test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Forums > Home› Class Forums›
GF & GWF Paragons - Why?
sokarrostau
Member, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Knight of the Feywild Users Posts: 45
I was excited to see the new Paragon Paths coming for Module 2, until I saw them. DC, TR, CW all got entirely new Paragon Paths, but GFs and GWFs didn't, all they got was each other's Paragon.
GFs didn't get a new Paragon like Knight Protector or Shield Adept, we got an existing Paragon that we share with GWFs.
GWFs didn't get a new Paragon like Dread Reaper or Ravager, they got an existing Paragon they share with GFs.
Here we have two classes, neither of which really excels at their proper role and are already treated like second-class citizens in dungeons and instead of Paragons that highlight our uniqueness we get Paragons that make us more homogenous. Instead of giving GFs Shield Adept to make use of the only shields in the game, for example, we get Swordmaster. Instead of Dread Reaper, a Paragon that focuses on two-handed weapons, GWFs get Iron Vanguard. WHY? We already had GWFs playing "tank" and GFs playing "DPS" before this change. Instead of "variety is the spice of life" we get "they're the same anyway, ho-hum".
The only possible reason I can see for this ridiculous move is the future of Paragon Paths. In 4e, there are a variety of types of Paragon Paths, including Racial Paths and Paths that are open to all Classes. So, is the GF/GWF experience of this patch a taste of things to come? Should we expect, for example, the Control Wizard and Hellfire Warlock to share a Paragon Path at some point in the future? When (If) we ever get Paladins, will they share a Paragon with DCs? One of the core features of D&D has always been the sheer variety of possible builds and class combo's, but this is something that is sorely lacking in Neverwinter; is all of this a sign that we will eventually have that variety? Or is it, as myself and many others thought when they first saw the "new" Paragons, just a case of incredibly lazy design?
GFs didn't get a new Paragon like Knight Protector or Shield Adept, we got an existing Paragon that we share with GWFs.
GWFs didn't get a new Paragon like Dread Reaper or Ravager, they got an existing Paragon they share with GFs.
Here we have two classes, neither of which really excels at their proper role and are already treated like second-class citizens in dungeons and instead of Paragons that highlight our uniqueness we get Paragons that make us more homogenous. Instead of giving GFs Shield Adept to make use of the only shields in the game, for example, we get Swordmaster. Instead of Dread Reaper, a Paragon that focuses on two-handed weapons, GWFs get Iron Vanguard. WHY? We already had GWFs playing "tank" and GFs playing "DPS" before this change. Instead of "variety is the spice of life" we get "they're the same anyway, ho-hum".
The only possible reason I can see for this ridiculous move is the future of Paragon Paths. In 4e, there are a variety of types of Paragon Paths, including Racial Paths and Paths that are open to all Classes. So, is the GF/GWF experience of this patch a taste of things to come? Should we expect, for example, the Control Wizard and Hellfire Warlock to share a Paragon Path at some point in the future? When (If) we ever get Paladins, will they share a Paragon with DCs? One of the core features of D&D has always been the sheer variety of possible builds and class combo's, but this is something that is sorely lacking in Neverwinter; is all of this a sign that we will eventually have that variety? Or is it, as myself and many others thought when they first saw the "new" Paragons, just a case of incredibly lazy design?
Post edited by sokarrostau on
0
Comments
First point: Both are subclasses of the Fighter class in 4e. That class has several possible paragon paths, two of which are Iron Vanguard and Swordmaster. Since these 4e sub-classes aren't officially anything other than suggested gear and power choices, they only really become something 'unique' in Neverwinter Online. The overlying argument here is that they are both one and the same, just played in different ways (slow and methodical versus active and fast paced).
Otherwise, both have a significant amount of similarities, including their damage capabilities, their ability to apply movement CC on the enemy, etc. And, they are both tanks.
In that same line, Warlock and Wizard are NOT the same class. A War Wizard and a Control Wizard would be expected to share paragon paths, but not a Control Wizard and a Hellfire Warlock. One is a Wizard, and one is a Warlock. The comparison you make is not applicable.
Now, do I wish we had more unique paragon paths? You betcha. I could have gone easily with a Dread Reaper and Dreadnought for my GWF, and been happy. So it's not like I necessarily disagree that we got shortchanged. Just with the argument you used.
For a further breakdown on this common argument against separating GWF's and GF's, see my sig.
For a walkover of all the Fighter paragon options, check out this link: Fighter Paragon Paths.
"D*mn wizards," said Morik the Rogue.
Learn what a GWF and GF really are: The History of Fighters
Both excel at taking damage and applying damage and CC. No other class can take damage like the GWF and GF's.
The real problem with 'tanking', is the layout and design of the dungeons and the AI. The classes work fine, it's the environment we have to play in that really blows.
It's like our dungeon master keeps putting magic-immune creatures up against our all-wizard team. This doesn't mean that wizards suck or aren't great, it means our DM needs to tailor the campaign to his players a little bit better. And Cryptic needs to tailor the dungeons and encounters towards more diverse playstyles than simply "big open room with lots of minions and a high-hp boss".
A quick suggestion fix? Mobs that are magic immune (just a few, here and there). Mobs who can't be snuck up on. Mobs who hate ranged attacks. And battlefields that have lots of tight corners and hallways.
Why in the world does every boss have to be gigantic? Even Valindra herself is larger than the largest half-orc.
"D*mn wizards," said Morik the Rogue.
Learn what a GWF and GF really are: The History of Fighters
Personally, I think GWF should have been Barbarian. I love my GWF and don't want it changed. I recognize it's place as a fighter and love what he can do. But I think cryptic started with one goal, and ended with a real GWF after development.
But a barbarian striker is needed, if for no better reason than to stop some of the confusion from players like myself who saw a two-handed sword and thought 'ooh, I'll make a half orc!'
"D*mn wizards," said Morik the Rogue.
Learn what a GWF and GF really are: The History of Fighters
The dungeon design, and people's reactions to it, are a real problem because they turn our roles upside down. The GF should be standing toe-to-toe with the Boss shrugging-off all the damage he dishes out while hoilding aggro as the DPS burns him down. The GWF should be off-tanking all those adds adds, mowing them down with AoE faster than he can take damage. Instead we have GWFs "dps-tanking" and GFs kiting. If the GWF could actually do his job those adds wouldn't be such an exploit-encouraging "feature". We could have actually had this if we had gotten appropriate Paragons.
main problems is that trash do not have special ranged skills to kill cw when tank