1380 réponses à ce sujet

[Dave of Canada]

Lilacs wrote...

Just improve rogues and give them the abilities (skills, too) that they are lacking now and improve on that.   Just saying only rogues can dual-wield is bull!

But only warriors can use two-handed weapons and sword and shield. That's just "bull".

[Maverick827]

Lilacs wrote...

Without a warrior in your party there isn't a party.

You can easily make a warrior-less party.

[DanteCousland]

I never really got rouges. They were underpowered warriors who were good at lockpicking and disabling traps. I always hated playing them.

Modifié par DanteCousland, 05 septembre 2010 - 04:33 .

[Ayanko]

Lilacs wrote...

distinguetraces wrote...

They made the right choice--warriors and rogues shared far too many of the same skills.

Without a warrior in your party there isn't a party.  Again warriors are masters of arms who can wield every weapons imaginable (some are not even in Dragon Age, pity).

Just improve rogues and give them the abilities (skills, too) that they are lacking now and improve on that.   Just saying only rogues can dual-wield is bull!

Have you ever seen a Warrior in films and in history wearing massive armour duel weilding? The only ones ive seen who duel weild and use archery are rouges. Example: Legolas From lord of the rings.

[Kiely]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Indeed, most of you are right in your suppositions.

Removing dual wield specialization from warriors allowed us to not only make the classes more distinct, but to make the dual wield attacks all distinctly rogue-ish. A warrior in plate mail being fast with two daggers I could handle, but flipping and rolling into attacks? That didn't make sense. So, we could either have boring, vanilla dual-wield anims, or we could make them for rogues and deliver lithe, acrobatic combat for a class that should be just that.

Nice, I like this... but I almost always play a DW rogue for my first play through of any RPG.

I guess if you prefer a DW warrior you may not be as happy about this as I am.

I'm looking forward to some sweet moves!

[Skaden]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Lilacs wrote...

The point is WARRIORS are MASTERS of ARMS.  They should NOT be restricted to only using a sword and shield or a two-handed weapon to tank and only be a tank.

Warriors are also DPSer's.  My warrior is a dual wielder and I tanked as such, and she has a hit rate of 100.  She is level 34 now.  So limiting a warrior who can wield any weapon is outright ludicrous.

Then why bother having rogues if warriors can do everything but better?

Because rogues have many other skills that don't apply to combat, for example in DAO u could never go anywhere without a rogue because of those cursed chests that only they could open. Why can't both classes have the option to dual wield? In DAO dual wielding as a warrior was great because it provided a unique experience, u were the 1 guy decked out in armour that could also dual wield, in a sea of warriors who were tanks or used 2 handers.

[Dave of Canada]

Skaden wrote...

Because rogues have many other skills that don't apply to combat, for example in DAO u could never go anywhere without a rogue because of those cursed chests that only they could open. Why can't both classes have the option to dual wield? In DAO dual wielding as a warrior was great because it provided a unique experience, u were the 1 guy decked out in armour that could also dual wield, in a sea of warriors who were tanks or used 2 handers.

So a rogue should be rendered void because you can bring a rogue in your party?

[Skaden]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Skaden wrote...

Because rogues have many other skills that don't apply to combat, for example in DAO u could never go anywhere without a rogue because of those cursed chests that only they could open. Why can't both classes have the option to dual wield? In DAO dual wielding as a warrior was great because it provided a unique experience, u were the 1 guy decked out in armour that could also dual wield, in a sea of warriors who were tanks or used 2 handers.

So a rogue should be rendered void because you can bring a rogue in your party?

You talk as if the rogue class was the 1 losing half its skill tree

[Dynamomark]

Lilacs wrote...

GreyWarden36 wrote...

Warriors are also DPSer's.  My warrior is a dual wielder and I tanked as such, and she has a hit rate of 100.  She is level 34 now.  So limiting a warrior who can wield any weapon is outright ludicrous.

Please see my previous posts in this thread.

You'll still be able to do DPS, it just won't come from DW.  Bioware didn't remove DW weapon talents from warrior options just to make you unhappy. It probably had a good reason. Also, it's not like Bioware is removing DW from the game. If you want a DW warrior, I am sure, you'll still be able to make a good one out of a rogue.

Modifié par Dynamomark, 05 septembre 2010 - 04:40 .

[DanteCousland]

To be honest there wasn't a flip or roll move in DAO for a DW warrior in platemail so that point Mike made is confusing. I mean you had "Whirlwind" which you could put down to strength and the momentum of the armour but moves like "Punisher" suited the warrior perfectly.

[biomag]

@Jimmy Fury: As I can't expect you to read all my post before you jump at my throat, here once more my position: I think rogues shouldn't gain bonuses for any particular fighting style. Their skill should help them to max out backstabbing, increasing their mobility and evade damage. So the weapons they use is up to the player. Warriors on the other hand should have the skills to max out the weapons they use as they are forced to fight the enemy frontally and take the hits.

