Fighter: Difference between revisions
| Line 149: | Line 149: | ||
*'''Stat Differences:''' | *'''Stat Differences:''' | ||
**Warriors/Rangers get higher dex. That can held avoid melee damage, quaff more efficiently, etc. | **Warriors/Rangers get higher dex. That can held avoid melee damage, quaff more efficiently, etc. = | ||
*'''Passive Combat Skill Differences:''' | *'''Passive Combat Skill Differences:''' | ||
**Rangers don't get 5th attack, and have a lower Enhanced Damage and Grip amounts. Less melee, less damage, more disarms. | **Rangers don't get 5th attack, and have a lower Enhanced Damage and Grip amounts. Less melee, less damage, more disarms. | ||
**Rangers have the highest 'rescue' adeptness | |||
**Barbs have the best adept percentages of all the passive skills listed above. | |||
*'''General Differences:''' | *'''General Differences:''' | ||
**Barbs cannot style down below Standard, so make sure you can take the heat at Standard or greater! | **Barbs cannot style down below Standard, so make sure you can take the heat at Standard or greater! | ||
| Line 166: | Line 168: | ||
**Rangers get a lot of 'survival' based skills/spells, and some buffs. More magical conveniences. | **Rangers get a lot of 'survival' based skills/spells, and some buffs. More magical conveniences. | ||
**Warriors & Rangers get a lot more navigation based skills than Pally/Barb. | **Warriors & Rangers get a lot more navigation based skills than Pally/Barb. | ||
**Pally's | **Pally's will have huge HP and AC, get some nice spells, but overall the meat of the character is in its hp/gear build, and not skills/spells. | ||
**Barbs not wielding a weapon will cause you to eat more melee | **Barbs not wielding a weapon will cause you to eat more melee | ||
*'''Dyr's Hot Take:''' | |||
One way to think about fighters is existing along a spectrum where one extreme I will call "high metrics" and the other is "high gameplay", but lemme explain what I mean by that more clearly. It's just my own way of looking at things, and I'm sure someone will read this and say I'm a dumbass, but i'm sure they've already said that multiple times by the time they've read to this point on my site so why not reinforce their opinions more: | |||
It seems like some fighters are really more based in boosting up all the usual character metrics, this is usually gear-based character improvement, and they'll end up with really high metrics - things like HP/AC/DR/etc. Those classes also tend to not have a lot of super useful skills/spells. A Paladin is (to me) the king of those - he'll wear gear that gives him super high HP and AC, decent DR, and its easy to max a lot of their stats, buttttt they get very little 'gameplay' mechanics, their alpha attack requires them to tank, they get no combat gimmick stuff, and they lack a lot of 'basic' navigation and survival stuff. They do get some buffs/cures, but not a ton. They're 90% gear and 10% skills/spells. | |||
Conversely, a Ranger exists on the other end of the spectrum. A ranger is going to come out and wear gear that really isn't that great, the difference between a shittily dressed ranger and a really well dressed ranger isn't actually that huge in terms of HP/AC/etc. Their strength comes more from the gameplay elements - they are more versatile and more self-reliant. They can navigate around with skills really well, they can create springs and fires and get useful buff spells and cures, their attack hits most things, they can act as rescue tanks, and they get the 'missile weapons' gimmick. You get a lot of gameplay, and can have a more diverse experience with them exploring, fighting as a hitter, or as a tank, or rescuer, or whatever you wanna do - but they also just aren't that "strong" in terms of hard metrics. They're like 85% skills and 15% gear based. | |||
