Honestly, I dont get why they didnt just make 1 fighter, he has the ability to use a 2h OR a sword and sheild. Depending on which one he uses, he gets sprint or block...
I know there are other issues but that would be pretty dang cool imo.... Heck they could (and never will) easily make "tab" swap between two weapon sets like the ranger does.
tab switches your GF to a GWF etc....
Theyll never do this though....
The ONLY things that really change depending on which paragon path you choose is the few paragon abilities.
GWFs will NOT have bull rush, GFs will NOT have takedown etc....
However the paragon abilities/feats they will have a choice.
As for whats better. Ithink ALOT of GWfs will be iron vanguard where hardly any GFs will be swordmaster. Besides the Steely defense feat, it seems alot of the abilities are sub par compared to GF path. IMO. Waiting to test also so I reserve the right to change my mind.
It seems to me like they wanted to make a Barbarian, and got shot down for it. A melee striker with high HP (but low defenses) would have been awesome. It was what I *thought* I was making, anyhow. But instead, it's simply a variety of fighter.
Why did they not go with Barbarian? I can only think of one reason, and that being that they were told only to access Player Handbook I content (which is pretty much all they've pulled from, that I can tell).
"Every adventurer has two things in common: they don't like dying, and they love getting paid. The rest is just semantics." Brecken, famed mercenary of Baldur's Gate
It seems to me like they wanted to make a Barbarian, and got shot down for it. A melee striker with high HP (but low defenses) would have been awesome. It was what I *thought* I was making, anyhow. But instead, it's simply a variety of fighter.
Why did they not go with Barbarian? I can only think of one reason, and that being that they were told only to access Player Handbook I content (which is pretty much all they've pulled from, that I can tell).
GWFs want access to GF to get controls, mobility in leaps, an/or extra tankiness. Everything a player would want from a GF is available to the GWF now.
But as a GF, the things I would want from a GWF are not available, such as unstoppable qr which is superior to a shield in PvP. Or the crazy good GWF armors with awesome stats. Or the awesome weapons with the huge damage .. but GFs don't getany of that.
I get that they are the first two subclasses of the class fighter, and the Ranger is the ssecond subclass of the class Rogue. But as it stands now, my PvP GF isn't only getting nerfed, he is getting straight replaced with a better model.
GWFs want access to GF to get controls, mobility in leaps, an/or extra tankiness. Everything a player would want from a GF is available to the GWF now.
But as a GF, the things I would want from a GWF are not available, such as unstoppable qr which is superior to a shield in PvP. Or the crazy good GWF armors with awesome stats. Or the awesome weapons with the huge damage .. but GFs don't getany of that.
I get that they are the first two subclasses of the class fighter, and the Ranger is the ssecond subclass of the class Rogue. But as it stands now, my PvP GF isn't only getting nerfed, he is getting straight replaced with a better model.
Your kind of wrong a little on your subclasses.
GWF and GF are the first two subclasses of the Fighter class. You're right there. A defender first, that seconds as a striker or controller (unlike a Paladin who would be leader first, seconds as defender/controller; or a barbarian who would be striker first, seconds as leader/defender).
Trickster Rogue is one of the subclasses of Rogue. The other is Brawny Rogue. Both are Striker's first, seconding as controllers.
Hunter Ranger is unique in this sense. It combines the sub-classes of ranger together. One of the subclasses of Ranger is Archer Ranger, the other is dual-weapon ranger. We got both in one go.
It's important to realize what those roles are: striker, controller, leader, defender. And to realize that in Dungeons and Dragons, those roles are shared by **** near everybody. That fighter I mentioned? He's not only a great defender, but he also has qualities of a striker and a controller, with the right feats.
That's reflected in game somewhat. Instead of going with the standard MMO tropes of a tank being a tank and nothing else, our defenders can control mobs and hit hard if they choose.
Inter-mixing the two paragon trees makes sense, on the one hand. On the other, however, it's kinda lame, because it means we don't get anything new. Not really.
"Every adventurer has two things in common: they don't like dying, and they love getting paid. The rest is just semantics." Brecken, famed mercenary of Baldur's Gate
With the incoming new classes, it's natural to regroup some of the old classes. GF will become the main representative of the fighter class, with a definite role in dungeons, and the gwf will remain here as a sub-class, just for the mavericks who don't care really about PvE nor PvP.
