerate". The response? Weapon Guard (Magic Armor), got it, dodge. Due to some sideburns, the fighter then had to "reset his stance" and get blown up by point blank takeout effects. This same scenario would have played out with a Wylderkin or High Ogre (Resolute) as well, or even a racial skill store item.

5. I watched the following happen to fighters over the course of the play test: Damage Reduced to 1 (after having spent 83 Build to have 4 Weapon Proficiency) by a 3rd level spell, armor reduced from 60 to 0 by a third level spell, all limbs removed by a single spell, confined, slept, killed and turned into greater undead, deathed, paralyzed, blown up by an elemental pool before they could engage, gased down, had their weapons shattered (by both spell and melee), and downed by elementals throwing packets.

Aside from Eviscerates, I didn't see any Fighter kill anything (aside from some skeletons, zombies, mud golems, and shardlings).

Do these abilities I describe above effect all characters? Sure, most of them do. But my point is Fighters are NOT significantly harder to remove from combat than scholars or rogues in the majority of situations. Most of the time, the ability of Rogues to dodge and scholars to spell shield themselves provides *greater* livability than Fighters. If Fighters are going to move from an active role of being able to actually kill things in combat to a role where they are "tanking" then they need huge numbers of defenses to take outs to be added or they just can't do their jobs. Tanking in a LARP works roughly as well as it does in a PvP situation in an MMORPG as well because bad guys with any intelligence can just avoid the guy that doesn't present a threat and go for the slightly lower and significantly more effective targets in the back.

Without significant magical backup, fighters can't function in this version of the rules. The same cannot be said for scholars (especially if they pick up the shield skill).

---

List of problems for Fighters with the new version:

1. Making Shatter (a 3rd level spell) do the same thing as a 7th level spell (Destroy) is incredibly problematic for people that rely on weapons and armor to actually have an impact on fights. It also hurts melee combatants much worse than casters because it cannot be used to negate spell casting. This spell does more damage than Dragon's Breath to fighters that chose to stack armor.

2. Big Shields. Big Shields make fighting in melee an exercise in futility especially when combined with abilities that make shields unable to be disarmed like the Totemic Paragon Path or Construct's Natural Weaponry. At the same time, these shields make Fighters that choose to use them an even easier target for casters who now can literally hit the "broad side of a barn" and effect someone with their spells.

3. Flurry Rule. The Flurry rule, especially when combined with nerfs to overall damage make fighting casters impossible without using one of a fighter's extremely limited per day skills (and to be clear that's only Slay and Eviscerate because Disarm and Shatter have no effect against most casters). It is impossible to "press the advantage" against a mage and make casting difficult for them because you have to reset your stance before they are dead. Mages are allowed to take significant amounts of armor and now can even purchase Hearty for almost the same cost as Fighters. Meanwhile Fighters have almost no answer to spells outside of Stalwart Shield and even that is only against a single spell.

4. Meditation. This is a huge buff to offensive casters (who miss spells all the time), and a huge nerf to Fighters who used to be able to swing with their skills until they hit. The ability to claim that a blow "didn't connect" or "was mostly blocked" even when it clearly did is magnified by that blow not being used again against the same target immediately.

5. Prepare to Die. The removal of this makes combat less fun. While its a "buff" to fighters because they can "surprise Eviscerate" someone with no warning this makes combat less tactical, less teamwork based, and less about using a shield to block a sword and more about what kind of word salad you can throw at someone's shield to see if they die.

6. Slay Nerf. The reduction of Slay damage makes them very expensive to take if you want a comparable effect to the old rules. Meanwhile while Fighter damage has gone down, Celestial Damage has stayed the same and Necromancy damage has increased.

7. Hearty Changes. The one "saving grace" to being a fighter under the old 2.0 system was that you were really tough to kill. With the removal of Hearty as a Fighter skill and the changes to costs, it is just as expensive for an Elven Fighter to buy Hearty as it is an Ogre Earth Scholar. While fighters get more base hit points as a result of gaining build this advantage is pretty much the only upside to being a Fighter in the new system.

8. Critical Attacks. Critical Attacks give Fighters the ability to do an acceptable amount of damage in a single fight for 10 minutes. If you don't purchase enough of them after you have engaged in two fights its time to sit in the tavern for the rest of the event. The problem with critical attacks is that they take one of the two strengths that fighters have (good sustained damage) and make Fighters into bad Scholars. Now instead of being reasonable in every fight throughout the weekend, you are a little better in 2 fighters and totally worthless in the others. Scholars spending the same build will get dozens of spells and dozens of wand charges to be effective and those spells will often end the fight in a single throw rather than having to slog through a huge pile of hit points.

