test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Gameplay classes seen with the eyes of an old HAMSTER...
musashinokami
Member, Neverwinter Beta Users Posts: 127 Bounty Hunter
Firstofall, I'm not well aware of the changes applied on the D&D 4th edition, when I stopped playing D&D the 2nd edition was still well running, the 3rd edition was just being released.
Thus I may be wrong, but yet I'm going to explain what's surprising about the classes gameplay to me, as an old <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> former D&D player.
I'm NOT surprised by the dailies or some strange skills, though I find them overall quite powerful in this game, whatever is the class considered. Maybe those skills are not that powerful in the original D&D game, but I assume for video game sake as to counter the unstoppable MOBAs rising, devs have to put ultimates in their game.
Anyway, back to topic. When I was playing D&D, there was nothing more deadly than a warrior at melee (being GF or GWF in this game) cause they were gaining much and much attacks in one turn as they were rising in level. D&D being a game by turns in let's say 10 turns, a level 10 warrior could dealt 20 attacks.
In the same amount of time, a rogue could dealt only 10 attacks (only 1 attack per turn) as could did a wizard, though attacking in melee for a wizard was absolutely not an option (but for VERY well equipped characters).
What made a rogue deadly was his capacity to attack stealthily in the back of his foe to maximize the damage dealt (x4 IF the sneaky attack was a success). Usually rogues were using poisons as well to kill/paralyze their foes with their weapons. This sneaky attack was barely the only one moment in a fight rogues could do huge amount of damage since after that they wouldn't be sneaky anymore... Anyway they usually killed the foe with a success. If not, rogues did have to avoid melee, breaking the fight by any means, to come back later in the back of their foes (or raise the difficulty of their attack by aiming a specific weak point) to get a x2 damage, since they were not sneaky anymore.
Moreover strengh was the base used to deal damage at melee and dexterity was the base used to deal damage at range, thus rogue usually investing in dexterity to maximize their CA : they were not good melee damage dealers. They were terrific in burst though thanks to their sneaky attack and their use of poisons. Whereas warriors of any kind, investing in strengh and toughness, were deadly at melee... if they could get close enough (which was usually the big deal of warriors).
I don't feel like rogues are particularly weak at melee in this game : they don't have to avoid melee with warriors, nor have to specifically attack their foes in the back to maximize their damage. Though they have some sneaky way to deal more damage, which seems good.
About wizards, they usually needed a few turns (sometimes until 3 turns) to focus to cast a mighty spell onto their foes. If the building time were broken : like by taking damage, they had to do it all over again. Thus in a 10 turns fight, a wizard couldn't use more than 2 to 3 powerful spells, or 1 to 2 powerful spells and several minor spells if his concentration was not broken. Wizards were heavily investing in intelligence, which were used as base for their damage (spell rank) as their number of spells. They were not investing in dexterity, nor they were able to wear heavy armour, hence being utterly weak at melee (very few hit points) thus a usual casualty of rogues (sneaky attack) or warriors, if they could get close to them.
I don't feel like wizards are particularly weak at melee in this game, though having a lot of strong cc and evade skills, they can take quite a fair amount of damage, they don't need to focus to cast spells, they don't have building times even for their mightiest spells.
I don't have much to add about cleric, I think they lack some debuff and obviously heal power as probably some cc.
This is basically what's annoying me in this game and why this is not D&D for me, looking at it from a PvP (or a PvE point of view). Wizards are way too powerful, rogues are actually light armour fighting class, better than rogue : those 2 classes are so unbalanced compared to the others it totally ruins the game, whatever I'm playing (PvP or PvE).
Thus I may be wrong, but yet I'm going to explain what's surprising about the classes gameplay to me, as an old <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> former D&D player.
I'm NOT surprised by the dailies or some strange skills, though I find them overall quite powerful in this game, whatever is the class considered. Maybe those skills are not that powerful in the original D&D game, but I assume for video game sake as to counter the unstoppable MOBAs rising, devs have to put ultimates in their game.
