Concerned about fighters


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 194 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Yes, it's alpha, yes, balance tuning never ends. With that understood, here's my thinking and feedback based on the current state of the game I see:

There's no reason to play a fighter.

You can wear medium-to-heavy armor that a) slows you down, and b) doesn't protect against energy attacks, or, you can play a wizard and kite, avoiding all damage from slow melees and easily penetrating their armor.

Speed is life on the open field, and I haven't seen anything that fighters get to make up for it. Apparently nobody else has either, as the alpha streams are showing more and more casters as the weeks pass by.

I'm not sure what I would do to fix this. I hope the devs have some good ideas. Some old posts by Ryan suggest that units in formation should be highly resistant to magical attacks, but I hope that fighters are not forced into the soldier career in order to be meaningful.

Goblin Squad Member

Fighters have a lot of cool and interesting Expendables that make them stick out, they just haven't been implemented yet. Fighters also are the only role that has expendables that allows them to heal themselves.

I will go look up all the ways their expendables are unique from everyone else's and I will get back to you momentarily.

Goblin Squad Member

I thought they said they have yet to implement gap closers as well?
Generally speaking fighters have more endurance (with higher strength) that could also be factored in with stamina I'd imagine.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have played rogue and fighter(Akak). The fighter hits way harder than my rogue and is much more survivable. I have been playing Akak naked and i do notice i get hurt much more. But I can run really fast naked and fighters get charge and bullrush, which really close the distance.
Which is more like a Barbarian than a fighter.

Speed is the one of the powerful things to have. Thats why 7-league-boots tend to be the most prized items in most games. If no one can catch you, its really hard to die.

I think it seems pretty balanced to me and true to the table top, except I think backpack encumberance should dictate movement speed instead of just running naked faster with 100lbs of armor in my backpack.

Goblin Squad Member

It is possible that the encumbrance with heavy armor is a bit too much right now. I constantly hear people in alpha saying they will take their armor off to walk a single hex. I've no doubt they have enough pulls/charges/slows to make them fine in combat (they might even be most powerful class), it's out of combat I worry about them. As is, I can see caravans shunning fighters as protection because they double the travel time. That would suck.

Goblin Squad Member

With armor it's not just the weight. It's the way the armor makes you move your body differently that slows you down. I could see some higher tier armor having keywords that allowed for faster movement.

Goblin Squad Member

<Tavernhold>Malrunwa Soves wrote:
With armor it's not just the weight. It's the way the armor makes you move your body differently that slows you down. I could see some higher tier armor having keywords that allowed for faster movement.

Yes, the realism buffs should be getting a kick out of it. If it's working as designed it, probably means fighters in heavy armor are absolute beasts but the fighter is required to skill up medium or light armor if they want functionality outside of set piece combat.

I could live with that, it would be fun to see focus fire on a heavy armor fighter for a change and give them a true "tank" like feeling.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
<Tavernhold>Malrunwa Soves wrote:
With armor it's not just the weight. It's the way the armor makes you move your body differently that slows you down. I could see some higher tier armor having keywords that allowed for faster movement.

From Goblinworks blog Alpha Testing Week of July 17th 2014

Alpha Testing

Archer Armor (Fighter): Now also improves Speed

Goblin Squad Member

I would add that performance in PvE probably won't be the deciding factor for most folks. We've yet to see a fully implemented system to understand how Fighters will fare against Wizards in PvP. I remain hopeful that having a diverse group acting cohesively will be the key to success.

Goblin Squad Member

Based on theory alone light armored warriors should make pretty mean mage killers. Loin cloth for the win!

Ranged heavy/medium armored "turret" fighters might also be pretty effective machines of destruction (though obviously would struggle finishing anything and even to keep up with a fast moving group).

How to make heavy / medium armor work for melee in general without an abundance of gap closers / roots remains to be seen. It is very hard to try to come up with any solution which would work outside formations without swinging the balance too much the other way.

Armor / encumbrance affecting movement speed is really going to a tough thing to make work both in and outside combat.

Goblin Squad Member

<Tavernhold>Malrunwa Soves wrote:
With armor it's not just the weight. It's the way the armor makes you move your body differently that slows you down. I could see some higher tier armor having keywords that allowed for faster movement.

A big misconception about armor. Armor that is properly worn should do extremely little to limit speed or flexibility. It's a myth that ranks up there with the idea of the superiority of the katana - ideas that persist in fantasy culture despite all evidence to the contrary.

