Experiences of a Fighter in 2.0

Cedric

Rogue
Marshal
I consider 10 seconds more of a "soft takeout" which I approve of. I think something like this could go a long way to balancing fighters.
 

Shades

Newbie
<note: the following is Bryan's personal question/opinion and is not representative of ARC>

To help with the concerns about Fighters being weak to takeouts, but also trying to respect the class balance issues, how do people feel that a "reduce duration of bad stuff" skill would help address these specific concerns? This is independent of any Flurry/Paragon/MI/etc. thoughts.

For example, something like:

"Shrug It Off"
Fighter: 3 BP, Scholar 6 BP, others balanced between as appropriate
Prereq: Purchaseable once for every 25 BP spent on Fighting Skills
A character can use this ability when struck with a 10-minute or Line Of Sight duration effect. When used, the character calls "Reduced" and counts the effect as a 10-second duration instead of 10-minute or Line Of Sight.

This wouldn't stop damage (Fighters already have body/armor/Hearty/Fast Refit/Resolute against that), but would hugely mitigate the "sleep/confine/drain/enfeeble/etc. takes me out in one hit" issues *without* making them useless (like a Resist/Spell Parry/Dodge would do). It also strongly encourages teamwork and fighting together (someone needs to step up and hold the line while you're shaking it off for 10 seconds) which is thematic with the Owner intent for 2.0. A Fighter standing alone shouldn't be able to ignore a barrage of takeouts, just like a Scholar standing alone shouldn't be able to ignore a barrage of static weapon swings; but in both cases teamwork can help in these situations.

Or, to put it another way, "lets takeout effects still be useful without boning the Fighter who has no other defenses against it".

Thoughts? Would this satisfy folks' concerns without making yet another "nope, your ability is wasted for the day!" ability?

</note>
I feel like this would just lead to more doubletapping of fighters, ie sleep, reduced, death/eviscerate/terminate since the death is completely unavoidable at that point. That is what happens to a lot of NPCs who can rip free from a Confine right now. Also, would this allow the reduction of time for Corrupt?
 

Avaran

Baron
<note: the following is Bryan's personal question/opinion and is not representative of ARC>

To help with the concerns about Fighters being weak to takeouts, but also trying to respect the class balance issues, how do people feel that a "reduce duration of bad stuff" skill would help address these specific concerns? This is independent of any Flurry/Paragon/MI/etc. thoughts.

For example, something like:

"Shrug It Off"
Fighter: 3 BP, Scholar 6 BP, others balanced between as appropriate
Prereq: Purchaseable once for every 25 BP spent on Fighting Skills
A character can use this ability when struck with a 10-minute or Line Of Sight duration effect. When used, the character calls "Reduced" and counts the effect as a 10-second duration instead of 10-minute or Line Of Sight.

This wouldn't stop damage (Fighters already have body/armor/Hearty/Fast Refit/Resolute against that), but would hugely mitigate the "sleep/confine/drain/enfeeble/etc. takes me out in one hit" issues *without* making them useless (like a Resist/Spell Parry/Dodge would do). It also strongly encourages teamwork and fighting together (someone needs to step up and hold the line while you're shaking it off for 10 seconds) which is thematic with the Owner intent for 2.0. A Fighter standing alone shouldn't be able to ignore a barrage of takeouts, just like a Scholar standing alone shouldn't be able to ignore a barrage of static weapon swings; but in both cases teamwork can help in these situations.

Or, to put it another way, "lets takeout effects still be useful without boning the Fighter who has no other defenses against it".

Thoughts? Would this satisfy folks' concerns without making yet another "nope, your ability is wasted for the day!" ability?

</note>
I like the idea in principle, but has David pointed out, this could just as easily lead to double-tapping Fighters until they are taken out (think of how we, as players, control people with Waylay...9 or 5 minutes or 7 minutes have passed? Okay, just Waylay again and keep the effect going.).

