|
7 months ago ::
Nov 18, 2012 - 5:43AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2012
|
I could be a missing something here, but I'm just not seeing a big problem. Conceptually, I feel like people should be able to say, "Good thing Jimmy rolled up a fighter. Those last combats would have been tragic without him." To me, these numbers do just that: they support the fighter's schtick.
Maybe further review might show that the damage gap will need to be closed a little, but not much, I say. This seems in fitting with what role a fighter is expected to fill.
i don't have a problem with the fighter being a really well-rounded class that focuses on damage, but the fighter shouldn't so much better that you get things like "Damnit Jimmy, why couldn't you have just made a fighter?"
the rogue, the monk, and all the rest of the martial classes need at least something that they're better than the fighter at. it doesn't have to be damage, but it does have to be meaningful enough that you can justify playing them.
you mean like the rogue getting skill usage? or the monk getting speed and agility?
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 18, 2012 - 5:45AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2012
|
I could be a missing something here, but I'm just not seeing a big problem. Conceptually, I feel like people should be able to say, "Good thing Jimmy rolled up a fighter. Those last combats would have been tragic without him." To me, these numbers do just that: they support the fighter's schtick.
thats exactly my thought, i mean god forbid the fighter is better at fighting.
they complain the fighter doesnt stand out enough as a fighter and now they complain it stands out too much O.o
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 18, 2012 - 5:55AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Sep 30, 2006
|
I could be a missing something here, but I'm just not seeing a big problem. Conceptually, I feel like people should be able to say, "Good thing Jimmy rolled up a fighter. Those last combats would have been tragic without him." To me, these numbers do just that: they support the fighter's schtick.
Maybe further review might show that the damage gap will need to be closed a little, but not much, I say. This seems in fitting with what role a fighter is expected to fill.
i don't have a problem with the fighter being a really well-rounded class that focuses on damage, but the fighter shouldn't so much better that you get things like "Damnit Jimmy, why couldn't you have just made a fighter?"
the rogue, the monk, and all the rest of the martial classes need at least something that they're better than the fighter at. it doesn't have to be damage, but it does have to be meaningful enough that you can justify playing them.
you mean like the rogue getting skill usage? or the monk getting speed and agility?
the rogue being good at skills isn't going to be much of a consolation if the fighter does double their average damage in every singe encounter.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 18, 2012 - 5:56AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2012
|
I could be a missing something here, but I'm just not seeing a big problem. Conceptually, I feel like people should be able to say, "Good thing Jimmy rolled up a fighter. Those last combats would have been tragic without him." To me, these numbers do just that: they support the fighter's schtick.
Maybe further review might show that the damage gap will need to be closed a little, but not much, I say. This seems in fitting with what role a fighter is expected to fill.
i don't have a problem with the fighter being a really well-rounded class that focuses on damage, but the fighter shouldn't so much better that you get things like "Damnit Jimmy, why couldn't you have just made a fighter?"
the rogue, the monk, and all the rest of the martial classes need at least something that they're better than the fighter at. it doesn't have to be damage, but it does have to be meaningful enough that you can justify playing them.
you mean like the rogue getting skill usage? or the monk getting speed and agility?
the rogue being good at skills isn't going to be much of a consolation if the fighter does double their average damage in every singe encounter.
it works on the basis of this being a roleplaying game with a lot of noncombat events.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 18, 2012 - 6:01AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Sep 30, 2006
|
I could be a missing something here, but I'm just not seeing a big problem. Conceptually, I feel like people should be able to say, "Good thing Jimmy rolled up a fighter. Those last combats would have been tragic without him." To me, these numbers do just that: they support the fighter's schtick.