A half-assed crafted full suit of plate armor does not restrict movement of joints at all, weighs less than half of what modern marines carry into combat today, and that weight is distributed evenly over the body and close to the body, which makes the weight even more manageable.

Here is one of many examples out there that are easy to find that demonstrates how unrestrictive armor is: http://youtu.be/Pz7naZ08Jd4
It's also possible to find videos of people in full plate armor doing cartwheels, handsprings, and even swimming (lthough the swimming is noticeably much more challenging).

Goblin Squad Member

I think where you'll really see heavy armor shine (Aside from PvE) is formation combat and structure defense. Formation combat since you will likely already be moving slow and structure defense since if they can't get past you, you win.

But yeah I think they should have a light armor variant of every class that doesn't generally wear cloth.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius the Afflicted wrote:

I think where you'll really see heavy armor shine (Aside from PvE) is formation combat and structure defense. Formation combat since you will likely already be moving slow and structure defense since if they can't get past you, you win.

But yeah I think they should have a light armor variant of every class that doesn't generally wear cloth.

I'm very curious to see this formation combat demoed.

Goblin Squad Member

This guy's not quite in full plate armor, but it's still enough armor to really make the point that if your armor restricts your mobility then it was probably made by a drunken halfling shoemaker: http://youtu.be/257qFxJhGU0

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

We've already seen the Alpha testers swing from bows to spells, as systems were implemented and revised. I doubt everyone will remain wizards in EE.

Maybe heavy armor will end up most useful in siege defense. Maybe mounts will make mobile heavily armored fighters more practical (waaay down the road). Maybe there will be a fighter feat line that mitigates speed penalties (like Rolemaster's Maneuver in Armor skills).

Actually, I like that last idea. Anyone who trains Heavy Armor can wear it, but to run in it, you need to train that feat line and have the fighter feat-enabling item slotted (I forget what it's called).

Edit: In most video games, I think that having heavy armor slow you down is meant to balance it against light and medium armor, not as an attempt at realism. You get more protection, but you give up mobility. If PFO heavy armor won't be overall more effective than light or medium armor (a rock/paper/scissors system with one type good against melee, another good against spells, and one middling at both), then heavy armor doesn't really need a balancing disadvantage to keep everyone from choosing it.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:
<Tavernhold>Malrunwa Soves wrote:
With armor it's not just the weight. It's the way the armor makes you move your body differently that slows you down. I could see some higher tier armor having keywords that allowed for faster movement.
A big misconception about armor...

It's obvious that wearing armor doesn't completely limit range of motion, nor does it prohibit things like running, doing jumping jacks, etc.

However, until we see a sprint race won by a sprinter in armor against a sprinter not in armor, I think it's reasonable to conclude that wearing armor "slows you down".

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Blaeringr wrote:
<Tavernhold>Malrunwa Soves wrote:
With armor it's not just the weight. It's the way the armor makes you move your body differently that slows you down. I could see some higher tier armor having keywords that allowed for faster movement.
A big misconception about armor...

It's obvious that wearing armor doesn't completely limit range of motion, nor does it prohibit things like running, doing jumping jacks, etc.

However, until we see a sprint race won by a sprinter in armor against a sprinter not in armor, I think it's reasonable to conclude that wearing armor "slows you down".

But the real question is "how much?" Definitely, without question less than wearing a backpack with the same amount of weight. If heavy backpacks don't slow you down, there's less justification for armor to do so.

For short sprints in combat, the difference should be minuscule. It should only be a larger difference in longer distances, and even then it will be less of a problem than a backpack weighing the same because of distribution.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:
This guy's not quite in full plate armor, but it's still enough armor to really make the point that if your armor restricts your mobility then it was probably made by a drunken halfling shoemaker: http://youtu.be/257qFxJhGU0

Half drunken shoe makers.... Phaw, who would ever buy that crap when you could buy Invictus brand heavy armor?

Invictus brand heavy armor. Made only by the most skilled drug snorting goblins.

Sold only in our enemy's settlements.

Goblin Squad Member

Moving mass requires energy. Not a problem in a 45-second video, but a considerable challenge in a long engagement. Maybe the solution is a gradual encumbrance escalation, where fresh and rested characters can initially move at full speed in heavy armor, but over time move more slowly as exhaustion sets in (modified and dependent on environmental conditions, STR, CON and buffs, of course).

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

One thing's for sure: Realistically speaking, wearing metal plates and carrying them should both slow you down. Stripping out of armor to run only works so well right now because weight penalties haven't been introduced yet.