That said, of course this isn't REALLY true, each class is just its own thing. Sometimes I go out to fetch something with my Ranger cuz he seems more apt for that, but then maybe there's a fight that's kinda hard for him so I run in a Pally and just let him do the dirty work. But sometimes maybe my Pally is getting beat to shit and its actually better to use the Ranger for the higher dex, cure blind, gash hitting when other weapons don't, etc. So take this all with a grain of salt I'm kinda just trying to outline that the variation in fighters tends to be that slope between "you're a big ol meat shield heavy hitter" and "you can actually do some stuff, and maybe hit less hard" and to each his own on where and when to use which class. In MOST cases, anything will work, but in terms of what you think is fun gameplay, this is something I thought newbs might want to have a bit of sight upon as they decide what characters to make first. | |||
To me, that spectrum would go (from gear based to skill based): Paladin, Warrior, Barbarian, Ranger | |||
Just an idea anyway, use whatever you think is fun! | |||
Revision as of 04:12, 3 March 2026
Fighter Classes
Stat Comparison
| CLASS | Str | Int | Wis | Dex | Con | Cha | Lck |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Warrior | 25 | 18 | 20 | 22 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
| Ranger | 25 | 20 | 22 | 22 | 20 | 18 | 20 |
| Paladin | 25 | 18 | 22 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 |
| Barbarian | 25 | 18 | 20 | 20 | 22 | 20 | 20 |
Combat Comparison
Weapons and shared combat skills comparison:
| CLASS | Weapons (95% Adept) | 2nd Atk | 3rd Atk | 4th Atk | 5th Atk | Enhance Dmg | Dodge | Parry | Grip | Rescue | Disarm |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Warrior | Bludgeons, Long Blades, Pugilism | 95 | 95 | 90 | 85 | 95 | 70 | 85 | 90 | 80 | 85 |
| Ranger | Talonous Arms, (Missile Weapons) | 95 | 90 | 70 | - | 75 | 85 | 90 | 75 | 95 | 90 |
| Paladin | Bludgeons, Long Blades, Polearms | 95 | 90 | 75 | 49 | 90 | 75 | 90 | 95 | 80 | - |
| Barbarian | Bludgeons, Long Blades, (Bare Handed) | 95 | 95 | 95 | 85 | 95 | 80 | 85 | 95 | 80 | 95 |
| CLASS | Defensive | Evasive | Standard | Aggressive | Berserk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Warrior | 95 | 95 | 95 | 95 | 95 |
| Ranger | 60 | 70 | 90 | 90 | 55 |
| Paladin | 70 | 70 | 95 | 95 | 40 |
| Barbarian | - | - | 95 | 95 | 95 |
Utility Comparison
What is a "utility" spell/skill?
- Functional - 'does something'
- Not a buff/debuff -- does not result in an affect being applied to player or mob
- Not an attack or a passive combat skill
For common skills 2 or more of the classes get, I have tried to make that visually obvious toward the top.
After those, each column just lists utilities of that class, without respect to the other classes/columns.
I have also replaced "thematic names" with functional names here for clarity. (For example, I've listed Paladin's "expurgation" as 'cure poison')
| Warrior | Ranger | Paladin | Barbarian |
|---|---|---|---|
| track | track | - | track |
| scan | scan | - | scan |
| aid | aid | aid | - |
| doorbash | - | - | doorbash |
| - | identify | identify | - |
| - | create spring | fountain of faith | dowse |
| - | continual light | continual light | - |
| - | cure poison | cure poison | - |
| pick lock | cure blind | sharpen | |
| detrap | dispel evil | trance healup | |
| locate object | remove curse | skive | |
| word of recall | group recall | ||
| refresh | heal 30hp (self) | ||
| fashion torch | heal 25hp (others) | ||
| extract moisture | heal 80hp | ||
| call familiar | heal 100hp | ||
| snare | |||
| fletch | |||
| heal 25hp | |||
| heal 35hp | |||
| heal 8hp x 13rds |
Which Class to Use?
If a mob has a certain prog/limitation, then that will obviously dictate what you use. Otherwise... these days things are mostly equivalent and you can use whatever you want. I wouldn't put too much stress onto this unless the mob has a specific prog or you have one char that is far better eq'd than others.
Some general things of note between fighter classes:
- Stat Differences:
- Warriors/Rangers get higher dex. That can held avoid melee damage, quaff more efficiently, etc. =
- Passive Combat Skill Differences:
- Rangers don't get 5th attack, and have a lower Enhanced Damage and Grip amounts. Less melee, less damage, more disarms.
