Muir
Fighter
Sadly, that's going to happen. Such is the nature of a system where takeout effects are strictly better than swinging for damage.
Experiences of a Fighter in 2.0
- Thread starter Graham Wolsey
- Start date
Sadly, that's going to happen. Such is the nature of a system where takeout effects are strictly better than swinging for damage.
JeffL
Newbie
To add to the derailing of this thread:
I have played in several systems where shields could be MUCH larger than current Alliance rules. It is just silly (if you ask me). And I don't think the burden of carrying it around will at all stop people from using it. A huge shield is one way for a player less-skilled at boffer combat to even the playing field.
I sympathize with the "I bought this nice looking thing and can't use it" but I don't think that is a good reason to drop the restrictions.
I have played in several systems where shields could be MUCH larger than current Alliance rules. It is just silly (if you ask me). And I don't think the burden of carrying it around will at all stop people from using it. A huge shield is one way for a player less-skilled at boffer combat to even the playing field.
I sympathize with the "I bought this nice looking thing and can't use it" but I don't think that is a good reason to drop the restrictions.
I feel like the shield rule is a positive change to fighters (or any shield user in v2). Everyone is different heights and builds, and capping a shield at 26" for a 6'8" person of broad build is silly. They should be able to benefit from the same percentage of coverage from their shield as a 5'0" person of slight build would get from that same 26". Right now in 1.3, shield coverage based on body type is not equitable. I feel like the removal of size restrictions will better allow players to work with the equipment that is right for them.
I'm 6'1" with long arms. By your logic for shield sizes, should we remove length limits for longswords because my buddy Al is 5' tall and has much shorter arms?
Saephis
Squire
Would I, at 6'4", like shields that protect a decent ratio of my body? Sure.
Would I like two handed weapons that were appropriately sized to their real-steel counterparts? Of course.
It isn't about the 6'+ crowd, nor about the 5'ish crowd. Its about the majority and their safety, not their "ideal" set-up. That's the point of national safety rules.
What works best for the majority is absolutely necessary, and one of the reason I can point to Alliance's (perhaps oft-viewed as archaic) safety rules as the reason, locally, we see no meaningful or numerous combat injuries due to weapons and their use.
Would I like two handed weapons that were appropriately sized to their real-steel counterparts? Of course.
It isn't about the 6'+ crowd, nor about the 5'ish crowd. Its about the majority and their safety, not their "ideal" set-up. That's the point of national safety rules.
What works best for the majority is absolutely necessary, and one of the reason I can point to Alliance's (perhaps oft-viewed as archaic) safety rules as the reason, locally, we see no meaningful or numerous combat injuries due to weapons and their use.
Al can make up for the range that your reach provides through footwork, battlefield positioning, and baiting you into over extending.
Shields and weapons do not provide the same functions, and are not used in the same fashions. They are unfortunately apples to oranges when compared as such.
Same things can be said about shields - I've seen bigger people use the exact same shields as smaller people, and I've seen the bigger people use that shield to greater effect purely by the way they move and use it.
Can't say I like the any size shield rule but I do believe it will police itself if the turtleing rule is not removed.
JeffL
Newbie
That seems like poor rule design. Doesn't that amount to saying your shield can be any size, so long as you leave some sliver of yourself uncovered?
This is an instance of comparing varying degrees of player skill. This is not a standard assessment of equipment ratios.
Two players of different body sizes and types, of similar skill levels, should see equally relative success when using shields that cover similar percentages of their body.
Parzivel
Artisan
Do a maximum shield size by taut string circumference. That way people can build weird sized shields to match their body type and fighting weaknesses, but it's easy to measure and marshal. Sure, it means 350lb 8 foot warrior is still not going to protect as much of his body, but he can choose long and thin if he likes his feet, or circular if his gut keeps getting hit. At the same time it stops ridiculous garage-door sized shield. Best thing you can do for shields is make double longsword an allowed combo. The people might not care about their pet shields so much because the other options is at least viable.