Sovereign Court Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ignoring expendables a wizard vs. fighter 1 v 1 fight is something I've spent a lot of time worrying about. If the fighter can get in close and stay there, eg. with charges, it's pretty much a win for him. Or if he's using a bow he's likely to win the 1 v 1 as the range of the two would be equal if the wizard uses a staff. Range would favor the fighter if the wizard uses a wand.

Numbers subject to change, but you get a good chunk of your hp from your armor feats. There are 14 levels in those feats and you gain the same amount each level. Fighters get 30-35 hp/level depending on choice of armor feat. Wizards get 0 hp/level. So that's 420-490 hp in favor of the fighter.

Both get 400 hp starting out. If they train Toughness up they can add 50. If they train hp up they gain 40 hp/level, max 20 levels. So that's an extra 800 for the fighter. But the wizard can only train 10 levels of hp as levels 11+ require achievements the wizard won't get without training into another role.

So tallied up the wizard has: 400+400=800 (+50 with Toughness or +60 with Transmuter), compared to the fighter's 400+800+420 to 490=1620 to 1690.

Top end fighter resistance against energy damage tops out at 20. Top end wizard resistance against physical damage tops out at 12 (I think). Numbers very subject to change. Both should have comparable base damage. The wizard will also be provoking opportunity constantly and the fighter can gain a small bonus to base damage based on that. So for equal damage factors/cooldowns the fighter has slightly better dps against the wizard.

To have a chance against the fighter in a stand up bow vs. spell fight or in a close quarters fight the wizard needs to do roughly twice as much final damage to win based on hp. So wizard cantrip damage needs to have over double the damage factor (or half the cooldown) for the wizard to win either of those fights. As far as I can tell that's not the case.

The only way I see the wizard winning 1 v 1 is either kiting a melee fighter (or completely controlling the fight's conditions in ways that can't be countered with charge) ... or blowing expendables.

Edit: I forgot one factor, namely reflex penalties on heavy armor. That improves the wizard's dps slightly against the fighter. Not even remotely enough to tip the scales though.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Blaeringr wrote:
<Tavernhold>Malrunwa Soves wrote:
With armor it's not just the weight. It's the way the armor makes you move your body differently that slows you down. I could see some higher tier armor having keywords that allowed for faster movement.
A big misconception about armor...

It's obvious that wearing armor doesn't completely limit range of motion, nor does it prohibit things like running, doing jumping jacks, etc.

However, until we see a sprint race won by a sprinter in armor against a sprinter not in armor, I think it's reasonable to conclude that wearing armor "slows you down".

But the real question is "how much?" Definitely, without question less than wearing a backpack with the same amount of weight. If heavy backpacks don't slow you down, there's less justification for armor to do so.

For short sprints in combat, the difference should be minuscule. It should only be a larger difference in longer distances, and even then it will be less of a problem than a backpack weighing the same because of distribution.

Medieval suits of armour were so exhausting to wear that they could have affected the outcomes of famous battles, a study suggests.

Goblin Squad Member

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think Nightdrifter is a Numbers Elemental from the Plane of Math. One might integrate a prime material plane joke in there somewhere as well, if you can find the right angle.

Goblin Squad Member

Shaibes wrote:
Moving mass requires energy. Not a problem in a 45-second video, but a considerable challenge in a long engagement. Maybe the solution is a gradual encumbrance escalation, where fresh and rested characters can initially move at full speed in heavy armor, but over time move more slowly as exhaustion sets in (modified and dependent on environmental conditions, STR, CON and buffs, of course).

How about this:

-carried weight increases the rate at which fatigue is accumulated. That goes for armor, weapon, backpack, etc.
-fatigue is what slows down a combatant.
-fatigue increases more quickly for running with a lot of weight, and only somewhat more quickly for wearing armor (yes, they're swinging around more weight, but the actual weight of a weapon and armor that is being swung to make basic attacks is not very much, and the armor at the base of the arms and on the core are not moving very much, most of the force is still in just swinging the weapon)
-fatigue mitigated by higher str and con.

Goblin Squad Member

Nightdrifter wrote:
Ignoring expendables a wizard vs. fighter 1 v 1 fight is something I've spent a lot of time worrying about.

So what about rogues? Are they just miserable sacks of lose, outside of sneak attack situations?