Anyway, back to topic. When I was playing D&D, there was nothing more deadly than a warrior at melee (being GF or GWF in this game) cause they were gaining much and much attacks in one turn as they were rising in level. D&D being a game by turns in let's say 10 turns, a level 10 warrior could dealt 20 attacks.
In the same amount of time, a rogue could dealt only 10 attacks (only 1 attack per turn) as could did a wizard, though attacking in melee for a wizard was absolutely not an option (but for VERY well equipped characters).
What made a rogue deadly was his capacity to attack stealthily in the back of his foe to maximize the damage dealt (x4 IF the sneaky attack was a success). Usually rogues were using poisons as well to kill/paralyze their foes with their weapons. This sneaky attack was barely the only one moment in a fight rogues could do huge amount of damage since after that they wouldn't be sneaky anymore... Anyway they usually killed the foe with a success. If not, rogues did have to avoid melee, breaking the fight by any means, to come back later in the back of their foes (or raise the difficulty of their attack by aiming a specific weak point) to get a x2 damage, since they were not sneaky anymore.
Moreover strengh was the base used to deal damage at melee and dexterity was the base used to deal damage at range, thus rogue usually investing in dexterity to maximize their CA : they were not good melee damage dealers. They were terrific in burst though thanks to their sneaky attack and their use of poisons. Whereas warriors of any kind, investing in strengh and toughness, were deadly at melee... if they could get close enough (which was usually the big deal of warriors).
I don't feel like rogues are particularly weak at melee in this game : they don't have to avoid melee with warriors, nor have to specifically attack their foes in the back to maximize their damage. Though they have some sneaky way to deal more damage, which seems good.
About wizards, they usually needed a few turns (sometimes until 3 turns) to focus to cast a mighty spell onto their foes. If the building time were broken : like by taking damage, they had to do it all over again. Thus in a 10 turns fight, a wizard couldn't use more than 2 to 3 powerful spells, or 1 to 2 powerful spells and several minor spells if his concentration was not broken. Wizards were heavily investing in intelligence, which were used as base for their damage (spell rank) as their number of spells. They were not investing in dexterity, nor they were able to wear heavy armour, hence being utterly weak at melee (very few hit points) thus a usual casualty of rogues (sneaky attack) or warriors, if they could get close to them.
I don't feel like wizards are particularly weak at melee in this game, though having a lot of strong cc and evade skills, they can take quite a fair amount of damage, they don't need to focus to cast spells, they don't have building times even for their mightiest spells.
I don't have much to add about cleric, I think they lack some debuff and obviously heal power as probably some cc.
This is basically what's annoying me in this game and why this is not D&D for me, looking at it from a PvP (or a PvE point of view). Wizards are way too powerful, rogues are actually light armour fighting class, better than rogue : those 2 classes are so unbalanced compared to the others it totally ruins the game, whatever I'm playing (PvP or PvE).
Post edited by musashinokami on
0
Comments
Fourth edition took things even farther. Caving to younger players who grew up with World of Warcraft, each class lost the ability to just attack any way they wanted. Instead each round the player has to name an "at will", "encounter", or "daily" power to use. Gone are the days in which any character could simply pick up a weapon and swing it. Many have referred to it as the "dumbing down" of the game. It became like a video game. Each round, you had to click a power to use - and every class had access to "magic". A fighter gained access to "Martial" magic, etc. that way every class had flashy supernatural abilities allowing them to teleport around the battlefield, etc.
Where-as previous versions of D&D meant that wizards and priests had to pick when to cast spells wisely (or they'd run out), 4th edition made it so they gained "at will" spells allowing them to cast attacks every round without having to actually use a weapon.
So many people avoided 4th edition altogether, tried it and went back to v3.5, or stopped playing D&D entirely switching over to Pathfinder instead (think of Pathfinder as D&D v3.75) - that WoTC immediately began work on 5th edition (D&D Next) and has been seeking community input on how to unsplinter the community ever since.
As this game is based on 4th edition, that explains why you've noticed what you have. Gone are the days in which the fighter was master of the battlefield, and Rogues masters of shadow/stealth. Priests no longer offer direct healing, but rather allow characters to re-use their own built in healing abilities more often (BS), and wizards are just as viable on the front lines as warriors (more BS).
