skirmishers should be a sub class of fighter instead of being grouped in with assassins

Critmaster Garen·Oct 26, 2016·3 votes·642 views

the only reason i think, they were grouped in with assassins, is because someone felt the need to give every major class exactly two sub classes, when the champions were recategorized.

but realistically skirmishers feel like a third, more squishy/high dps sub class of fighters, than playing even close to the more bursty/stealthy assassins. the only exception being ekko, and riven, who can be exceptionally bursty even for skirmishers and depending on the situation build fit into either category.

then again, even darius and illaoi can be bursty given the right circumstances.

these guys just tend to excell at extended fights/duels, which is more of an attribute of fighters imo.

9 Comments

RalanrOct 26, 20161 votes

[{quoted}](name=Critmaster Garen,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=jE2H5KgM,comment-id=,timestamp=2016-10-26T13:39:18.409+0000)

the only reason i think, they were grouped in with assassins, is because someone felt the need to give every major class exactly two sub classes, when the champions were recategorized.

Pretty much (though Mages and supports got 3 I think and marksmen got marksmen).

It's also probably because skirmishers draw a close line to the damage output and overall slipperiness to assassins due to their high mobility. I think Riot want to keep heavy mobile champions in roughly the same category so they could better define groups like fighters (who honestly benefit the most from subclasses because the fighter class was incredibly homogenized).

Critmaster GarenOct 26, 20161 votes

{quoted}

Pretty much (though Mages and supports got 3 I think and marksmen got marksmen).

It's also probably because skirmishers draw a close line to the damage output and overall slipperiness to assassins due to their high mobility. I think Riot want to keep heavy mobile champions in roughly the same category so they could better define groups like fighters (who honestly benefit the most from subclasses because the fighter class was incredibly homogenized).

actually youre right.

mages have 3 categories with artillery mages, burst mages and battle mages.

supports have enchanters and disruptors.

i guess skirmishers do kindof dance on the line right between assassins and fighters. though i still feel like theyre more fighters than assassins.

RalanrOct 26, 20161 votes

If you play pathfinder then skirmishers are basically the Slayer class.

They are the "fightery" Rogue. They take some benefits from fighters (being a little more durable than average rogues and having a ability to fight outside of surprising their opponent) and some from rogue (stealth, skills, tracking (that's ranger but you get the point) and general out of combat utility).

Critmaster GarenOct 26, 20161 votes

{quoted}

If you play pathfinder then skirmishers are basically the Slayer class.

They are the "fightery" Rogue. They take some benefits from fighters (being a little more durable than average rogues and having a ability to fight outside of surprising their opponent) and some from rogue (stealth, skills, tracking (that's ranger but you get the point) and general out of combat utility).

never played pathfinder, but i did play dnd 3.5 and as far as ive been told, pathfinder is sometimes called dnd 3.75 due to being a fan made improvement on the same ruleset.

RalanrOct 26, 20161 votes

It pretty much is (though I've never played 3.5). Fighters are actually good at their job (but that doesn't stop people from finding ways to outclass them. And Brawlers tend to be the better feat master class. Still, fighters aren't really bad) there are a lot of classes, some classes that are actually combinations of two that are unique in their own way (like how Bloodragers can cast spells in rage when a barbarian/sorcerer can't) and a whole bunch of stuff that I don't really know.

Like all tabletop RPGs however, you'll still find arguments over the balance of magic classes vs mundane classes, ranged vs melee, and the same shit that's pretty much become a staple of tabletop RPGs.

Critmaster GarenOct 26, 20161 votes

{quoted}

It pretty much is (though I've never played 3.5). Fighters are actually good at their job (but that doesn't stop people from finding ways to outclass them. And Brawlers tend to be the better feat master class. Still, fighters aren't really bad) there are a lot of classes, some classes that are actually combinations of two that are unique in their own way (like how Bloodragers can cast spells in rage when a barbarian/sorcerer can't) and a whole bunch of stuff that I don't really know.

Like all tabletop RPGs however, you'll still find arguments over the balance of magic classes vs mundane classes, ranged vs melee, and the same shit that's pretty much become a staple of tabletop RPGs.

well, lucky for RPG's theyre coop games and not pvp games. a slight imbalance between classes who are playing together feels a lot less bad than when you pit these characters against each other and the tiniest lead can make win or loss and feel entirely unfair to either side.

makes the large difference in power between certain melee and ranged characters in this game more of an issue than it would in dnd. not to mention games liek that have fun elements outside of combat that make a character awesome to play, even when he sucks at fighting.

RalanrOct 26, 20161 votes

True. Makes it funny when people debate on hypothetical pvp scenarios or when the DM makes the final boss statted as a PC character.

ArnoldSchwarzensOct 26, 20161 votes

[deleted]

Critmaster GarenOct 26, 20163 votes

{quoted}

Skirmishers aren't a subclass of Assasins, both are a subclasses of the "Slayer" class. http://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/game-updates/gameplay/dev-blog-classes-subclasses

yea, i corrected myself to "being grouped in with" which is what i originally meant.