Then there's the Paragon Paths that allow for alternate and reduced effects to some groups of effects, and some allow for straight unlimited ripping from binding on a 3-count (the Scout one, I think?).

Granted, it would cause more resources on the other side being expended, but that could feel overly punitive to those casters, especially if the duration is only 10 seconds, and if they are lower level.

That said, it's the best and simplest solution to the matter at-hand that I've heard/read.
 

Graham Wolsey

Scholar
Denver Staff
Marshal
Sadly, 10 seconds is an eternity in most combat situations. During that tine it is incredibly easy to effect the individual with another take out that they cant effect.

It also doesn't effect most of the instant takes outs (Shatter, Wither, Death, Corrupt, Stun Limb, etc).

It's also really expensive and mosrly inferior to Spellshield which can be purchased at the same cost and cast on others.

This ability is a step in the right direction, but definitely insufficient to balance things.
 

Saephis

Squire
I'd agree with the above sentiments -- A reduction will just ensure double-tap tactics (Which they get one back for, recall), and/or the desired effect of breaking a line/similar when (currently) one could Cloak, Bane, Activate another <Something> Shield, etc.

With the (appropriate and still too-delayed) gutting of the current magic item setting, like Avaran said, Fighters are already taking heavy hits that will be incredibly noticeable in immediate play. The expiration of protective abilities after 5 days, the 'storage' of defensive abilities, etc. will see fighters either fall at a much expedited rate, with the continued reliance on/understanding of takeout effects or just make something else via reforging or new character all together.
 

Alavatar

Baron
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 think mechanically most of our class design is still stuck in AD&D, but the combat system doesn't really support that, and the player base tends to think more on the lines of MMOs.

Just a thought.
 

Graham Wolsey

Scholar
Denver Staff
Marshal
Giving fighters a limited number of resist magic effects still wouldn't make the matchup "good" against scholars.

Overall Fighters need significantly more battlefield utility thanthey currwntly havr because they dont have off the field utility other classes have (Formal Magic) [scholars] (Legerdamain) [Rogues]
 

Thorgrim

Artisan
Another idea for fighters to deal with packet delivered take outs that is similar to Saephis idea. Don't dwell on the names as they could be improved, and of course costs can be adjusted for balance.

Parry: Costs 4 build and works as current parry only negating weapon attacks

Improved Parry: 2 additional build, converts a normal parry into improved. Your parry (this purchase only) can now be used to parry elemental or gas attacks in addition to weapon attacks

Greater Parry: 2 additional build, converts improved parry into greater. Your parry (this purchase only) can now be used to parry spell qualifier attacks (packet delivered or spell strike) in addition to elemental, gas, or weapon attacks.

This gives fighters a choice and a lot of versatility. Dodge is still clearly better so rogues still have the upper hand in that regard, but this at least gives fighters the option of purchasing defenses against take outs. In addition it makes you manage your resources carefully, if you want to upgrade all of your parries to greater that's fine, but it is not cost effective to parry a weapon attack with a greater parry, so you may want to have a couple of regular parries on hand for weapon attacks.
 

Tevas

Scholar
Marshal
Playtest Community Manager
My concerns with making defensive abilities something that is achievable through a High Magic equivalent is that it further disadvantages newer players. These players will already be less likely to possess magic items, will have fewer Magic Item Usage Points due to lower overall XP coupled with being Fighters, and may not have the economic infrastructure available to down [Whatever] Shield Potions like they were water (and double taps make that meaningless anyway). So to put the one thing they could technically rely on out of their reach would continue to undermine the lower XP character experience.

I do not necessarily agree that there should be 4 different Parries to buy, per say. But if it solves the problem, then that's ultimately what I'm hoping happens, one way or another. I like the idea of changing Resolute to "Resist an Elemental, Poison or Spell Qualifier attack". Then just pricing it so it cannot be spammed. That way the ability is flexible, and is always useful, but not necessarily able to be abused. Or, potentially adding "Improved Parry", which uses one of your Parries to serve as an Elemental Parry, Poison Parry, or Spell Parry. Again, the Improved ability should be priced to prevent abusive spamming.