They took 30 plus years of D&D awesomeness and nearly killed it off with 4e.
Thx for the update, I knew the 4th edition added some novelty to the kind but I wasn't aware it dumbed D&D down so much. Very sad to read this, obviously not really willing to go further in the game unless they do loads of efforts to balance it.
WotC totally killed D&D... damned capitalism.
RIP TSR.
One of the sacred cows of previous D&D: the Vancian spell system was a casualty.
Uxvorastrix almost got it right: Fighters could always just swing their weapon to deal damage like in previous editions, but as accomplished warriors, they had the option of doing something a little more complex instead: for example swinging to deal damage and knock their opponent back a bit or clip the guy next to them. Wizards, instead of being relegated to 3rd-rate crossbowmen, got to throw a magic missile if they didn't have anything better to do.
In this case, "anything better" are "encounter" powers: abilities that a character is only likely to have the luck/endurance/will/memory to use once a fight, or "daily" powers, which a character could only muster one a day.
But yes, a suitably esoteric fighter/swordmage or similar might have an ability that allowed them to teleport rather than the more mundane fighter vaulting over or shoving past opponents.
Naturally, the game got changed even further in the conversion to an MMO, just as 3.5 did with DDO. Hugely inflated numbers, loot beyond the most monty haul of dreams, and abilities that can be used much more rapidly/often. Further to that, the "action" part of the action MMO led to dodge mechanics rather than relying purely on AC and hitpoints for every hit: - meaning that even the squishier characters could take on mobs rather than relying on being in a group with a fighter.
You really can't have it both ways m8.
Either they have tons of versatility and distinction between classes or they have balance.
Even in its current condition the game is unable to be balanced perfectly, nor is any other MMO with versatile classes and mechanics.
Going up from to each edition is a boost in balance but at a cost of depth and distinction, wich basically dumbs it down.
Thats how it will always go when they listen to the vocal minority. The upset people are the loudest voice, while the people who are content feel no reason to state their opinions on public forums.
It's still possible to create broken powerful characters in 4e but it's much harder than it was in 3/3.5.
The strength I see with 4th edition is that ALL the characters are heroic. Not only the (high level) wizard. And while the wizard can cast powerful spells, the fighter can perform an (approximately) equal feat of combat expertise on the field. Not many people like this; They feel fighters are also wizards because they use similar powers and can't fluff why the fighter suddenly yells so hard people take damage 5 squares away. But the point is that each character has a reason to exist in the party.
Oh yeah and they made healing way more interesting than ever before. Avoiding damage becomes a great strategy, whereas in 3.5 you would just whip your wand later if someone took a hit or two and it wasn't a big deal whatsoever.
How this all relates to Neverwinter? It doesn't, really. Neverwinter is a standardized 'group of soloists in the same dungeon' action RPG with D&D stamped on top of it. It doesn't use any 4e D&D techniques, which probably wouldn't translate very well from a turn-based game into a fluid action rpg anyway.
Take the rogue. In your own example you have one shot. One singular shot to kill the target or you are hosed and have to run. That seems horribly frustrating.
Your wizard example. Any single hit messes up your spell. And you only get to cast every few rounds. That translates to one powerful hit from range to your first target and the rest of the fight getting beaten up while you try desperately to get off a second shot. Also frustrating.
Then you got fighter. Able to wade in and swing away. Master of combat. Why would you play anything different?
The kind of game you describe might be fun if you had a fixed group, like a table top group. But impossibly frustrating for anyone else if you choose to play anything other then the fighter.
Another thing that could be done is allow you to have 2 companions to run with. Of course this means the AI needs much improvement.
The PvPers would hate distinctive classes, as there would be no balance, unless you used teamwork which is one of the core ideas of D&D.
With modern computing power you could get much closer to what D&D is supposed to be than this game, but for the moment it is enjoyable enough as long as I disregard the D&D graphic at the top of the page.
Wow, you got it all wrong...
