The trickster rogue is not op but he's a ranger

bobthebomb34

Hello !

IMO there is a problem with class definition in this game, and if we get new class laters (hopefully) there will be even more problem.

GWf is a barbarian with heavy armor
TR got rogue fluff but melee ranger play.
Guardian = a bit meh.

(can't comment ranged class didn't tried them yet).

there is a problem : What happen once we add barbarian, ranger, paladin ?(classic d&d).

TR (lvl to 32) : dual wielding is cool but it's more a ranger thing. In term of damage TR is doing too much "FRONTAL" dmg, but there is not a big bonus for attacking with advantage. my take on this is : reduce damage the rogue deal (-25%/35%) but increase it to 100/120% (of actual) when attacking with advantage. All ability should have better effect when used with advantage in place of when used with stealth. maybe add more distracting skill like : smoke bomb, sand in the eyes, tripping attack...

GWF (lvl to 14) : i don't see what the dev want to do with this class. I think it's better to remove heavy armor, name it barbarian, replace tab power with RAGE and you are fixed. from damage point of wiev 10% less than a rogue with advantage ? Maybe add a bunch of hp ?. gameplay : gwf should not be a spammer of strike, but big attack and big number.

GF : Really need more damage, if paladin is tank with healing, GF must have more damage. it's weird the GF don't have a stamina power. maybe the mark could consume stamina in exchange for damage increase on marked creature.
ps : the block action should be more "crisp", the animation is weird and often fail, and worse sometime you have to spam click to start attacking again. The attack animation is faulty i think.

Conclusion :

I don't know if there is a problem with class power, but i am sure their role and play style is not of the best design . with a few tweak like the change i proposed or maybe even better idea coming from the dev team. we would get more defined class and space for future class addition.

Ps : i still think gwf should be a barbarian.
ps2 : i think i will start with a TR for fast lvling at launch.

What do you think ?

beardyalebelly

The GWF is exactly what it is supposed to be: an offensive defender. Not a primary tank, but still strong enough to be a front line fighter and take damage / control the enemies. Barbarian is a pure striker that generally gets stronger as the fight goes on and the more damage they deal. The way people are trying to define the GWF (as a DPS / Striker, who should be equal to rogue) is one of the problems--he is not a striker, he is a defender. When Barbarians are released, THEN there will be a 2-hand weapon striker.

Every rogue I've gamed with in pen and paper that doesn't specialize in crossbow or bow always ends up going 2-weapon fighting...so I'm not sure why you think dual wield is a ranger thing. I know Drizzt made it really popular for Rangers to dual wield, but when I think of Ranger the first thing that comes to mind is Bow, not dual wield.

Also, where are you getting the idea that Paladins are defenders that can heal? In 4th edition, they have abilities that grant temporary hit points (like every defender gets), but those don't stack. I'm sure they'll have just as much healing ability as the GF has right now. The primary difference with paladin and fighter is the buff and debuffs they provide.

demiurgerealm

I have played rangers in every version of D&D (except 4E) since Greyhawk was released (this was the very first rpg supplement or expansion book). The problem with bringing rangers to this game is that they will not be rangers, they will be archers (or eventually dual wield swordsmen). The qualities that define a ranger are not going to be represented with 2 at-wills, 3 encounters, and 2 dailies. Rangers are defined by woodcraft (represented in PnP of various versions of D&D by skills and whatnot that are not in the game) and limited access to druid magic that is mostly useful in the wilderness.

We won't have wilderness in this game and we don't really have skills, and whatever they roll out with the class name of ranger will not be anything like the ranger class as it has existed in various games up to now.

nwobrock

beardyalebelly wrote: »

The GWF is exactly what it is supposed to be: an offensive defender. Not a primary tank, but still strong enough to be a front line fighter and take damage / control the enemies. Barbarian is a pure striker that generally gets stronger as the fight goes on and the more damage they deal. The way people are trying to define the GWF (as a DPS / Striker, who should be equal to rogue) is one of the problems--he is not a striker, he is a defender. When Barbarians are released, THEN there will be a 2-hand weapon striker.

Every rogue I've gamed with in pen and paper that doesn't specialize in crossbow or bow always ends up going 2-weapon fighting...so I'm not sure why you think dual wield is a ranger thing. I know Drizzt made it really popular for Rangers to dual wield, but when I think of Ranger the first thing that comes to mind is Bow, not dual wield.

Also, where are you getting the idea that Paladins are defenders that can heal? In 4th edition, they have abilities that grant temporary hit points (like every defender gets), but those don't stack. I'm sure they'll have just as much healing ability as the GF has right now. The primary difference with paladin and fighter is the buff and debuffs they provide.

The problem with this is that Cryptic came right out and said "Great Weapon Fighter is an offensive striker with damage on par with the Trickster Rogue." No, I don't have the link. No, you don't have to believe me...but that is what I read in the Alpha forums on a Dev post.

So...GWF was billed as a striker similar to TR but is now a weakling that can't pop bubble wrap.

zingarbage

beardyalebelly wrote: »

The GWF is exactly what it is supposed to be: an offensive defender. Not a primary tank, but still strong enough to be a front line fighter and take damage / control the enemies. Barbarian is a pure striker that generally gets stronger as the fight goes on and the more damage they deal. The way people are trying to define the GWF (as a DPS / Striker, who should be equal to rogue) is one of the problems--he is not a striker, he is a defender. When Barbarians are released, THEN there will be a 2-hand weapon striker.

Wrong, the GWF is an AOE striker who can also feat to be a defender.

tacc4990

Can argue all day back and forth what a GWF's true role is supposed to be but it really means nothing unless it comes from the mouth of a developer. I don't think any of these forum experts can say for sure one way or another. Technically they should probably follow whatever D&D 4e rules say that class is supposed to be. But who knows if they actually will.

My personal opinion? Rename the class Barbarian and make a few adjustments to the names of abilities and add rage mechanic and call it a day. Cause if GWF is gonna be an aoe striker it's basically a barbarian. If it's gonna be a "Offensive Defender" which is what it seems like they were going for in BW4 then the class will be by far the least played class in the game. It's not good enough at either DPS or Tanking to be viable. It's just "meh" at both in BW4.

heathenhammer9

tacc4990 wrote: »

If it's gonna be a "Offensive Defender" which is what it seems like they were going for in BW4 then the class will be by far the least played class in the game. It's not good enough at either DPS or Tanking to be viable. It's just "meh" at both in BW4.

You might be surprised; I know this is a lot different than pen and paper, but in my pen and paper groups I love having more than 1 defender.

Based on the encounters I've seen so far in the NWO dungeons, having an AoE add tank is going to be very beneficial. Take this level 30 dungeon encounter for example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8En0Bu2Wtc&feature=player_embedded

With how many adds Cryptic uses in their encounters, having a single Guardian to tank the boss AND adds isn't very feasible. People just have to step outside of the WoW/Rift mentality of 1 tank, 1 healer, 3 dps and accept Neverwinter's set up of Primary Defender/tank, Secondary Defender/add tank, Striker, Controller, Leader(healer). Is it mandatory? Probably not, but it will probably make encounters go much smoother.

As it stands they haven't revealed any plans for content that takes more than 5 people, so I expect the "hard modes" or 5-man "raid" content will often have a ton of add phases, like we've already seen in the lower content, where an AoE offensive defender will be very useful.

streamofsolace

With the number of people complaining about adds in boss fights, a weaker but AoE tank/DPS hybrid seems set to be quite popular.