Maybe further review might show that the damage gap will need to be closed a little, but not much, I say. This seems in fitting with what role a fighter is expected to fill.
i don't have a problem with the fighter being a really well-rounded class that focuses on damage, but the fighter shouldn't so much better that you get things like "Damnit Jimmy, why couldn't you have just made a fighter?"
the rogue, the monk, and all the rest of the martial classes need at least something that they're better than the fighter at. it doesn't have to be damage, but it does have to be meaningful enough that you can justify playing them.
you mean like the rogue getting skill usage? or the monk getting speed and agility?
the rogue being good at skills isn't going to be much of a consolation if the fighter does double their average damage in every singe encounter.
it works on the basis of this being a roleplaying game with a lot of noncombat events.
people shouldn't be without a horse in the race that takes up the majority of the game in a lot of groups.
just like it's not right for all fighters to be better at damage than all the other classes, all fighters shouldn't be forced to be totally inept outside of initiative.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 18, 2012 - 7:23AM
#16
|
|
|
I could be a missing something here, but I'm just not seeing a big problem. Conceptually, I feel like people should be able to say, "Good thing Jimmy rolled up a fighter. Those last combats would have been tragic without him." To me, these numbers do just that: they support the fighter's schtick.
thats exactly my thought, i mean god forbid the fighter is better at fighting.
they complain the fighter doesnt stand out enough as a fighter and now they complain it stands out too much O.o
I'm with these guys; why is it so bad that the Fighter is better at fighting?
Also, I think that an 80% hit rate is far, far too high. That's the bigger issue for me. I'd prefer to see the developers spend time correcting that instead of trying to make every other class good at what should be the Fighter's exclusive territory, i.e. being good at fighting.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 18, 2012 - 12:56PM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Oct 16, 2008
|
I could be a missing something here, but I'm just not seeing a big problem. Conceptually, I feel like people should be able to say, "Good thing Jimmy rolled up a fighter. Those last combats would have been tragic without him." To me, these numbers do just that: they support the fighter's schtick.
thats exactly my thought, i mean god forbid the fighter is better at fighting.
they complain the fighter doesnt stand out enough as a fighter and now they complain it stands out too much O.o
I'm with these guys; why is it so bad that the Fighter is better at fighting?
Also, I think that an 80% hit rate is far, far too high. That's the bigger issue for me. I'd prefer to see the developers spend time correcting that instead of trying to make every other class good at what should be the Fighter's exclusive territory, i.e. being good at fighting.
It isn't bad that the fighter is better at fighting. What's the problem is that no one is close to a fighter in fighting. Also, fighter's aren't really good at much else outside of combat. Instead of having classes that interact in the three pillars we have 1 choice for one pillar and another in the others. Bringing other martial classes a little closer to the fighter, so you don't feel like you hobbled yourself in combat for not choosing a fighter, is good and needs to be met the other way with making fighter's slightly better outside of combat.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 18, 2012 - 3:56PM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
well sure, when you add all 3d10 each round it out damages easily... you are rolling 3d10.
but more realistically, the fighter may have used one or two of these for a parry attempt
calculate it like that
It is already calculated like that. A fighter can spend a die doing something else that is more effective than damage at a particular moment in combat. A monk can too. If they both spend an equal amount of dice on something else, then their damage calculations will change in ratio. The final conclusions will be the same. The only way you can get a number which "balances out" is if you calculate a fighter spending less then all of his ED on damage, a monk spending all of his ED on damage, and then ignore that the ED dice lost to something other than damage still exist, and a monk will lose ED dice to something other than damage as well. In other words, they don't balance out at all unless you disingenuously ignore important data. See, if a monk spends all of its ED on something other than damage and a fighter does as well the fighter will still be dealing much more damage than the monk. In fact, at that point in time the monk will be dealing less than 50% of the fighter’s DPR.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 18, 2012 - 4:00PM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
Also, fighter's aren't really good at much else outside of combat.
That is not true. Fighters are also great at climbing, jumping, swimming, driving vehicles, riding, intimidating people, and breaking stuff. In fact, they are quite good at stuff outside of combat ever since Mighty Exertion got added to the game! The notion that they are not is now something of a misperception.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 18, 2012 - 4:02PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2004
|
I could be a missing something here, but I'm just not seeing a big problem. Conceptually, I feel like people should be able to say, "Good thing Jimmy rolled up a fighter. Those last combats would have been tragic without him." To me, these numbers do just that: they support the fighter's schtick.
Maybe further review might show that the damage gap will need to be closed a little, but not much, I say. This seems in fitting with what role a fighter is expected to fill.
So tell me something: what currently makes someone say "good thing Jimmy rolled up a monk!" What stops someone from saying, "god, I wish Jimmy had just rolled a fighter instead of a monk."
I am fine with fighter's being able to do a little more damage than the other martial classes. But, right now, the gap is way too big.
|
|
|