I like the idea of reducing some abilities to 10 seconds, but I agree that it will just lead to double taps, as is the current situation. I'd suggest 5 seconds for consistency, because the Disarm mechanic currently uses a 5 second timer, but I don't know if the outcome would end up feeling balanced at that duration. This could, however, be a skill that is usable more often than not. I would probably see myself using it, whether 5 or 10 seconds in duration, if I'm not necessarily in a position where I feel I'll get immediately pelted with another effect. In those instances I feel like this would be an incredibly beneficial ability, and one that would save my teammates quite a few resources. It would also prevent me from contributing for a short period, which grants NPC's a degree of relief, or presents them an opportunity to press the fight. So overall, I really like the idea, and the flavor and utility I feel it would provide, but I don't necessarily feel it's the entire answer to the issue at hand. I think if you added this to the Fighter Tree in addition to another limited quantity, flexible resist ability, that would put folks in a great place, and the two would pair together nicely. That would give fighters the choice of what type of defense they would like to use. "Do I think I'm in a good enough place where my team can cover for me if I'm down for a short period, or do I really need to not go down right now to ensure the integrity of the space I'm trying to control?"
 

Saephis

Squire
Giving fighters a limited number of resist magic effects still wouldn't make the matchup "good" against scholars.

Overall Fighters need significantly more battlefield utility thanthey currwntly havr because they dont have off the field utility other classes have (Formal Magic) [scholars] (Legerdamain) [Rogues]
Yes and no, I feel. Frankly, as a fighter even today, I don't look for casters on the field and say "Yeah, Imma break that guy." Because, to go to @Alavatar 's scenario, they aren't necessarily inclined to work that way, be it through ability or intent. Rogues? Yeah, go ruin that caster's day. Casters? Sure, though not necessarily as efficiently or equitably as a Rogue.

But, even today, a line of fighters is effectively useless when even a couple casters with supporting fighters in front of them show up.

2.0/0.9/0.8? Fighters should just lie down when a scholar takes the field -- you won't do damage, you won't get in the way, and you'll just soak up healing (If we have any earth casters left).

Taking the 'Why not both' approach, introducing a limited number of resist Element/Poison/Spell effects would allow a Fighter to present more than a speed-bump, while still supporting group-play, as the <Blank> parries could be used between re-application of protective abilities from a same-team caster. Likewise, introducing @Polare 's suggested ability to reduce duration on abilities would allow the possibility of mitigated effects, though not entire nullification of.

A fighter taking a confine, reduced to a moment, is the same as one running out of body, even in a ten second scenario. But if you run through your specific smart defenses, then you run through Resolute, then you're left with a mitigation ability like 'reduce', that fighter is still providing a bulwark against the less-tough individuals behind them.
 

Tulbor

Artisan
With the rules as written in 0.8 and 0.9, every Fighter build I've seen created by myself and others has one, if not multiple, dodges factored in. The availability and overall superiority of the skill ensures its place in a character build, with current rules. As Stun Limb is a "rogue ability" but also a fighter ability, you'll see more and more activity like this, with the as-written abilities pushing Fighters closer to Scout in XP-spends due to the numerous failings of "fighter abilities" and superiority of practically any other class ability.

In short: While Rogues may have the most Dodges, anyone who isn't a scholar will likely be working it into their character-builds, I suspect. This speaks volumes to the balancing issues of defensive abilities.
I've been playing a fighter since start. I've never moved into rogue skills. Not a single test build that I've created for this rules set has included any rogue skills. The whole point is there should be no reason to go to rogue skills if you don't want rogue skills. Yes, the fluid setup allows it, that doesn't mean I should HAVE TO work that into my build. If I HAVE out of the fighter skills and buy rogue skills just to make the fighter skills work, then there's something wrong with the fighter setup! Yes, I can drop some disarms or whatever else and pick up some waylay and then a dodge, but the whole point is I shouldn't have to do that to be able to make it as a fighter.
 

