test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Forums > Home› Class Forums›
Wonder why Great Weapon Fighter isn't just a Barbarian
shinzel
Member, Neverwinter Beta Users Posts: 16 Arc User
...Mainly because I think it'll feel redundant to a lot of folks to have two fighter classes. Not that the Guardian Fighter and the Great Weapon Fighter are the same at all; I Just figure a person interested in the game but not yet sold would get tripped up on the titling. I know it had me confused at first: "So are these two different specs? They're different classes? Then why are they called the same thing?"
Barbarian could still do the off-tank/DPS thing. Add in some kind of damage resist mechanics and a rage mechanic, change some of the aesthetics on Great Weapon Fighter armor (and the armor class, too, I guess, so it's not platemail).
I dunno. Just strikes me as weird every time I try to talk about the GW Fighter. Anyone else have similar thoughts?
Barbarian could still do the off-tank/DPS thing. Add in some kind of damage resist mechanics and a rage mechanic, change some of the aesthetics on Great Weapon Fighter armor (and the armor class, too, I guess, so it's not platemail).
I dunno. Just strikes me as weird every time I try to talk about the GW Fighter. Anyone else have similar thoughts?
Post edited by shinzel on
0
Comments
Yeah, except that 4E's Great Weapon Fighter is still a tank, just one with slightly better damage output, and slightly worse AC. He's not a striker like the Rogue and Ranger.
There was no Fighter striker build until Essentials brought the Slayer. Although Fighters do tend to have higher damage output than other defenders.
And the GW fighter from the description of the site sounds like he could be used as an off-tank. Then again, I haven't seen his skill setup or talent trees, so I don't know how effective he can be. But it seems he can have some degree of tanking. Kind of like a Swordmaster from Warhammer Online.
For example in D&D, for fighters you have stuff like:
- Guardian Fighter (currently in game)
- Great Weapon Fighter (currently in game)
- Tempest Fighter
- Battlerager Fighter
Some examples of Rogue builds in 4th ed D&D are:
- Trickster Rogue (currently in game)
- Brawny Rogue
Some examples of clerics from 4th ed D&D are:
- Devoted Cleric (currently in game)
- Battle Cleric
And so on and so forth. So they can't really name a fighter build as a barbarian. For one thing there are actually Barbarian builds in D&D 4th edition. Some examples from 4th ed are:
- Rageblood Barbarian
- Thaneborn Barbarian
I'm pretty sure Cryptic wants the possibility open to them of adding more of these builds and as many them as possible as classes in Neverwinter, for the future. That's most likely why they are sticking with the naming convention from D&D.
Ahh, I see. Thanks. I didn't realize that, and it does make sense. Kind of wish this sort of thing was filed under "Fighter" or something, but I guess there currently aren't enough variant builds to do that.
What is annoying me, and what I sincerely hope they change once the classes are expanded, is that they have chosen to refer to two builds of fighter as being two separate classes. It's a strange choice that only contributes to the plethora of complaints about the apparent lack of class customisation. A source of complaints with such simple solution.... Make them one class.
I'm not saying to call a fighter build barbarian at all; I'm saying why isn't the GWF a Barbarian instead? I'm presuming the decision was made earlier in the design process, but I'm wondering why that decision was made. Since the classes are based on builds, it makes more sense, but I still think it would feel more diverse if they'd started off with Barbarian or Ranger (preferably a Bow Ranger so all flavors of combat would be covered for the launch).
Which means we should see the Battle Cleric, Avenging Paladin, Protecting Paladin, Two-Blade Ranger, Brawny Rogue, Deceptive Warlock, Inspiring Warlord, Tactical Warlord, and War Wizard at some point. That's not including the PHB 2, and 3 classes.
We will know more when we can play the GWF.
in4th All Fighters use plate, GWF use Scail mail i think in NW. They look like a more mobile melee warrior that would fit a Barbarian archetype well.
They dont have to do both builds of every class they will release. I would rather have Builds from different original base class. They already look like a Beserker type of Warrior and i think Barbarian clans are part of the lore of the area and story so it would make sense Making it a Barb.
Besides, GFW and Barbs would look and play almost the same so if one makes it in, i doubt they would make the other. And it eliminates the possibily of having a Barbarian moving forward.
Agreed!
Battle Clerics have been my favorite class ever since Baldur's Gate I
they say
Hey why can't my fighter put down his sword and shield and hit someone with a two handed hammer?
or why can't me Wizard throw a chair?
4E works incredibly well for roleplaying. I DM it almost every week. It's not perfect, though. But then, I've yet to play a perfect RPG system.
When it comes to the game here, it makes more sense to have specific classes for balance.
No, I take that back, extremely lame in the naming department. Why not simply call them Fighter and Guardian?
1. Barbarian is not a Fighter.
2. The naming is not "lame" it is taken directly from the Player's Handbook (4th) edition as suggested build options in the fighter section. The Fighter class is the core while the suggested builds in the core rulebook named them GWF and GF due to the choice in powers and skills.
1. In my post I never mentioned Barbarian, perhaps you meant that for someone else? I fully agree naming a fighter barbarian would be a mistake as they are quite different.
2. The naming of builds in 4e rulebooks was fairly lame as well, but it more acceptable due to it being a general description of the build rather than the class itself. I dread the release of the Brawny Rogue and Archer Ranger.
Yes, it was intended for the OP. I structured my post poorly. My apologies. Strangely enough though, I disagree with the names being "lame". But it's already in there and I doubt they have plans on changing it.
Agreed, it's already there and despite my wishing to build my own fighter from the ground up I will happily be playing both to 60
It is most likely that in Neverwinter. Not everyone played the Pen & Paper or the corresponding games from the Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter series, so having set class builds from the PHB helps getting new players interested in the game and the franchise as well, but at the same time shields them from making bad choices at character creation in which you would potentially end up with an completely unplayable character.
So I am pretty much fine with the class builds as they are instead of a free system.
Code of Conduct - Extended FAQ - PM me
Rhun, Halfing Fighter of the Greater Weapons