This has been my experience across the last three cycles of playtesting. As an NPC, I dropped 200 damage as an Elemental Lord/Knight into a Fighter who just walked away, got healed and refit his armor. Then, a single Gnoll alchemist with just a shield and some gasses nearly wiped the PC's. We had to throttle back and deliberately position poorly to allow them to recover.
Experiences of a Fighter in 2.0
- Thread starter Graham Wolsey
- Start date
This has been my experience across the last three cycles of playtesting. As an NPC, I dropped 200 damage as an Elemental Lord/Knight into a Fighter who just walked away, got healed and refit his armor. Then, a single Gnoll alchemist with just a shield and some gasses nearly wiped the PC's. We had to throttle back and deliberately position poorly to allow them to recover.
mikestrauss
Squire
I support the shift towards a smaller range of numbers with critical attacks to allow for occasional bursts. I don't see any meaningful change in the accessibility of powerful blows in this rules set from the last one. Technically they are slightly more accessible, but I think that will, on average, only result in about 1-2 more of those skills (depending on the exact skill) for most characters.
I like the smaller damage range (assuming it comes with a change to monster health in the monster database and a strongly worded statement to plot teams about NPC health) because it makes scaling easier and makes lower level characters feel like they can contribute a little more meaningfully (I have strong feelings about making the game friendlier to new players). Part of the reason I support the fighter changes is because wand damage has also been reduced (basically by 1/2), which means the main sources of damage in the game have been cut by about 40% and 50% respectively (excluding race reavers / monster slayers which were stupidly broken).
I will acknowledge that celestial spell damage has not been reduced, but in my experience, most celestial casters do not memorize straight damage spells, because take-out effects are more optimal for higher level spells and defensive spells / hindering spells (pin, disarm, bind) are more useful for lower level spells. I don't think this trend will change significantly in 2.0 and would almost welcome the change if it did (for purely flavor reasons). I am, however, quite curious whether storm spells will prove good enough to be memorized in the new rules (I'm not optimistic).
Basically, I see the top end of damage ranges dropping by as much as half, with the mid-game damage probably being dropped by about 1/3. I see scholars still having the same spells in basically the same quantities, and likely memorizing roughly the same set of spells (which means mostly utility/defense/take-outs), while wand damage has dropped significantly. Assuming NPC body drops accordingly, I don't see a change in fighter value, and possibly see a slight boost from the ability to burst with crit attacks once or twice a day.
I have previously mentioned in other parts of the thread that I think some tweaks are needed here or there. I have almost mentioned previously that daily use abilities on NPCs really need to be carefully monitored because they break the design philosophy of balance. But neither of those concerns means that I think the overall philosophy of decreasing damage numbers is a bad idea, nor do I think it makes fighters "worse."
-MS
I like the smaller damage range (assuming it comes with a change to monster health in the monster database and a strongly worded statement to plot teams about NPC health) because it makes scaling easier and makes lower level characters feel like they can contribute a little more meaningfully (I have strong feelings about making the game friendlier to new players). Part of the reason I support the fighter changes is because wand damage has also been reduced (basically by 1/2), which means the main sources of damage in the game have been cut by about 40% and 50% respectively (excluding race reavers / monster slayers which were stupidly broken).
I will acknowledge that celestial spell damage has not been reduced, but in my experience, most celestial casters do not memorize straight damage spells, because take-out effects are more optimal for higher level spells and defensive spells / hindering spells (pin, disarm, bind) are more useful for lower level spells. I don't think this trend will change significantly in 2.0 and would almost welcome the change if it did (for purely flavor reasons). I am, however, quite curious whether storm spells will prove good enough to be memorized in the new rules (I'm not optimistic).
Basically, I see the top end of damage ranges dropping by as much as half, with the mid-game damage probably being dropped by about 1/3. I see scholars still having the same spells in basically the same quantities, and likely memorizing roughly the same set of spells (which means mostly utility/defense/take-outs), while wand damage has dropped significantly. Assuming NPC body drops accordingly, I don't see a change in fighter value, and possibly see a slight boost from the ability to burst with crit attacks once or twice a day.
I have previously mentioned in other parts of the thread that I think some tweaks are needed here or there. I have almost mentioned previously that daily use abilities on NPCs really need to be carefully monitored because they break the design philosophy of balance. But neither of those concerns means that I think the overall philosophy of decreasing damage numbers is a bad idea, nor do I think it makes fighters "worse."
-MS
NPC cards are not a nationality regulated aspect of the game, unlike the core Alliance rules. Local Plot teams have the liberty to modify them as they see fit. This means added body, added defenses, added takeouts, added immunities, added carriers. This innate flexibility and the inevitable changes it permits are not a solid foundation upon which to make any reliable decisions for game design. This is particularly true as so far as balancing issues are concerned.
mikestrauss
Squire
I don't doubt this at all, but this is a consequence of the magic item economy, in my opinion. Rogues only have one native defense against spellstrike: prison and only get at best one every 35 build. Spellcasters technically have two defenses against that every 25 build, though I doubt there are many spellcasters that memorize lots of reflect magic spells in general. I'll guesstimate here a bit and say 1 every 20 build.