- Rangers have the highest 'rescue' adeptness
- Barbs have the best adept percentages of all the passive skills listed above.
- General Differences:
- Barbs cannot style down below Standard, so make sure you can take the heat at Standard or greater!
- Paladins must be tanking in order to shieldbash, mobs that switch tanks can be a problem.
- Paladins suck at navigation, no track/scan - make sure you know the way to the mob!
- Gear Differences:
- Mobs that require certain weapon types will dictate what class you may want to use
- Ranger's gash skill will evade most mobs that require magic/nonmagic weapon damage, since gash is neither.
- Barbs typically don't wield weapons, so negate a frequently disarming mob or mob that requires magic/nonmagic weapons.
- Smash Arms (warrior) make a huge difference, without them you're kinda meh
- Hunter prestige make a huge difference to gash damage, as a regular Ranger you're kinda meh
- Crufifier's make a large impact to gash mana cost, without them you'll have to stock more mana's, less heals.
- Mobs that require certain weapon types will dictate what class you may want to use
- Gameplay Differences:
- Rangers get a lot of 'survival' based skills/spells, and some buffs. More magical conveniences.
- Warriors & Rangers get a lot more navigation based skills than Pally/Barb.
- Pally's will have huge HP and AC, get some nice spells, but overall the meat of the character is in its hp/gear build, and not skills/spells.
- Barbs not wielding a weapon will cause you to eat more melee
- Dyr's Hot Take:
One way to think about fighters is existing along a spectrum where one extreme I will call "high metrics" and the other is "high gameplay", but lemme explain what I mean by that more clearly. It's just my own way of looking at things, and I'm sure someone will read this and say I'm a dumbass, but i'm sure they've already said that multiple times by the time they've read to this point on my site so why not reinforce their opinions more:
It seems like some fighters are really more based in boosting up all the usual character metrics, this is usually gear-based character improvement, and they'll end up with really high metrics - things like HP/AC/DR/etc. Those classes also tend to not have a lot of super useful skills/spells. A Paladin is (to me) the king of those - he'll wear gear that gives him super high HP and AC, decent DR, and its easy to max a lot of their stats, buttttt they get very little 'gameplay' mechanics, their alpha attack requires them to tank, they get no combat gimmick stuff, and they lack a lot of 'basic' navigation and survival stuff. They do get some buffs/cures, but not a ton. They're 90% gear and 10% skills/spells.
Conversely, a Ranger exists on the other end of the spectrum. A ranger is going to come out and wear gear that really isn't that great, the difference between a shittily dressed ranger and a really well dressed ranger isn't actually that huge in terms of HP/AC/etc. Their strength comes more from the gameplay elements - they are more versatile and more self-reliant. They can navigate around with skills really well, they can create springs and fires and get useful buff spells and cures, their attack hits most things, they can act as rescue tanks, and they get the 'missile weapons' gimmick. You get a lot of gameplay, and can have a more diverse experience with them exploring, fighting as a hitter, or as a tank, or rescuer, or whatever you wanna do - but they also just aren't that "strong" in terms of hard metrics. They're like 85% skills and 15% gear based.
That said, of course this isn't REALLY true, each class is just its own thing. Sometimes I go out to fetch something with my Ranger cuz he seems more apt for that, but then maybe there's a fight that's kinda hard for him so I run in a Pally and just let him do the dirty work. But sometimes maybe my Pally is getting beat to shit and its actually better to use the Ranger for the higher dex, cure blind, gash hitting when other weapons don't, etc. So take this all with a grain of salt I'm kinda just trying to outline that the variation in fighters tends to be that slope between "you're a big ol meat shield heavy hitter" and "you can actually do some stuff, and maybe hit less hard" and to each his own on where and when to use which class. In MOST cases, anything will work, but in terms of what you think is fun gameplay, this is something I thought newbs might want to have a bit of sight upon as they decide what characters to make first.
To me, that spectrum would go (from gear based to skill based): Paladin, Warrior, Barbarian, Ranger
Just an idea anyway, use whatever you think is fun!