Goblin Squad Member

<Magistry> Toombstone wrote:
I think Nightdrifter is a Numbers Elemental from the Plane of Math. There might be a "prime" material plane joke in there somewhere as well

Methinks ye right, errr, talking Eyeball? Yup, me do.

<cackles>

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Hopefully, neither the wizards nor the fighters will be charging into solo PVP against their counterparts very often. I hope that balancing one-on-one fights between a wizard and a fighter, or a cleric and a rogue, isn't very high on GW's priority list.

Hopefully, mixed parties will be optimal choices for both PVE and PVP.

Sovereign Court Goblin Squad Member

<Magistry> Toombstone wrote:
Nightdrifter wrote:
Ignoring expendables a wizard vs. fighter 1 v 1 fight is something I've spent a lot of time worrying about.
So what about rogues? Are they just miserable sacks of lose, outside of sneak attack situations?

I don't yet have a good feel for how easily rogues can get sneak attack in a fight. I also don't know how base damage bonus on sneak attack scales. I think it starts at +10, but have no idea where it tops out.

Just like tabletop if the fighter and rogue stand toe to toe the rogue needs to pull out a lot of tricks to have any chance. It's a similar situation of more hp for the fighter and the rogue having less resistance against the fighter's attacks.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Nightdrifter wrote:

Just like tabletop if the fighter and rogue stand toe to toe the rogue needs to pull out a lot of tricks to have any chance.

I hope that's true. Efficiency in a one-on-one slugfest in an open field shouldn't be a compelling reason to train rogue feats.

Goblin Squad Member

FMS Quietus wrote:

...(snipped for brevity's sake)...

Medieval suits of armour were so exhausting to wear that they could have affected the outcomes of famous battles, a study suggests.

According to that study they were using the heaviest armor they could find: "which is similar to the weight a modern soldier might carry in their backpack", and "they weigh [up to] 50kg"

Traditional full plate armor could weigh as little as 20 kg, but most usually between 20 and 25 kg. Rather than reference a newspaper, let's reference someone who specializes in facts about this stuff: http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/aams/hd_aams.htm#weight_b

What they were testing in that study you referenced was late 17th century armor which was greatly thickened to increase resistance against bullets. So it is very much out of context for this discussion.

Goblin Squad Member

Nightdrifter wrote:

To have a chance against the fighter in a stand up bow vs. spell fight or in a close quarters fight the wizard needs to do roughly twice as much final damage to win based on hp.

...
The only way I see the wizard winning 1 v 1 is either kiting a melee fighter (or completely controlling the fight's conditions in ways that can't be countered with charge) ... or blowing expendables.

You seem to be concerned about the wizards, based on the outcomes of a "stand up" fight. My concern is just the opposite, because a competent wizard will never get into a stand up fight in the first place.

Wizard vs archer fighter is an interesting matchup, and I don't know how that will play out. It may be that archers will turn out to be the ranged DPS kings and wizards take a different role of AOE and control. None of this conversation helps the melee fighter, though.

If it turns out that the counter to massed wizards is fast melee, and that the counter to fast melee is heavy melee, then I think we have the makings of a very interesting battlefield dynamic where you put your ranged troops behind a shield wall of heavy foot. But I'm not confident that the systems we've seen so far will evolve towards that end state without help.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Guurzak wrote:

If it turns out that the counter to massed wizards is fast melee, and that the counter to fast melee is heavy melee, then I think we have the makings of a very interesting battlefield dynamic where you put your ranged troops behind a shield wall of heavy foot.

Add in a decent formation system, and that sounds great. Add snipers, skirmishers, catapults/ballistae and battlefield control wizards, and it could become truly epic. Make it all work without freezing everyone's computer, and you've got your hands on the holy grail.

Sovereign Court Goblin Squad Member

Perhaps "stand up bow vs. spell" was a poor choice of words. I use 'stand up' because in a ranged fight with tab targeting and instant casts movement is only useful for breaking line of sight or breaking range. Anyways, bow vs. spell heavily favors the fighter.

Recall that you can have 2 equipped weapons. Any fighter worried about being kited by casters should be smart enough to equip a bow. Take half a second to switch into the bow and the melee argument is moot.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guurzak wrote:
If it turns out that the counter to massed wizards is fast melee, and that the counter to fast melee is heavy melee, then I think we have the makings of a very interesting battlefield dynamic where you put your ranged troops behind a shield wall of heavy foot. But I'm not confident that the systems we've seen so far will evolve towards that end state without help.