I wrote : the rogue had ONE chance to kill his foe with ONE hit. Am I clear enough now ?
I'm also sure to have written rogues were usually using poisons to compensate their few attacks number a turn (before a war for example) despite they could usually dodge most of their foe's attacks thanks to their high dexterity. Technically rogues could dodge one attack and take the other (facing a lvl 10 war) but thx to their poisons (which could dealt a lot of damage as well as their sneaky attack) they were totally compensated. A good poison could kill a war in a few seconds, or paralyze it for a moment to make the rogue able to strike his foe in the back to deal the killing blow.
By rogues having to break the fight I meant they had to IF they wanted to surprise their foe once again as to attack them in the back to maximize their damage.
The same goes for wizards : they could only learn, thus use, a few spells a day... but they could used scrolls as many as they were able to wear (which casting time was usually way faster) and even without having to wear components for those spells. And yes their focus were easily broken but they could cast their spells from afar (become invisible, fly, levitate, and so on) though some wizards could specialize in melee fighting like necromancers, and they were deadly.
Finally, considering the system of this game with a lot of instances for which you don't have to look for a group since the system do it for you, I don't think your point about being able to solo or not (especially with the use of a companion) the PvE content is relevant. Moreover everybody is whining about the PvE content being way too easy, especially in solo but at HL as well.
So basically you would have been satisfied with a game even more easy ? I think I know now why I don't like this game nor its community : this is no where near D&D nor the players mentality I used to play with.
The current 'feat and power points' system is not built powerful enough to do this however, so all classes will be able to do damage, solo and so on, creating an environment where 5 soloists go into the same dungeon at the same time..
I personally loved having distinct classes where the fighters were the strongest class but a high level wizard could kill them with half a thought and only died when his ego got the best of him. I miss the days where one class was harder to level than another and one class was stronger earlier and one class was stronger later.
Those are mechanics I truly enjoyed...
But as time goes on people change and games have changed with them. Old farts and old souls get left behind and we simply have to deal with the distasteful modern mechanics as they are what appeal to the masses of modern gamers. Would you believe that before the game was released I was actually chastised for stating I wanted XP Penalties for deaths?
Now 4E isn't all bad though. It truly did level the playing field and prevents much of the more common broken skill mechanics. Wizards are not more like Elminsters that can go into battle without hiding behind a bulky warrior and warriors no longer supply the most damage while being able to take the most damage as they previously could.
If I had an option I would make this game based off second edition. I simply enjoyed the complex simplicity of the combat and out of combat systems much more than third or fourth edition...
But old souls are far less common than the modern gamer so I take what I get. I wish there was a bit more non-combat actions worth doing (picking locks, disabling traps, alternate pathways) but I still love the game as it is and I hope in time they will bring in more features the old farts and old souls can appreciate as well.
Now back to NW, I have played a TR, CW, GWF and some experience with a cleric. In short, the classes are not doing what they are "supposed" to do. The CW does cc and massive aoe dmg, the rogue does insane single target dps and tanks. The GWF is designed as a aoe striker/off-tank and gets outperformed by the other classes. While the Cleric is overall very strong with a bit of too much aggro, also his shield is almost insane.
Overall ranged classes do are favored by most boss battles, especially the ones with either a lot of mobs or a boss with short range aoe/stun.
Not to mention that even the 4th edition allowed a wider range of "powers" or "encounters" to pick from. But hey its a mmo...
You're looking at things a bit inaccurately.
You viewing things as Wulfgar did before he got slapped around like a doll by the puny drow. Bigger weapons and more armor doesn't make you stronger. It makes you slower but more resistant to damage.
The Trickster Rogue is just that, a trickster. He uses small weapons and superior agility to strike foes where it hurts.
Fighters on the other hand use brute strength. They are no longer true weapon specialists that place tactical blows but rather heavily armored brutes that rely on their armor to soak damage for them.
Which of course leads into the true reason HP isn't much different. Damage reduction is part of Neverwinter. While the Guardian Fighters and GWF don't have triple the HP that rogues and wizards do as previous editions they do naturally take much less damage.