Wait a sec, I think you've got some conflicting points here: "Al can make up for the range that your reach provides through footwork, battlefield positioning, and baiting you into over extending," but "[bigger people using a shield to greater effect purely by the way they move and use it] is an instance of comparing varying degrees of player skill"? Why should player combat prowess be an acceptable answer to weapon lengths compared to player size, but an unacceptable answer to shield sizes compared to player size? Seems a weird double standard.
I don't actually like to argue on the internet and don't mean to be jerky (and rest assured, I am super calm and intend my comments in the least cynical manner possible. We cool, bro!) - I just want to make sure that you've got your thoughts reasonably sorted out.
What you're seeing stems from my earlier statement of "apples to oranges".
Shield coverage is a flat number. It has a surface area. You can't make it any bigger. You can re-position it, you can shift your body behind it, you can swap between a strap or a punch to change the way it works and how you use it. You can do a variety of things to cut off the incoming angles of shots, create dead zones, or exert your shield's influence over your opponent's shot selection. Regardless of what you do, however, that surface area stays the same. Its percentage of coverage relative to your body size stays the same.
Sure, the length of a sword contributes to its reach, along with the length of a fighter's arm. These two combined give you your static reach - the range at which you can hit someone if you do nothing in an attempt to close the distance between you. The level of influence of this can be changed by footwork. If I move into a position where my static reach now includes my opponent, now I can hit them. It doesn't matter if my sword is 48" or 36" or my arm length is comparable to theirs. Once I am in a position to strike my opponent, if I close too much further, additional blade on the sword or length on an arm that can't aid in generating new or deeper shot angles is essentially "wasted", as it no longer contributes to letting me "hit them better". This is not true for shields, where surface area is always a relevant and consistent factor.
Unless something else steals me away, I actively fight two days a week. On Saturdays I fight from around noon until sundown, and On Mondays from 17:30 until sundown. And this is just straight stick fighting time. There are a few short breaks here or there to hydrate, but aside from that it's almost all uptime. Some weeks there is a third or even rarely a fourth day added to that, occasionally peaking around 20 hours of fight time per week during the summer. This provides constant opportunities to observe what works, what doesn't, and how - across all manner of combatants.
On Mondays, almost everyone uses a 36" sword. It's pretty much the same, standard sword, from the exact same manufacturer. The same sword is used for both florentine or shield fighters. Shield sizes and types, however, differ. Some are punch, some are strap, some are larger, and some are smaller. The tallest person there, who I fight against consistently, has recently tried to use a strap shield that is too small for his body. When he fights with it, I hit him in places that I don't normally have the opportunity to hit him in when he is using an appropriately sized shield. It just doesn't provide the coverage that it should. When he picks up the appropriately sized shield, these opportunities go away. Even though he is considerably taller than I am, and has greater reach as a result, I feel I would be disadvantaged if I tried to use a longer sword. The balance point is wrong for performance shots, it delivers shots slower, and it has a higher recovery time. Simply taking a closing step against this taller opponent manages to remove the only issue I am concerned about (reach), while avoiding taking on all of the aforementioned detriments. In fact, often times I will choke up on the grip of the sword, reducing my range by several inches. This improves the leverage point, and provides additional forearm, hip and leg coverage. This range reduction does not hinder my ability to hit my opponent, because I can easily step in and close that distance. In either case, my area of coverage from my shield does not change, but the influence of my range and shot selection does.
On Saturdays, one of the fighters recently switched from a 40"+ sword down to a 36" sword. Suddenly, all of the shots that he had been unable to land before started landing. His control was better, his balance point was better, and his shot speed and recovery time improved. Having the longer weapon did not in fact give him an advantage, it was the reverse.