Well, you call it natural to make the GF class obsolete in PvP, but I call it B.S.
Each class should be viable in both PvP and PvE. No one class should be clearly better. If they reduces the recharge time and requirements n Singularity so that it could be cast every5 sseconds indedi itately it would make all Fighters obsolete ... but to me that would be neither natural nor balanced. What should be done is balance the classes, not make one obsolete.
If this is their strategy it is going to push some GF's to rreconsider investing time into there characters at all. Then those of us who focus on PvP will simply move on to a new game.
Everyone seems to think new content is the Holy Grail of MMO's, but there are a lot of PvPers who play a lot without much new content at all. It is certainly easier to balance a class than code and create a new zone. I hope the devs don'tmake PvP an afterthought. But basedbon their series of bad decisions with module 1, I ssuspect they will make a lot of mistakes with module 2.
GWF and GF are the first two subclasses of the Fighter class. You're right there. A defender first, that seconds as a striker or controller (unlike a Paladin who would be leader first, seconds as defender/controller; or a barbarian who would be striker first, seconds as leader/defender).
Trickster Rogue is one of the subclasses of Rogue. The other is Brawny Rogue. Both are Striker's first, seconding as controllers.
Hunter Ranger is unique in this sense. It combines the sub-classes of ranger together. One of the subclasses of Ranger is Archer Ranger, the other is dual-weapon ranger. We got both in one go.
It's important to realize what those roles are: striker, controller, leader, defender. And to realize that in Dungeons and Dragons, those roles are shared by **** near everybody. That fighter I mentioned? He's not only a great defender, but he also has qualities of a striker and a controller, with the right feats.
That's reflected in game somewhat. Instead of going with the standard MMO tropes of a tank being a tank and nothing else, our defenders can control mobs and hit hard if they choose.
Inter-mixing the two paragon trees makes sense, on the one hand. On the other, however, it's kinda lame, because it means we don't get anything new. Not really.
Thanks for the clarification ... but I'm afraid you missed my point.
All I was saying is that I understand putting both of the existing classes--GF and GWF--under the same Fighter umbrella. If I was wrong about the Ranger class that is not yet released (but I'm told is on the preview server) then my apologies. But, that is tangential to what I was saying about the topic of combining the two types of fighters under one umbrella. My pont being that I think if this is all they do, that they will be unbalencing the two fighter types, which is bad.
Thanks for the clarification ... but I'm afraid you missed my point.
All I was saying is that I understand putting both of the existing classes--GF and GWF--under the same Fighter umbrella. If I was wrong about the Ranger class that is not yet released (but I'm told is on the preview server) then my apologies. But, that is tangential to what I was saying about the topic of combining the two types of fighters under one umbrella. My pont being that I think if this is all they do, that they will be unbalencing the two fighter types, which is bad.
I also had a glaring error. The Hunter Ranger IS a subclass, it's just from Martial Powers II and I had forgotten that it was.
My point on the comparison is that they are two classes that can and should be able to do the same job, but are played completely differently. Thus, two very different types of players can help fullfill the same role requirement.
TR's and HR's will be no different. If they are balanced, there won't be a lick of difference in the final tally of which class does more damage. They'll have the same damage and defensive capabilities, the same controlling options. But they SHOULD play differently and have different driving mechanics.
There doesn't have to be a unique role for each class. Each class does not have to have a different result or job. But as with GWF and PvE, each class does need at least some role.
"Every adventurer has two things in common: they don't like dying, and they love getting paid. The rest is just semantics." Brecken, famed mercenary of Baldur's Gate
If the TR and the HR and supposed to be balanced against each other in terms of usefulness, control and damage. Then the same thing should be the same for GWF and GFs damage control and threat. Or the GWF needs to be in the boat with the damage dealers. HR, and TR.
Ive been looking at the new tanking feats for GWF on preview and I think they are subpar. A GWF who goes sentinel may be able to tank and hold threat with these moves but they will do far less damage than any other GWF path. And far less damage than any of the 3 GF paths. As GF's can tank using there good high damage moves and do not need to use weak moves as threat builders.
We will see if GWF's can carve out a role for themselves as tanks when module 2 goes live. But I dont think it will be enough to help the class out of the hole it is in. Even if the sentinel GWF is a viable tank and players respect it. Players cannot reliably grab a GWF to tank because they are not tanks without the sentinel role. So it will still default to the GF who is a tank no matter what his spec, pragon path or feats say.