I'll use some East Coast numbers here (which should be on the high side because the games have been around the longest). Even with an average player level of ~20, that is at most 10 defenses a day for each scholar (formal can boost that slightly, but any formal levels also decrease the number of columns, roughly evening out) against spells and at most 6 defenses a day for each rogue. I expect an average rogue or caster actually has slightly less that that for a variety of reasons (again, assuming level 20).
Sure, the fighter has none, but so does the rogue after basically 1 or 2 battles if take-out effects are as common as you make them out to be. Heck, even assuming a fully defensive build for a caster (so, lots of poison shields, too), even a caster couldn't make it through more than a wave battle or two before being completely depleted if take-out effects are really as common as dirt.
I know that the proliferation of take-out effects on the EC are a consequence of magic items. I suspect the same is true on your coast. I can only hope that when magic items basically go poof, scaling will take that into account. If it doesn't, I think there is a big problem that no rules can solve.
-MS
mikestrauss
Squire
I know that. Heck, I have personally made and modified monster cards in the past.
However, I think we all have to start with the assumption of good (or at least decent scaling) in any of these discussions. If scaling is awful, no amount of rules will solve that problem. As many a person has said both on these boards and in real life, plot can choose to send nothing but 100th level liches out all weekend long and the rules don't stop it.
So, I make my judgment of these rules based on the assumption that encounters will be well scaled. And assuming good scaling, then I simply ask myself whether these rules / this class has a roughly equal opportunity to contribute during a day's worth of battles against NPCs as other classes.
-MS
Thorgrim
Artisan
If fighter damage and rogue damage output drops by 50% and monster body totals do in fact drop by 50%, then fighters are just as effective as they were before at dealing damage as a % of monster health (much worse at negating take out effects). However, by not changing celestial damage at all, you effectively make celestial scholars twice as effective as they are currently, and by comparison, that makes fighters and rogues worse. Yes they might have lost some wand damage, but they also have access to protective magics (cloaks) via high magic, that fighters and rogues can no longer access via magic items. Scholars were already superior to fighters and rogues in most aspects with the current rules, and now they have gotten significantly better due to the nerfs to fighters and rogues. There is very little incentive to play a fighter or rogue instead of a scholar from a system standpoint with the proposed changes. The only reason to continue to play one would be for RP reasons or if you just really enjoy boffer combat.
Last edited:
The rules can solve this problem by providing equitable access to defenses across all classes, as a fundamental component of their skill trees.
Plot and scaling should take the game from "playable" to "outstanding". They should not be required to make the game playable at its base level. All fixed (rules) components of the system should be functional before flexible (plot, scaling, statting monster cards, etc.) components are taken into account.
Azmodeous
Artisan
Straight forward, I play a fighter in Seattle and occasionally Oregon and if it weren't for cloaks, I would have perm'd some time in the last two years. Without some sort of spell/poison defense being made accessible to fighters within their tree, I know that I will no longer be able to play a fighter and it seems that many of you feel the same way. I believe that there are plenty of opportunities to add or modify existing rules so that fighter becomes a viable option again, such as ripping free of a bind, a purchasable magic/poison resist which is available once per 50 build or something. The guys on the front lines get hit with magic and poison constantly, why wouldn't we build up a resistance to it?
Out of left field here, I know that most of this thread is concentrated on defense (which I appreciate, as I see myself as a "tank" fighter), but I'd like to bring up critical attacks again.
If critical attacks were not turned in to buy weapon proficiencies, then I could see the ever increasing number of crits per prof. But as it stands in .9, buying crits to just sit there seems like a waste. The "burst" value makes them ok, but loosing them when you buy a prof makes it super unlikely that I'm going to have more than it takes to reach the next prof. If you kept even half of the crits you originally bought, then I can see them getting used. Best I can tell, back attacks and crits are the only skills you lose when upgrading.
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
Out of left field here, I know that most of this thread is concentrated on defense (which I appreciate, as I see myself as a "tank" fighter), but I'd like to bring up critical attacks again.
If critical attacks were not turned in to buy weapon proficiencies, then I could see the ever increasing number of crits per prof. But as it stands in .9, buying crits to just sit there seems like a waste. The "burst" value makes them ok, but loosing them when you buy a prof makes it super unlikely that I'm going to have more than it takes to reach the next prof. If you kept even half of the crits you originally bought, then I can see them getting used. Best I can tell, back attacks and crits are the only skills you lose when upgrading.