These two instances are just scratching the surface of what I have seen in this regard. Are these examples going to be the case for everyone, everywhere, all the time? No, everyone has different experiences. These examples are, however, consistent with what I have seen across several different foam combat sports, in half a dozen states, for two decades. These foam combat sports have no maximum weapon length, and allow particularly large shields. So I have had substantial opportunity to observe how these equipment availabilities that Alliance is now testing play out in a variety of environments, and in the hands of a diverse user base.
It would be much easier to demonstrate what I'm talking about visually in person, but unfortunately we don't have that luxury, seeing as how you're a bajillion miles away. Also, I am trying to hammer this out as I'm being rushed out the door by hangry people who just got home, so if it sounds weird, I apologize, and I'll come back and try to edit it later. I don't feel 100% happy with it is as, but we've come too far, and there's no turning back now!
Basically to summarize, swords and their use should be compared to swords, and shields and their use should be compared to shields.
Shield coverage is a flat number. It has a surface area. You can't make it any bigger. You can re-position it, you can shift your body behind it, you can swap between a strap or a punch to change the way it works and how you use it. You can do a variety of things to cut off the incoming angles of shots, create dead zones, or exert your shield's influence over your opponent's shot selection. Regardless of what you do, however, that surface area stays the same. Its percentage of coverage relative to your body size stays the same.
Sure, the length of a sword contributes to its reach, along with the length of a fighter's arm. These two combined give you your static reach - the range at which you can hit someone if you do nothing in an attempt to close the distance between you. The level of influence of this can be changed by footwork. If I move into a position where my static reach now includes my opponent, now I can hit them. It doesn't matter if my sword is 48" or 36" or my arm length is comparable to theirs. Once I am in a position to strike my opponent, if I close too much further, additional blade on the sword or length on an arm that can't aid in generating new or deeper shot angles is essentially "wasted", as it no longer contributes to letting me "hit them better". This is not true for shields, where surface area is always a relevant and consistent factor.
Unless something else steals me away, I actively fight two days a week. On Saturdays I fight from around noon until sundown, and On Mondays from 17:30 until sundown. And this is just straight stick fighting time. There are a few short breaks here or there to hydrate, but aside from that it's almost all uptime. Some weeks there is a third or even rarely a fourth day added to that, occasionally peaking around 20 hours of fight time per week during the summer. This provides constant opportunities to observe what works, what doesn't, and how - across all manner of combatants.
On Mondays, almost everyone uses a 36" sword. It's pretty much the same, standard sword, from the exact same manufacturer. The same sword is used for both florentine or shield fighters. Shield sizes and types, however, differ. Some are punch, some are strap, some are larger, and some are smaller. The tallest person there, who I fight against consistently, has recently tried to use a strap shield that is too small for his body. When he fights with it, I hit him in places that I don't normally have the opportunity to hit him in when he is using an appropriately sized shield. It just doesn't provide the coverage that it should. When he picks up the appropriately sized shield, these opportunities go away. Even though he is considerably taller than I am, and has greater reach as a result, I feel I would be disadvantaged if I tried to use a longer sword. The balance point is wrong for performance shots, it delivers shots slower, and it has a higher recovery time. Simply taking a closing step against this taller opponent manages to remove the only issue I am concerned about (reach), while avoiding taking on all of the aforementioned detriments. In fact, often times I will choke up on the grip of the sword, reducing my range by several inches. This improves the leverage point, and provides additional forearm, hip and leg coverage. This range reduction does not hinder my ability to hit my opponent, because I can easily step in and close that distance. In either case, my area of coverage from my shield does not change, but the influence of my range and shot selection does.
On Saturdays, one of the fighters recently switched from a 40"+ sword down to a 36" sword. Suddenly, all of the shots that he had been unable to land before started landing. His control was better, his balance point was better, and his shot speed and recovery time improved. Having the longer weapon did not in fact give him an advantage, it was the reverse.