So to relate this to reality you may be a brutish Guardian Fighter wearing thick armor but underneath that shell you are not much more impermeable than me. You might be strong but I'm fast so when you swing you better hit otherwise I'm going to find a kink in your armor and you're not going to like it.
First of all, if you stopped playing d&d for all this year you should not complain about changes. I agree with you, 4th edition is not good for an rpg, but it's really ok for a videogame. If you don't like that, try pathfinder and the new mmorpg they are building. But let me tell you that you didn't understand really good how 2nd edition worked
And you are looking at it from the wrong kind of view too. A rogue may be able to find and hit the weak spot of a warrior, yet the warrior doesn't have the need. Once he hits it will hurt and for a sword hitting leather armor, everything is a weak spot. Concerning GWF, 2 handed swords where designed to penetrate heavy armor but they are also good for hitting weak spots (in heavy armor), that's why they have non sharpened parts on the blade. The only thing that stops a two-handed sword are shields and swords. A leather armored rogue would simply be cut in half.
So a rogue means of defense is to doge/evade which becomes tricky when the blade that you try to evade is 1,5 meters in length...
Now this game clearly isn't about realism, as is usually no RPG. But the rogue is simply to strong and resilient and has too much cc for what he is.
That's laughable. If you aren't specced for stealth, then it doesn't last for long and is really only useful for one powerful encounter ability at a time. If there was a 50% damage debuff the Rogues wouldn't be able to kill anybody.
They aren't kitchen knives, they are daggers. A shape edge is able to cut through skin and tendon just as easily as a sword that looks like it rolled out of a Final Fantasy game. And there's absolutely nothing ridiculous about a small, stealthy fighter being able to land precise stabs into the kinks of some big brute's armor. If you really want to talk about reality, the guy lumbering around in full plate swinging around a sword no human being could possibly use effectively, he'd be the first person killed.
Though lets be honest, this is a fantasy game. Nothing is realistic.
GWF aren't really "knights", though are they? GWF are off-tanks with high aoe potential. You aren't the classic image of the duelist knight. And frankly, that makes sense, because those huge swords just don't look like precise, dueling weapons. They look more like those large two-handed swords medieval horsemen used to use to cleave at groups of enemies...which sounds more like aoe dps than 1on1 fights. To be honest, when I was picking a class I rolled right by GWF because I hated the size of his weapon. But those superficial choices don't really matter in this discussion.
You're right that rogues have good hp, but you're ignoring the fact that we're a melee-based class with light armor. We don't have abilities to keep enemies away indefinitely and "stuns" in which the enemy can still run away are pretty annoying. I can stack points in deflection, regeneration, defense, etc. and I still feel as though I'm wading into combat wearing papier-m
Look at images of actual two-handed swords and then look at what the GWF uses. Real two-handed swords weren't lumbering, unwieldy hunks of metal that weighed twenty pounds. They weighed about four pounds and did not look like this:
My point is the rogue isn't resilient. He's fast and evasive.
If they don't CC or use the stealth/trickster abilities they die. Rogues don't simply stand and fight. They are, for all instensive purposes, dirty fighters who throw mud in your face.
Rogues are actually very squishy if you pin them down.
A guardian fighter is not squishy even if you pin them down.
That's the big difference between the old versions of D&D and NW. Running around in NWN the fighters were tanky because they had 2-4x as much HP as other classes but generally the same armor class at higher levels. In NW armor plays a much larger role and the trickster rogue just doesn't have it.
While solo-ing, I didnt' even have to touch my first potion until something like 15th level. I just never got hit, or if I did it was for so little damage that I didn't care.
I've also played several Devoted Clerics and a Guardian Fighter, someone I play with a lot uses a Great Weapon Fighter.
My Rogue (currently lvl 44) can mow down minion targets just as fast as my friend's GWF (even in groups), and takes out bosses in about 20% of the time it takes the GWF. The GWF is always needing healing, while my Rogue prances about barely scratched.