Now I know its a terrific demand I make that the difference between classes is based on the roles they have in the game (and that f**ked up holy trinity system) and leaving it to the player to decide what weapon combination they prefer... how outrageous...


@Dave: So because the typical rogue skills sucked the right way to fix that is to take something that worked for the warrior class and give it to the rogue class? I understand...

Modifié par biomag, 05 septembre 2010 - 04:45 .

[Maverick827]

Lilacs wrote...

The idea of having rogues is that they have other abilities like poisons (which should only be for rogues by the way) lacerations, vanish and stealth and DAGGERS (which sucks right now in Dragon Age). and improve maces (which has armor penatration, but is only aiming for high armor bosses, pity, really).

The reason you think rogues feel like warriors is that they both use poison and the same dual-wielding talent tree, which should only be used by rogues.

Now, arcane warriors can sport any weapon and shield, but they do not have the dual-wield talent tree. Now this is where the problem lies. Again only rogues should use poison, steal, and stealth (plus vanish, which is missing in Dragon Age) and use the dual-wiield talent tree.

So arcane mages can dual-wield but not warriors? This is truly laughable.

Arcane Warriors can use two small weapons, like any character, but do not have access to dual wield talents.  I wouldn't be surprised if the same could be said for warriors in DA2, making that point moot.

Also, vanish does exist in DAO: third-tier stealth, "Combat Stealth."

Modifié par Maverick827, 05 septembre 2010 - 04:43 .

[Kiely]

DanteCousland wrote...

I never really got rouges. They were underpowered warriors who were good at lockpicking and disabling traps. I always hated playing them.

You have to use everything in their arsenal for them to be effective: traps, poisons, coatings, bombs, moving around in combat to get backstabs, etc...

This is why I like playing them, I believe there is more strategy involved in playing them. But I understand the style of play required isn't for everyone.

A high level rogue in AD&D, is arguably the most powerful class, (if developed well).

[Maverick827]

Lilacs wrote...

Dynamomark wrote...

Lilacs wrote...

GreyWarden36 wrote...

Warriors are also DPSer's.  My warrior is a dual wielder and I tanked as such, and she has a hit rate of 100.  She is level 34 now.  So limiting a warrior who can wield any weapon is outright ludicrous.

Please see my previous posts in this thread.

You'll still be able to do DPS, it just won't come from DW.  Bioware didn't remove DW weapon talents from warrior options just to make you unhappy. It probably had a good reason. Also, it's not like Bioware is removing DW from the game. If you want a DW warrior, I am sure, you'll still be able to make a good one out of a rogue.

DPS with a shield and a two-hander?  Those are only for tanking!  Geez!

It's obvious now that you're just trolling and can safely be ignored.

[Dynamomark]

Lilacs wrote...

Dynamomark wrote...

Lilacs wrote...

GreyWarden36 wrote...

Warriors are also DPSer's.  My warrior is a dual wielder and I tanked as such, and she has a hit rate of 100.  She is level 34 now.  So limiting a warrior who can wield any weapon is outright ludicrous.

Please see my previous posts in this thread.

You'll still be able to do DPS, it just won't come from DW.  Bioware didn't remove DW weapon talents from warrior options just to make you unhappy. It probably had a good reason. Also, it's not like Bioware is removing DW from the game. If you want a DW warrior, I am sure, you'll still be able to make a good one out of a rogue.

DPS with a shield and a two-hander?  Those are only for tanking!  Geez!

Mike Laidlaw said that warriors are getting more love in DA2. Also, I
think one of the first DA2 previews that came out (I think in Gameinformer) said that warriors
will not be just "meatshields" in the game.

[Dave of Canada]

Skaden wrote...

You talk as if the rogue class was the 1 losing half its skill tree

I want rogues to feel unique instead of weakened warriors, so yes. Warriors regaining dual wielding and limiting it would infact weaken rogues.

[DanteCousland]

I don't know whether people are joking or not. I'm sure you can DPS with a sword and shield class but DW is much better for DPS...god I just read that sentence back and I sound like such a nerd.

[Dave of Canada]

Dynamomark wrote...

Mike Laidlaw said that warriors are getting more love in DA2. Also, I
think one of the first DA2 previews that came out (I think in Gameinformer) said that warriors
will not be just "meatshields" in the game.

I also asked if two-handed warriors would feel clunky and slow, the guy mentioned they worked a lot on two-handed warriors first. Take that as you will.

[Elanareon]

Isn't it a bit more roguish holding one hand and striking precise spots to your enemies, thus the backstabs. And rogues hold daggers, warriors hold swords. Isn't that distinctive enough?



Its just really silly that warriors can't use dual weild... Why not make 2 different trees? WHY IS THE DISTINCTION OF classES ARE ON THE WEAPON SKILL TREES????



Its suppose to be on the rogue skill tree!