These two instances are just scratching the surface of what I have seen in this regard. Are these examples going to be the case for everyone, everywhere, all the time? No, everyone has different experiences. These examples are, however, consistent with what I have seen across several different foam combat sports, in half a dozen states, for two decades. These foam combat sports have no maximum weapon length, and allow particularly large shields. So I have had substantial opportunity to observe how these equipment availabilities that Alliance is now testing play out in a variety of environments, and in the hands of a diverse user base.
It would be much easier to demonstrate what I'm talking about visually in person, but unfortunately we don't have that luxury, seeing as how you're a bajillion miles away. Also, I am trying to hammer this out as I'm being rushed out the door by hangry people who just got home, so if it sounds weird, I apologize, and I'll come back and try to edit it later. I don't feel 100% happy with it is as, but we've come too far, and there's no turning back now!
Basically to summarize, swords and their use should be compared to swords, and shields and their use should be compared to shields.
Muir
Fighter
Hey, I'm down for it. Might make up for the number of times I get people making noises about charging because I'm bigger than them and they get intimidated.
for those wanting to debate shields can you please create a seperate thread this thread is meant to be about fighter skills as someone has already pointed out.
do fighters use shields? commonly yes but so does pretty much every other class to one degree or another.
after doing some reading my complaints about 2.0 fighters are still as follows and rooted in my feelings:
there is no end game for fighters nothing equivalent to high magic to give fighters unique high level skills and no paragon paths are not counted by me as a solution to this since there are paragon paths for all classes. scholars don't have to choose really between paragon and high magic fighters don't get a choice.
crit attacks are made consumable like a scholars spells but they do not have the same utility in my view as a scholars spells a one point boost in damage is far less usefull than even most first level spells. on top of that we have to trade in our consumable crits to buy profs whereas a scholar does not have to turn in his spell slots to get stronger slots.
the hardest though is that without cloaks or banes a fighter is extremely vulnerable to magic without a spell caster yes this will be somewhat mitigated by monster balancing but I am terrified of being seen as a burden on the casters or getting caught alone with no protectives. even a high cost ability to let a pure fighter deflect spells would be extremely welcome.
do fighters use shields? commonly yes but so does pretty much every other class to one degree or another.
after doing some reading my complaints about 2.0 fighters are still as follows and rooted in my feelings:
there is no end game for fighters nothing equivalent to high magic to give fighters unique high level skills and no paragon paths are not counted by me as a solution to this since there are paragon paths for all classes. scholars don't have to choose really between paragon and high magic fighters don't get a choice.
crit attacks are made consumable like a scholars spells but they do not have the same utility in my view as a scholars spells a one point boost in damage is far less usefull than even most first level spells. on top of that we have to trade in our consumable crits to buy profs whereas a scholar does not have to turn in his spell slots to get stronger slots.
the hardest though is that without cloaks or banes a fighter is extremely vulnerable to magic without a spell caster yes this will be somewhat mitigated by monster balancing but I am terrified of being seen as a burden on the casters or getting caught alone with no protectives. even a high cost ability to let a pure fighter deflect spells would be extremely welcome.
mikestrauss
Squire
I am quoting the first lines of the original post: "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."
Based on that introduction, you are flat out wrong. This thread isn't meant to be about fighter skills. It is meant to be about the fighter experience. I, and many others, believe that the new shield rule has a significant negative impact on the fighter experience. Furthermore, I (and I believe others) think the impact of the new shield rule affects fighters more strongly (in part due to the way it interacts with other rule changes) than it affects other classes.
If you don't think the new shield rule detracts from the fighter experience, feel free to say so, but that line of discussion is completely appropriate in this thread.
-MS
Seeing as the new shield rule is unique to this playtest [0.9], it probably warrants it's own thread. That's not to say the people talking about it here are "wrong", just that it deserves it's own separate topic.
I think that the flurry rule and shield rule by themselves are insufficient to create the state of fighters right now and agree with the vast majority of Mech's post.
I think that the flurry rule and shield rule by themselves are insufficient to create the state of fighters right now and agree with the vast majority of Mech's post.