If the TR and the HR and supposed to be balanced against each other in terms of usefulness, control and damage. Then the same thing should be the same for GWF and GFs damage control and threat. Or the GWF needs to be in the boat with the damage dealers. HR, and TR.
Ive been looking at the new tanking feats for GWF on preview and I think they are subpar. A GWF who goes sentinel may be able to tank and hold threat with these moves but they will do far less damage than any other GWF path. And far less damage than any of the 3 GF paths. As GF's can tank using there good high damage moves and do not need to use weak moves as threat builders.
We will see if GWF's can carve out a role for themselves as tanks when module 2 goes live. But I dont think it will be enough to help the class out of the hole it is in. Even if the sentinel GWF is a viable tank and players respect it. Players cannot reliably grab a GWF to tank because they are not tanks without the sentinel role. So it will still default to the GF who is a tank no matter what his spec, pragon path or feats say.
New tanking feats? Eh? Wha?
Or are we talking the paragon swap with GF?
"Every adventurer has two things in common: they don't like dying, and they love getting paid. The rest is just semantics." Brecken, famed mercenary of Baldur's Gate
If the TR and the HR and supposed to be balanced against each other in terms of usefulness, control and damage. Then the same thing should be the same for GWF and GFs damage control and threat. Or the GWF needs to be in the boat with the damage dealers. HR, and TR.
Ive been looking at the new tanking feats for GWF on preview and I think they are subpar. A GWF who goes sentinel may be able to tank and hold threat with these moves but they will do far less damage than any other GWF path. And far less damage than any of the 3 GF paths. As GF's can tank using there good high damage moves and do not need to use weak moves as threat builders.
We will see if GWF's can carve out a role for themselves as tanks when module 2 goes live. But I dont think it will be enough to help the class out of the hole it is in. Even if the sentinel GWF is a viable tank and players respect it. Players cannot reliably grab a GWF to tank because they are not tanks without the sentinel role. So it will still default to the GF who is a tank no matter what his spec, pragon path or feats say.
Let time speak for itself. You'll see how great, great weapon fighter are.
I really think this needed to happen, and I am glad it is happening. GWFs will gain a lot, GF's not so much. GF's don't need much, if anything. My main toon is a GF, and I have played all of the others. If anything, GF borders on op in both pve and pvp. I am glad gwfs are getting a little boost rather than gf's getting nerfed.
Really though, I would rather see brand new paragon paths that both tanks classes can take, rather than sharing current paths.
What I would REALLY like to see is a GF able to use a weapon in each hand, the off hand weapon being the "shield" with a lower max incoming damage block than available with shield.
Comments
i guess this change only affects paragon paths (feats), not actual abilities.
I know there are other issues but that would be pretty dang cool imo.... Heck they could (and never will) easily make "tab" swap between two weapon sets like the ranger does.
tab switches your GF to a GWF etc....
Theyll never do this though....
The ONLY things that really change depending on which paragon path you choose is the few paragon abilities.
GWFs will NOT have bull rush, GFs will NOT have takedown etc....
However the paragon abilities/feats they will have a choice.
As for whats better. Ithink ALOT of GWfs will be iron vanguard where hardly any GFs will be swordmaster. Besides the Steely defense feat, it seems alot of the abilities are sub par compared to GF path. IMO. Waiting to test also so I reserve the right to change my mind.
Why did they not go with Barbarian? I can only think of one reason, and that being that they were told only to access Player Handbook I content (which is pretty much all they've pulled from, that I can tell).
"D*mn wizards," said Morik the Rogue.
Learn what a GWF and GF really are: The History of Fighters
GWFs want access to GF to get controls, mobility in leaps, an/or extra tankiness. Everything a player would want from a GF is available to the GWF now.
But as a GF, the things I would want from a GWF are not available, such as unstoppable qr which is superior to a shield in PvP. Or the crazy good GWF armors with awesome stats. Or the awesome weapons with the huge damage .. but GFs don't getany of that.
I get that they are the first two subclasses of the class fighter, and the Ranger is the ssecond subclass of the class Rogue. But as it stands now, my PvP GF isn't only getting nerfed, he is getting straight replaced with a better model.