I would also be content if it turns out that heavy armored slow troops have an advantage in combat over fixed positions, either taking or defending a Tower / POI, and the lightly armored wizards / skirmisher types have the advantage in running fights, such as ambushing or escorting a caravan.

What I would be disappointed with is a system that makes range + speed the only effective means of combat.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Agreed on both counts.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Blaeringr wrote:
<Tavernhold>Malrunwa Soves wrote:
With armor it's not just the weight. It's the way the armor makes you move your body differently that slows you down. I could see some higher tier armor having keywords that allowed for faster movement.
A big misconception about armor...

It's obvious that wearing armor doesn't completely limit range of motion, nor does it prohibit things like running, doing jumping jacks, etc.

However, until we see a sprint race won by a sprinter in armor against a sprinter not in armor, I think it's reasonable to conclude that wearing armor "slows you down".

But the real question is "how much?" Definitely, without question less than wearing a backpack with the same amount of weight. If heavy backpacks don't slow you down, there's less justification for armor to do so.

For short sprints in combat, the difference should be minuscule. It should only be a larger difference in longer distances, and even then it will be less of a problem than a backpack weighing the same because of distribution.

Then shouldn't heavier armor just have more of a stamina drain while worn and not a reduced speed? If there is a way for fighters to increase their stamina then it would show their training with that armor by allowing them to do more before tiring.

Goblin Squad Member

FMS Quietus wrote:


Medieval suits of armour were so exhausting to wear that they could have affected the outcomes of famous battles, a study suggests.

I am amused that the researchers also tested the case of armor worn vs. armor carried, and found that carrying the armor was less fatiguing than wearing it. Pointy-headed scientists! Everyone on the internet knows that it's easier to wear armor than carry it. /s

(Agincourt was fought in 1415. The article specifically states that they used replica sets of 15th century armor.)

Goblin Squad Member

Hey, now that I think about it, Have there been any good blogs from the Devs. on caravans. I always see them talked about but I have never seen an official statement of mechanics and uses.

Goblin Squad Member

Ravenlute wrote:
Blaeringr wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Blaeringr wrote:
<Tavernhold>Malrunwa Soves wrote:
With armor it's not just the weight. It's the way the armor makes you move your body differently that slows you down. I could see some higher tier armor having keywords that allowed for faster movement.
A big misconception about armor...

It's obvious that wearing armor doesn't completely limit range of motion, nor does it prohibit things like running, doing jumping jacks, etc.

However, until we see a sprint race won by a sprinter in armor against a sprinter not in armor, I think it's reasonable to conclude that wearing armor "slows you down".

But the real question is "how much?" Definitely, without question less than wearing a backpack with the same amount of weight. If heavy backpacks don't slow you down, there's less justification for armor to do so.

For short sprints in combat, the difference should be minuscule. It should only be a larger difference in longer distances, and even then it will be less of a problem than a backpack weighing the same because of distribution.

Then shouldn't heavier armor just have more of a stamina drain while worn and not a reduced speed? If there is a way for fighters to increase their stamina then it would show their training with that armor by allowing them to do more before tiring.

Not just heavier armor, heavier anything. Weapons, armor, pack, anything.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
FMS Quietus wrote:


Medieval suits of armour were so exhausting to wear that they could have affected the outcomes of famous battles, a study suggests.

I am amused that the researchers also tested the case of armor worn vs. armor carried, and found that carrying the armor was less fatiguing than wearing it. Pointy-headed scientists! Everyone on the internet knows that it's easier to wear armor than carry it. /s

(Agincourt was fought in 1415. The article specifically states that they used replica sets of 15th century armor.)

The article also gives weights, and those weights don't match typical 15th century armor but were in fact double the high end field armor from the 15th century. The weights they quote matches late 17th century armor which was thickened to be more resistant to bullets.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

The heavy armor fighter swaps to his bow, drops a slowing attack on the wizard, then uses a charge attack. The Master Of Opprutunity reactive feats apply knockdown and interrupt if the wizard used ranged spells or moves; once the distance is closed, it doesn't open up again without an evasion ability (which can be countered with another charge).

Next weekend we'll have to have a bunch of people murder themselves a lot and resolve the discussion.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Whiles roles are not write in the stone: What about a Fighter/Rogue Speced to PvP (archer/2h, charges, slows, sneaks, HP and Protection - The best of both for kill casters), using only cloth armor for magic defense, getting a mage in the field?

Don't forget we have the option to customize our choices...