Clerics attract way too much agro - and are very easy to hurt. My Clerics spend all their time healing, not because my party members are hurt, but because I'm always hurt. Most encounters end up being "hey party, hurry up and kill these bad guys because I'm taking damage faster than I can heal it because they're completely ignoring all of you and just attacking me".
At the lower levels my Guardian Fighter was made of tissue paper - a strong breeze comes along and I had to reach for the healing potion. Now she's 30th level, and things are much better.
A friend of mine is playing a Control Wizard, and he frequently refers to it as "god mode". The only thing that ever threatens him are the bosses, nothing else ever even gets close.
Why those kids always feel the need to troll about things they do not have a clue ..? What's the relevance of your post in my thread ? Can you quote some things I may ill understood in 2nd edition ? I bet you can't... you probably don't even know the slightiest thingie about it.
Back to topic, I totally agree with uxvorastrix : classes are currently absolutely unbalanced to a point GWF as GF can't find a group in HL PvE. GWF is useless due to low dps compared to a rogue, its multi targets DD role is not filled cause he can't get aggro enough nor does damage enough.
GF is useless in groups with 2 healers, which formation is apparently becoming standard.
Rogues can tank in PvE as in PvP, when I'm facing a rogue I don't see him kitting me, nor trying to reach my back, or circle around me or use any skill would allow him to have to flee and come back...
At lvl 60 : rogues attacking you by front, brutalize you with stupid damage (last time I've been crit for 30 000 hit points) which let you dead or barely alive, even though you hit them they don't take much damage due to high dexterity protections, pretty good hit points and decent armour.
Rogues aren't that squishy even when pinned down, this is totally theorical, things does not happen like that in PvP.
In an action game where you can turn your facing by just moving the mouse, it is totally unfeasible to have mechanics that require you to 'be behind the enemy'. That only works if there is a reliable, working, long duration stealth. Stealth in Neverwinter is not like this.
'High dexterity protections' mean deflect? Which everyone knows rogues get tons of just for free.. -.- My 27 dex gives me a whopping 8.5% deflection chance (and 17% aoe damage resistance which doesn't do so much in pvp)
Everyone can stack defenses (assuming there are armor pieces with defenses on them). Typically though every armor piece in the game for every class tends to have 5 different stats, so the real choice is between one or two stats while the other 3 remain constant. This means pretty much everyone will have some defense/deflect/regeneration in their gear seeing that there are 9 stats total the gear can have.
You may have been crit with the rogue daily for 30k. Wizards do the same. That daily also does more damage the lower health you are.
The point the other person was trying to make is if you pin a rogue he only has his armor which is mediocre whereas the GF/GWF will have a good deal of armor even while pinned.
Now this is an MMO and if you discovered that a fighter could instantly use his attack where as your wizard has to channel every ability for 5 seconds before it pops people just wouldn't play it.
My suggestions to bring back some of the 2e flavor:
1) Some effort should be made to incentivize rogues to attack with "Combat Advantage". I feel that if they had their current damage output only when they had CA and when not so scale it back 30%. This is in keeping with their "Trickster" flavor rather than the brawlers they are now.
2) CW damage needs to be scaled back some purely because anything that manilpulates another player or NPC's ability to do anything is huge. Some balance needs to be found.
3) The above is not flavor but balance. For flavor some form of casting delay could be added so a player would be aware of what is coming. This would work much like the red circles we are already familiar with.
4) I had though about channeled casting as in 2e but this hampers the class and makes them tedious to play. I know this from experience in other MMOs.
5) For fighter what is there they move forward and hit stuff with weapons or blocks it not much to change there but balance issues.
So? The game is supposed to be soloable by all the classes. That's the whole point of companions.
Also I assume you are talking about solo quests and erroneously using the word "dungeon", because otherwise you're simply lying. You are not running Mad Dragon at the appropriate level with only companion, because it's impossible.
Only if you buff stealth times significantly.
I totally agree with this.
I played 1st and 2nd edition, and have recently been able to get into 4th edition through the adventure game series, Dungeon Command (this is a ****ing awesome game; get it for some amazing miniature skirmish board game fun) and now NW. The 4th edition seems much, much better than 1st and 2nd eds imo.