To put things into perspective, Celestial Scholars get bonus wand damage for FREE just for purchasing more spells and abilities (which they were going to do anyway). They get more uses of their wand per day FOR FREE just by spending build. There is no cap to wand damage and at high levels I expect all wands will do more damage than all one-handed weapons. At incredibly high build totals this will be true even with critical strikes added to the mix because the number of crit attacks that can be added caps while wand damage never does.

To be able to swing my longsword for 6 normal it cost me 83 build. It costs a scholar nothing to be able to shoot 6s 83 times from a wand, they just need to have spent 250 in Celestial Scholarly Skills.

9. NO SCALING. This is the biggest problem for fighters under the new system. Once you have purchases a few weapon proficiency skills, what is there left to purchase? Resolute is a reasonable choice now that its costed better, but it doesn't really help against what actually eliminates Fighters from combat: takeouts. Intercept is horribly expensive for the minimal effect that it does. Intercept is a really weak ability unless paired with Paragon shenanigans. But even if you purchase all the bad slays, weak intercepts, and your standard fighter skills of parry, riposte, and eviscerate you don't have enough spent build to keep the train rolling. Eventually you have to purchase more ridiculously expensive weapon proficiency to keep buying Fighter skills.

Additionally, the changes to the way Ritual Magic works massively disadvantage Fighters compared to casters. Most of the scrolls that benefit fighters only benefit them against other fighters:

Defensive Burst (Reduces Melee Damage)
Magic Strike (Allows participation, when Caster's automatically have it)
Raging Blow (Good against weapons and shields not mages)
Warrior's Incantation (Only good if you are a Templar or Scholar with a Weapon Prof)

As far as I can tell Stalwart Shield is the single Ritual that benefits Fighters against Scholars in the new rules. Thankfully, Spell Parry remains, but relying simply on Ritual Magic to make Fighters not immediately fall over from damage is really unfortunate.

Even though Stalwart Shield was added, Cloak and Bane were removed which leaves things about the same. Damage Aura, Expanded Enchantment (Spellshield), Channel and a number of other very powerful options for fighters have simply been removed from the game with no interesting replacements. Most of the new formal magic rituals require a knowledge of magic to even use, the ones that remain only change melee combat against other melee combat.
May I ask what chapter you play in?
 
I want to echo this - I wholeheartedly agree with both this approach to any rule change, and of the assessment of this change.
I have to disagree with the assessment, though my view is, admittedly, a very long view. I have played the game for over 2 decades. In my experience, lower static damage (ie. weapon damage) makes the game more fun overall, even if there are a bunch of high level spells floating around. I will acknowledge that the fighter who sees his or her damage reduced by as much as half will probably be very grumpy at first, but I believe the cascade effect of lower static damage (fewer hit points on monsters for example) will make the game more fun for two important groups: people NPCing and low level players. And, I'll be honest, it is that second group that I think is most important to cater to (because that is the future of the game).

In short, I see the "value added" of this soft cap rule to surpass the initial annoyance it will cause for some players. And I do think it is just an initial annoyance, again due to my experience playing the game. I have seen other rules that truly "nerfed" abilities and watched some players initially get annoyed or frustrated, only for those complaints to die out after a year or less.

Ironically, while I like the soft cap, I would despise a hard cap, because I think that creates lasting bad annoyance which counters the "value added."

All that said, I stand by my previous post that the evidence I have seen suggests that these rules need to be tweaked to better balance enjoyment vs. game balance, but I think that scrapping them completely is the wrong option (ie. for the most part they actually are based on good game theory principles).

-MS
 

Muir

Fighter
Does that 'value added' calculation include the number of players that will be lost to it?

Because to be blunt, from the playtest results given this is going to result in people quitting if implemented as it stands now, especially given that our pointless restriction of changing build choices to a catalyst-restricted ritual means players can't easily try new builds and get out of them if they are no fun.
 

Alavatar

Baron
I believe someone said that the rules would best be compared through evaluating PvP because monsters for PvE will always be adjusted by Plot.