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
<Tavernhold>Malrunwa Soves wrote:
Hey, now that I think about it, Have there been any good blogs from the Devs. on caravans. I always see them talked about but I have never seen an official statement of mechanics and uses.

Not that I know of. I think most of us are assuming that in early EE, there won't be any wagons or fast movement on roads, so caravans will simply be groups on foot, moving at ordinary walking speed.

Goblin Squad Member

KarlBob wrote:
<Tavernhold>Malrunwa Soves wrote:
Hey, now that I think about it, Have there been any good blogs from the Devs. on caravans. I always see them talked about but I have never seen an official statement of mechanics and uses.
Not that I know of. I think most of us are assuming that in early EE, there won't be any wagons or fast movement on roads, so caravans will simply be groups on foot, moving at ordinary walking speed.

Ah, ok thanks

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:


Caravans will start as ad hoc collections of characters, and iterate to ad hoc collections of characters and vehicles hauling stuff. Crowdforging will determine if and how more resources are allocated to systems related to caravans. But the initial design is one character with pockets full of stuff running through the wilderness trying to get from A to B often enough to show a profit.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kemedo wrote:

Whiles roles are not write in the stone: What about a Fighter/Rogue Speced to PvP (archer/2h, charges, slows, sneaks, HP and Protection - The best of both for kill casters), using only cloth armor for magic defense, getting a mage in the field?

Don't forget we have the option to customize our choices...

I'll try to get as close to monk as possible: fast melee attacker that specializes in anti-ranged fighting. Currently there's no monklike weapons or armor implemented, so it might initially be a greatsword and robes.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Kemedo wrote:

Whiles roles are not write in the stone: What about a Fighter/Rogue Speced to PvP (archer/2h, charges, slows, sneaks, HP and Protection - The best of both for kill casters), using only cloth armor for magic defense, getting a mage in the field?

Don't forget we have the option to customize our choices...

I'll try to get as close to monk as possible: fast melee attacker that specializes in anti-ranged fighting. Currently there's no monklike weapons or armor implemented, so it might initially be a greatsword and robes.

Pole arm and robes should be a couple inches closer to what you want.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One of the issues why speed/manuver/range is such an overpowering advantage is that holding a position doesn't count for squat.

If I were designing PFO....

- Heavy Armor + Shield in a defensive stance, in cover, in a perpaired position should be pretty impervious to ranged attacks of either the mundane (e.g. bows) or magical variety. You could fire at them all day and pretty much not ever do enough damage to bring them down.

- Holding certain strategic positions should really, really matter. It should matter ALOT more then getting some random kill out in the middle of nowhere.

- The job ranged should play is to lock down the manuverability and the ability to defend against MELEE attack of heavy infantry. Heavy infantry's job is to hold and defend a position. They work together to provide combined arms. You use Ranged to supress fire from you opponents ranged and allow your melee infantry to act offensively. You use Ranged to fix your enemies heavy infantry in position and hamper thier ability to defend against your melee. You use your heavy melee to hold a fixed position or to drive the enemies heavy melee from thiers.
Light fast ranged can't take or hold territory by itself (unless facing similar light fast ranged) but it can keep itself from being engaged by slower, heavier melee... unless it encounters them at close range and is not perpaired for it.

YMMV.

Sovereign Court Goblin Squad Member

Too late to edit my posts, but should add this:

At low levels physical vs. caster dps is closely matched when fighting eachother. An important point is that in PFO dps is relative to your target. The way things scale at the moment the higher level you get the more it tips in favor of physical when against a wizard. It's not a huge scaling though.

More importantly, hp is consistent across all classes for new characters until they start training their armor feats. As those get trained up the hp balance tips strongly towards fighters. Also, when training hp casters hit an artificial cap long before fighters.

So the balance of caster vs. physical (ignoring expendables) will be very different at higher levels than it is at the low levels people are currently playing.

Goblin Squad Member

That is probably the opposite of how it should be though. It seems PFO will flip flop the table top standard. Magic users are supposed to start off horrid and as they level become gods among men. (Yes, I realize it would be impossible to code in all the versatility spells that make Wizards worth playing)

It seems Goblinworks has decided Wizard really is just a stand in for Evoker. (the weakest of all schools of magic) And better yet, they are sorcerers...(Spontaneous Casting)

I didn't want to start a Concerns about the Wizard thread so I hope this can fit in nicely here.

This ad has been brought to you by BWB: The Better Wizards Bureau

1 to 50 of 194 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Concerned about fighters All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.