I remember being a wizard with that awesome sleep spell back in 1st ed. The first adventure in the 1st ed had you go to some ruined castle to beat an evil mage. My party heads for the ruins. Out pop some kobolds- ok here is my big chance "sleep"- woah they all fall down and we pick them off. We go to enter the castle ruins and a carrion crawler appears, ok fighters and clerics smash away, ok rogue pop out that bow, ok mage grab that dagger and cower at the back with three hit points....
Haven't even entered the dungeon and the mage is already useless. Clerics are some OP class that levels fast and gets to cast spells, wear heavy armor, and sport weapons and shield nearly as powerful as a fighter. Fighters get to join in every battle and do a ton of damage, rogues are good for one backstab if lucky, but may as well just bring a fighter with a bow-or another cleric. I mean I loved it at the time, but looking back now class balance totally sucked in those editions.
Thank god for progress and the old farts who look back at the past through rose colored glasses....
You are sorely mistaken. If 50% of the classes in the game can kill a the tank just as fast as they can kill each other then the tank is not resilient.
TR's have smoke cloud which automatically makes them more durable then a GF, not to mention stealth, and dodge. GF shield survives 2-3 hits from a TR/CW at best but we get reduced movement and have to be facing the person so running away is not an option while a TR can dodge twice and he's now out of range of the GF. Not to mention, they don't have nearly the speed/mobility. Dodge/teleports are ultimately better then guard/sprint. If I charge a sprinting GWF, I hit him. If I charge a dodging TR/CW I rubber band back to where I started. And even if it's telling me they are within range, and I cast it...my char will stutter but not go anywhere, ultimately slowing me down even more.
As a fully defensive GF I stood no chance against a CW/TR. Plain and simple, I didn't do enough damage to make the time outside of their CC worthwhile. And I couldn't absorb enough damage with my guard to protect my team in any way because my guard is gone in 3 at wills from the CW who is still too far away for me to charge at. As a DPS spec'd GF, I die no faster then I did as a pure tank. But at least now I can kill that TR when he attacks someone else instead of simply stunning him until I run out of stuns and he runs away.
Armor really plays no role in neverwinter pvp. The diminishing returns hit it just the same as armor pen. So if I have 40% mitigation from armor, and the TR / CW have 40% ARpen, all I can do is absorb 3 at wills with guard and then i'm useless.
So now, thx to this kind of reasonning, there is nothing but wizards and rogues, and potentially healers classes in HL...
Thing is : wizard attack at range, whereas fighter needs to be at melee, remember ..?
This make a huge difference if you try to compare those 2 classes.
Well then, how is it that a rogue "pinned" with a stunning skill barely takes damage, as if he is wearing medium armour, even though using the most mightiest skills (you usually have time to use both of them) of the GWF, like a daily for example ?
If not deflection then that's hitpoints ?!
Considering your "experience" which was an one shot one, what a long time to compare as if you knew what you're debatting about... Moreover considering your spell's use as the enemies you were facing you were low to very low level (not more than 5).
So with leveling wizards were earning more and more spells, depending of their intellingence, but not much that's true. Anyway they could use as many scrolls they wanted to cast barely INSTANTLY without COMPONENTS any spells, even some they were too low level to actually learn (only thing was to ask for a master to write it for them, they only needed to be able to read magic...).
Anyway I totally understand 2nd edition is over and now this is 4th edition, but don't say you prefer 4th edition because it's better whereas you never actually tested the 2nd one as many, if not all, long time D&D players do prefer former edition (at least the 3rd one).
I suppose the rogue COULD get lucky with his ~30% deflection and deflect both of the hits, taking only 25% damage each. That's around 10% chance so it's feasible. But not all the time of course. And like we know, everyone has around the same ballpark of hitpoints. You'd hit like that on a wizard, cleric, or fighter too.
I do agree that the way armor penetration is implemented, it makes armor all but obsolete. Especially in pvp, leaving only deflection and hitpoints to mitigate damage with. Unless of course you have a ridiculous amount of mitigation, more than can be penetrated.