In that case, the reduction in damage output of Fighters / Rogues is exacerbated by the increase in availability of Body and Armor, the Flurry rule, the change of PTD skills from "swing until they resolve" to "one swing", and the removal of the Racial Skill cap on certain Racial abilities (Dodge, specifically). That is basically a four-point nerf to Fighter effectiveness and at least a three-point nerf to Rogues. Yet the removal of many magic item effects leave Fighters / Rogues (Fighters more-so than Rogues) susceptible to the plethora of instant take-out effects of a Scholar, especially a C. Scholar. This kind of defeats the Rock/Paper/Scissors design of the 3 base classes in my opinion.

At least, that is my observation after reading through this thread.

Potential options to correct:
  • Maintain Status Quo of a static Crit Attack / Back Attack number per Prof and Backstab, as exists in the 1.x rules
    • Alternate: Change the growth rate so as to not be as penalizing (i.e. +1 Crit Attack or Back Attack required per 2 Profs/Backstabs?)
    • Alternate: Start the base required at a lower threshold like 1 Crit / Back Attack for the first Prof/Backstab?
  • Remove or alter the Flurry rule
  • Change skills so at least a Rogue that gets the drop on a same level Scholar can take out the Scholar in 3 hits (assume 1 Per-Day skill, or fewer, used) (I mean, Rogues are supposed to be the Scissor to the Scholar's Paper, right?)
    • Doesn't Waylay already do this? Granted, it is blocked by Headgear ...
  • Roll back the Body/Armor rules changes or reduce the new ones (no idea on suggestions)
  • Maintain the Status Quo where PTD are "swing until they resolve"
 

Mechtofd

Artisan
my chapter has been using the flurry rule for a long time and honestly against npcs I love it especially since most are kind enough to not throw spells if you lose your footing. As I understand the flurry after 3 you don't have to pull out for long lately I've been simply bouncing back a step and back in a moment later.

I will be honest I am mostly ok with the changes to static damage while I do feel annoyed that scholars can do so much more damage at the same amount of build thats the exact same as it is now. My primary complaint still is the removal of all the magic items that gave warriors the ability to defend against spells and the like on their own. I did see one post suggesting specialized skills to defend against certain kinds of spells but really that would just be renaming what the current rule set provides. The takeout spells remain for me the biggest problem even in PVE I cannot keep track of the number of times that without a friendly caster I would've been taken out immediately by a death a sleep etc with the removal of magic items its another nail in the coffin of the idea of being a pure fighter.

I do also have concerns about the one swing rule on PTD skills while that does mean a higher degree of skill will be needed to use them effectively it also greatly destroys their effectiveness. under 2.0 if I launch a slay and my opponent blocks it with his weapon without expending a single skill or spell protective I have no completely spent my slay for the day. thematically it makes more sense and makes it more like a spell but the costs in A) getting as many slays as a caster would have damaging spells of similar level and B) elevating the slay to be at the same damage level as a caster are prohibitive at best. in addition to not having the utility a caster gets out of their slots.

Also that making a slay similar to a spell but blockable by a weapon makes it not vastly inferior a spell touches a weapon the opponent takes the damage but a slay is blocked the same way and......nothing. That is why I liked the multi swings of a PTD skill in the current rule sets it made it closer to a spell you either had to completely avoid the attack or use a defense negating it.

sorry if that was to rambly I tried to make it easier to read but tis late
 

Muir

Fighter
  • Change skills so at least a Rogue that gets the drop on a same level Scholar can take out the Scholar in 3 hits (assume 1 Per-Day skill, or fewer, used) (I mean, Rogues are supposed to be the Scissor to the Scholar's Paper, right?)
    • Doesn't Waylay already do this? Granted, it is blocked by Headgear ...
One note, IIRC arcane armor still blocks Waylay in [0.9], and given that AA is granted by high magic...
I do also have concerns about the one swing rule on PTD skills while that does mean a higher degree of skill will be needed to use them effectively it also greatly destroys their effectiveness. under 2.0 if I launch a slay and my opponent blocks it with his weapon without expending a single skill or spell protective I have no completely spent my slay for the day. thematically it makes more sense and makes it more like a spell but the costs in A) getting as many slays as a caster would have damaging spells of similar level and B) elevating the slay to be at the same damage level as a caster are prohibitive at best. in addition to not having the utility a caster gets out of their slots.

Also that making a slay similar to a spell but blockable by a weapon makes it not vastly inferior a spell touches a weapon the opponent takes the damage but a slay is blocked the same way and......nothing. That is why I liked the multi swings of a PTD skill in the current rule sets it made it closer to a spell you either had to completely avoid the attack or use a defense negating it.
You -can- meditate that Slay back, as it did not resolve, but that doesn't help you in the moment as you'll need downtime to do it.
 
Top