Your kind of wrong a little on your subclasses.
GWF and GF are the first two subclasses of the Fighter class. You're right there. A defender first, that seconds as a striker or controller (unlike a Paladin who would be leader first, seconds as defender/controller; or a barbarian who would be striker first, seconds as leader/defender).
Trickster Rogue is one of the subclasses of Rogue. The other is Brawny Rogue. Both are Striker's first, seconding as controllers.
Hunter Ranger is unique in this sense. It combines the sub-classes of ranger together. One of the subclasses of Ranger is Archer Ranger, the other is dual-weapon ranger. We got both in one go.
It's important to realize what those roles are: striker, controller, leader, defender. And to realize that in Dungeons and Dragons, those roles are shared by **** near everybody. That fighter I mentioned? He's not only a great defender, but he also has qualities of a striker and a controller, with the right feats.
That's reflected in game somewhat. Instead of going with the standard MMO tropes of a tank being a tank and nothing else, our defenders can control mobs and hit hard if they choose.
Inter-mixing the two paragon trees makes sense, on the one hand. On the other, however, it's kinda lame, because it means we don't get anything new. Not really.
"D*mn wizards," said Morik the Rogue.
Learn what a GWF and GF really are: The History of Fighters
Each class should be viable in both PvP and PvE. No one class should be clearly better. If they reduces the recharge time and requirements n Singularity so that it could be cast every5 sseconds indedi itately it would make all Fighters obsolete ... but to me that would be neither natural nor balanced. What should be done is balance the classes, not make one obsolete.
If this is their strategy it is going to push some GF's to rreconsider investing time into there characters at all. Then those of us who focus on PvP will simply move on to a new game.
Everyone seems to think new content is the Holy Grail of MMO's, but there are a lot of PvPers who play a lot without much new content at all. It is certainly easier to balance a class than code and create a new zone. I hope the devs don'tmake PvP an afterthought. But basedbon their series of bad decisions with module 1, I ssuspect they will make a lot of mistakes with module 2.
Thanks for the clarification ... but I'm afraid you missed my point.
All I was saying is that I understand putting both of the existing classes--GF and GWF--under the same Fighter umbrella. If I was wrong about the Ranger class that is not yet released (but I'm told is on the preview server) then my apologies. But, that is tangential to what I was saying about the topic of combining the two types of fighters under one umbrella. My pont being that I think if this is all they do, that they will be unbalencing the two fighter types, which is bad.
I also had a glaring error. The Hunter Ranger IS a subclass, it's just from Martial Powers II and I had forgotten that it was.
My point on the comparison is that they are two classes that can and should be able to do the same job, but are played completely differently. Thus, two very different types of players can help fullfill the same role requirement.
TR's and HR's will be no different. If they are balanced, there won't be a lick of difference in the final tally of which class does more damage. They'll have the same damage and defensive capabilities, the same controlling options. But they SHOULD play differently and have different driving mechanics.
There doesn't have to be a unique role for each class. Each class does not have to have a different result or job. But as with GWF and PvE, each class does need at least some role.
"D*mn wizards," said Morik the Rogue.
Learn what a GWF and GF really are: The History of Fighters
Ive been looking at the new tanking feats for GWF on preview and I think they are subpar. A GWF who goes sentinel may be able to tank and hold threat with these moves but they will do far less damage than any other GWF path. And far less damage than any of the 3 GF paths. As GF's can tank using there good high damage moves and do not need to use weak moves as threat builders.
We will see if GWF's can carve out a role for themselves as tanks when module 2 goes live. But I dont think it will be enough to help the class out of the hole it is in. Even if the sentinel GWF is a viable tank and players respect it. Players cannot reliably grab a GWF to tank because they are not tanks without the sentinel role. So it will still default to the GF who is a tank no matter what his spec, pragon path or feats say.
New tanking feats? Eh? Wha?
Or are we talking the paragon swap with GF?
"D*mn wizards," said Morik the Rogue.
Learn what a GWF and GF really are: The History of Fighters
Let time speak for itself. You'll see how great, great weapon fighter are.
Really though, I would rather see brand new paragon paths that both tanks classes can take, rather than sharing current paths.
What I would REALLY like to see is a GF able to use a weapon in each hand, the off hand weapon being the "shield" with a lower max incoming damage block than available with shield.
Jugger Conq GF
....