what is a off tank in this case.. lets see the class discription?
"The Great Weapon Fighter is an unstoppable force of damage and steel, skilled in using the weight of a greatsword to dispatch those that stand in the way. The epitome of strength, the Great Weapon Fighter is also resilient enough to defend allies in need."
that is... the inate part of the class is: gwf is a brute guy. to be brute generate threat (damage) and, when are attacked, dont need run because is tough. BUT dont have the normal tank tools. that is, your tank side is a accident created by your primary side: how this class do your damage (being a epitome of strength).
ps: sentinel description:
"The Sentinel uses innate strength to entice the aggression of monster and mitigate blows that would otherwise devastate allies."
ps2: w/o a super buff to the ac of FIGHTERS, only will work give to gwf a lot of defensive debuffs/self buffs, but inferior to gf. that is, be a bad defender=be a secundary defender.
that is... the inate part of the class is: gwf is a brute guy. to be brute generate threat (damage) and, when are attacked, dont need run. BUT dont have the normal tank tools. that is, your tank side is a accident created by your primary side: how this class do your damage (being a epitome of strength).
That's a lot of wishful thinking involved, heavily influenced by the role the GWF used to play prior to the recent changes IMO.
In the traditional sense (at least in D&D terms) a "brutish" class of combatants wielding two-handed swords may have certain types of defenses and utilities to withstand combat, but is in no way comparable to a fighter/paladin fully set for defense and equipped with a shield.
Yes, the GWF is certainly a brutish class of a fighter geared more towards the offensive (at least in concept). But that doesn't mean it doesn't need to run. That doesn't mean its as resilient as a real tank, and the "off tank" role is usually defined by how the class is actually utilized, rather than what spec/skill it has.
A typical "classic" fight in a D&D-ish environment would have sword-and-shield equipped combatants as the unparalleled tank. If for any reason it may fail in grabbing the aggro of every major enemy entity engaged in combat, which may slip past and start targeting the rear-lines of more fragile support classes, the "off tank" role would fall back to engage them as a temporary measure until it is dealt with, or the tank role re-grabs aggro.
Interesting to note the differences in the reality of combat between NW, and the more "classic" CRPG type fights, now that games that are reminiscent of the "classics" such as Pillars of Eternity from Obsidian, is out in the market. O boy, the nostalgia.
I still think that tge "classic role-diversification" is the way to go, and these series of "experiments" that dabbled with "omnipotent all-in-one class/characters", that ran between the early 2000's ~ current, have ultimately failed. It's done nothing but spoil the people into thinking that any class that needs to rely on others for any possible role in combat is "gimped"... which is a bad thing in a RPG -- as in 'role playing game'.
If you're so powerful as to not require assistance from any other roles, then what good is a "RPG"? Everybody just wants to play the hardest hitting + easiest to survive in.
Please refrain from posting to excessively old threads, as the information contained therein may be outdated or obsolete. Also, the Rules of Conduct forbid it.
ROLL TIDE ROLL
Great Weapon Fighter: Because when is today not a good day to die?
PC and PS4 player. Proud Guildmaster for PS4 Team Fencebane. Rank 5 Officer for PC Team Fencebane. Visit us at http://fencebane.shivtr.com
Comments
what to define?
Helping main tank, draw off some mobs. Bringing some cover to weaker classes.
"The Great Weapon Fighter is an unstoppable force of damage and steel, skilled in using the weight of a greatsword to dispatch those that stand in the way. The epitome of strength, the Great Weapon Fighter is also resilient enough to defend allies in need."
that is... the inate part of the class is: gwf is a brute guy. to be brute generate threat (damage) and, when are attacked, dont need run because is tough. BUT dont have the normal tank tools. that is, your tank side is a accident created by your primary side: how this class do your damage (being a epitome of strength).
ps: sentinel description:
"The Sentinel uses innate strength to entice the aggression of monster and mitigate blows that would otherwise devastate allies."
ps2: w/o a super buff to the ac of FIGHTERS, only will work give to gwf a lot of defensive debuffs/self buffs, but inferior to gf. that is, be a bad defender=be a secundary defender.
That's a lot of wishful thinking involved, heavily influenced by the role the GWF used to play prior to the recent changes IMO.
In the traditional sense (at least in D&D terms) a "brutish" class of combatants wielding two-handed swords may have certain types of defenses and utilities to withstand combat, but is in no way comparable to a fighter/paladin fully set for defense and equipped with a shield.
Yes, the GWF is certainly a brutish class of a fighter geared more towards the offensive (at least in concept). But that doesn't mean it doesn't need to run. That doesn't mean its as resilient as a real tank, and the "off tank" role is usually defined by how the class is actually utilized, rather than what spec/skill it has.
A typical "classic" fight in a D&D-ish environment would have sword-and-shield equipped combatants as the unparalleled tank. If for any reason it may fail in grabbing the aggro of every major enemy entity engaged in combat, which may slip past and start targeting the rear-lines of more fragile support classes, the "off tank" role would fall back to engage them as a temporary measure until it is dealt with, or the tank role re-grabs aggro.
Interesting to note the differences in the reality of combat between NW, and the more "classic" CRPG type fights, now that games that are reminiscent of the "classics" such as Pillars of Eternity from Obsidian, is out in the market. O boy, the nostalgia.
I still think that tge "classic role-diversification" is the way to go, and these series of "experiments" that dabbled with "omnipotent all-in-one class/characters", that ran between the early 2000's ~ current, have ultimately failed. It's done nothing but spoil the people into thinking that any class that needs to rely on others for any possible role in combat is "gimped"... which is a bad thing in a RPG -- as in 'role playing game'.
If you're so powerful as to not require assistance from any other roles, then what good is a "RPG"? Everybody just wants to play the hardest hitting + easiest to survive in.
Great Weapon Fighter: Because when is today not a good day to die?
PC and PS4 player. Proud Guildmaster for PS4 Team Fencebane. Rank 5 Officer for PC Team Fencebane. Visit us at http://fencebane.shivtr.com