Saephis

Squire
...but the whole point is I shouldn't have to do that to be able to make it as a fighter.
Ultimately, I feel this is the point that a lot of the discussion regarding the state-of-Fighters, and even the state-of-melee (Not excluding Archers, but its confusing to keep going between classes, melee, martial, etc.). To survive, not even break-even, but to simply attempt survival in the rules-as-presented, you have to figure out new and creative ways to cross-class abilities.
 

Tulbor

Artisan
As for things that will help counter takeouts, we do always have access to resist element and resist poison, they're just not helping increase the xp spent in the fighter tree.

Perhaps splitting parry, like slay was split, would be a good option. 2 point weapon parry, 2 point spell parry. Now you can focus on one, or they other, or mix and match if you like. That also allows low level players to get something that helps.

At the higher end, maybe a way of getting spell parry into the build. That goes right back to "we need something equivalent of high magic for fighters."

There's a way for Warsmith to make a spell parry weapon, but that's a level 5 paragon path ability, is limited to only 1 weapon per day, and warsmith sucks.
 

Thorgrim

Artisan
There's a way for Warsmith to make a spell parry weapon, but that's a level 5 paragon path ability, is limited to only 1 weapon per day, and warsmith sucks.
Not that this is what you are suggesting, but I just want to make sure I get this message across. Paragon paths may provide some options for dealing with spells and other take outs for melee based classes, but I do not think we should balance base classes around the assumption that you will supplement the abilities of the base class with paragon paths. The base classes should be balanced against one another and viable without having to delve into paragon paths, other class skills, etc.
 

Tulbor

Artisan
You're absolutely right, I wasn't suggesting it, that was just a passive " hey btw".
 

Saephis

Squire
Frankly, considering that the Paragon Paths weren't even complete on release-for-testing and even being "suggested" in rebalance on the forums near immediately after their posting.

Going back to/referencing Paragon Paths, with that in mind, isn't fair to any system in any capacity, in my mind. They're hardly able to be tested, if at all, much less used as "this base ability should function this way".
 

Tulbor

Artisan
Going back to/referencing Paragon Paths, with that in mind, isn't fair to any system in any capacity, in my mind. They're hardly able to be tested, if at all, much less used as "this base ability should function this way".
Again, my comment was more of a "hey btw", not a "well this is in this path so you might as well go that way to get that."

However, I don't agree at all that they can't be tested, especially since this upcoming test is specifically for testing the paths. My current test build doesn't have Intercept in it cause it's a TEST Build for Defender, which will provide me 3 intercepts.
That's the whole point of this. Someone did a test. They found that fighters are completely borked. Lets figure out why and what can be done to fix/adjust/modify that. If you're testing with high enough builds, then paragon paths should absolutely be included in the conversation, I've just been avoiding including them.
 

Tevas

Scholar
Marshal
Playtest Community Manager
For the purposes of this discussion, as it focus on the overall class experience, it is probably best to omit things like Paragons and magic items when it comes to balance and survivability. If the class is flawed, then corrections need to be made to the base class. Supplements such as Paragons and magic items require years of play to obtain, and are particularly inaccessible to lower level players, a demographic for whom many of these core class skill tree changes would be critically important.
 

Tulbor

Artisan
For the purposes of this discussion, as it focus on the overall class experience, it is probably best to omit things like Paragons and magic items when it comes to balance and survivability. If the class is flawed, then corrections need to be made to the base class. Supplements such as Paragons and magic items require years of play to obtain, and are particularly inaccessible to lower level players, a demographic for whom many of these core class skill tree changes would be critically important.
Which is why I've been avoiding them
 
Top