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
What if fighters had some way of converting takeouts to damage? Get hit with a confine, take 25 damage instead? That way it incentives them to stack armor/body and even new fighters could tank some effects. Make the ability start costing 2 points and go up in cost by 1 each time they purchase it.
This effect seems really overcosted compared to comparable abilities and more scaling fighter abilities is the opposite of what I'm looking for personally.
Making it a flat high damage number like 25 points also makes it a poor choice for new characters.
This is something that I have been thinking about too. This seems like a reasonable way to go. No change for the places where takeout effects are rare, and something lesser than a dodge for the places where they are not. Without something like this, I am unsure what is the purpose of having 100+ armor and body when you fall to 2 sleep spells.
Given the changes to Hearty, I'm not convinced Fighters will have significantly more body and armor than others. That seems like a 0.8 and before thing to me.
Saephis
Squire
While it may sound great on paper, conversion of Spell Effect -> Damage is going to either get caster-PCs killed (What Monster wouldn't want to take some damage rather than be Confined and summarily killed?), further watering down their 'taken' effects, or result in the same deaths of the fighters. As it stands, sure, I'd take that body damage instead of Prison, but after a couple... I'm still dead. Body runs out quickly, if you're taking the equivalent-level of damage instead of the effect.
I'd want fighters to still get more body than they are currently in this version of the beta test. Also the ability would first come off armor to incentize fighters to actually wear a lot of armor (something they aren't doing right now). By having their defenses peel off armor, we would encourage them to actually be tanky.
mikestrauss
Squire
Before it seems like I completely believe that the fighter experience is the same or better in these rules, I should point out that I feel that the oversized shield rule is a massive detriment to fighters.
As pointed out by many, fighters practically swim in body points and armor points. A total north of 100 is actually pretty easy for a 30th level character and even reasonably viable for a 25th level character (probably a little too build intensive for a 20th level fighter, but maybe not... hmmm). Larger shields just protect that armor and health, which isn't really a big advantage for most fighters.
At the same time, larger shields make it that much harder for fighters to actually hit an opponent. And even more frustrating, with the exception of Shatter and Disarm, larger shields in combination with the new powerful blow rules, make it exceptionally hard for fighters to land powerful blows.
Overall, of all the changes I have seen, this one more than any feels like it is just detrimental to fighters. If anything, I think fighters would have benefited from smaller shields, where their high health and armor would shine against the extra weapon blows that did get through, while smaller enemy shields would mean that fighters would get successful hits more regularly.
-MS
As pointed out by many, fighters practically swim in body points and armor points. A total north of 100 is actually pretty easy for a 30th level character and even reasonably viable for a 25th level character (probably a little too build intensive for a 20th level fighter, but maybe not... hmmm). Larger shields just protect that armor and health, which isn't really a big advantage for most fighters.
At the same time, larger shields make it that much harder for fighters to actually hit an opponent. And even more frustrating, with the exception of Shatter and Disarm, larger shields in combination with the new powerful blow rules, make it exceptionally hard for fighters to land powerful blows.
Overall, of all the changes I have seen, this one more than any feels like it is just detrimental to fighters. If anything, I think fighters would have benefited from smaller shields, where their high health and armor would shine against the extra weapon blows that did get through, while smaller enemy shields would mean that fighters would get successful hits more regularly.
-MS
Last edited:
Hey I finally found a point of agreement with you Mike! Yay!
Avaran
Baron
Don't forget, too, that the larger the shield, the easier it is to land those gasses/spells/spellstrikes/disarms/stunlimbs/shatters, etc.
And again, the more HP/armor that exists, the more valuable take-out effects/spells become. This was already noted earlier in the thread. 200 HP/Armor against damage? No problem. Against 1 take-out effect? Done.
And again, the more HP/armor that exists, the more valuable take-out effects/spells become. This was already noted earlier in the thread. 200 HP/Armor against damage? No problem. Against 1 take-out effect? Done.
mythic
Baron
When it comes to shields I believe it will just "police itself". Meaning players will realize how big a shield they really want/can wield. It allows "commercial" latex shields into game where having specific dimensions prohibit them currently. We tested out all sizes of shields. The larger ones were pretty much left to the side, and players used the ones they felt they could do so where it suited them. Same went in Monster Camp.
Will someone walk in with a massive shield? Possibly. But carrying it around all day, just may change their mind (not to mention the already stated packet soaker).
Will someone walk in with a massive shield? Possibly. But carrying it around all day, just may change their mind (not to mention the already stated packet soaker).
Avaran
Baron
First, I DO think that all-sized shields are really cool and can add a LOT to the game.
But think about the person who spent $100+ dollars on that latex shield only to come to the realization that it's basically worthless? I worry about the potential off-putting nature of that scenario, especially for someone who isn't familiar with our system.