1380 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

MaaZeus wrote...

Remember that even DA1 had specialization classes. Like *drumrolls* DUELIST! A rogue subclass who IS NOT A THIEF but a FIGHTER who aims for speed, dexterity and precision over raw power.

So again, Rogue can be a warrior if you so please. Just a different type of warrior.

Kinda makes you wonder what's the point of trying to split that into two separate classes, isn't it. Maybe they should just merge these two and make archer a separate class if it's so desperately needed to have more than two of them at all...

Modifié par tmp7704, 05 septembre 2010 - 10:22 .

[MaaZeus]

tmp7704 wrote...

MaaZeus wrote...

Remember that even DA1 had specialization classes. Like *drumrolls* DUELIST! A rogue subclass who IS NOT A THIEF but a FIGHTER who aims for speed, dexterity and precision over raw power.

So again, Rogue can be a warrior if you so please. Just a different type of warrior.

Kinda makes you wonder what's the point of trying to split that into two separate classes, isn't it. Maybe they should just merge these two and make archer a separate class if it's so desperately needed to have them at all...

Actually that is not a halfbad idea. But then again, what about 100% thief classes? So, I guess Duelist should be completely own class separate from warrior AND rogue. Perhaps something that takes traits from both classes, but is not fully either.

[Jacks Smirking Revenge]

I always thought there should just be two classes. Fighter + Mage give the fighter complete control on how they want to build their character and the style they want to just like a mage can choose if they want to be a caster, tank, or buffer, etc



Sucks they are taking out DW for Warriors one of my favorite characters is my dual wielding dwarf commoner warrior with two axes. Fits the berserker model for me in RP and in practicality.

[Eudaemonium]

I know this might seem odd, but I always thought of Duelist as a pirate/swashbuckler style rogue who was used to fighting people on uneven or moving ground (like on a ship). It was just the way the skillset was all about maintaining attack/defence and upsetting the opponent's balance. That and you learn it from a pirate. Or someone who might as well be.

[joriandrake]

MariSkep wrote...

SDNcN wrote...

MariSkep wrote...

Would this be such a bad thing?

No, not exactly.Though they would still need to seperate the Mage skills/spells from the other skill sets due to the setting.

That's a perfectly valid reason, sort of like Dwarven resistance to hostile magic. I've nothing against limiting skills based on what your species itself can do.

skills could simply be based upon origins and race of character to awoid weird skill choices



...that is, if we would actually have races and origins

[JointVW]

Tbh the reason they have giving us so far all comes down to it will take to long to make so we just forget it.

[MaaZeus]

Eudaemonium wrote...

I know this might seem odd, but I always thought of Duelist as a pirate/swashbuckler style rogue who was used to fighting people on uneven or moving ground (like on a ship). It was just the way the skillset was all about maintaining attack/defence and upsetting the opponent's balance. That and you learn it from a pirate. Or someone who might as well be.

Its not odd. But the speed, dexterity and precision aspect still holds true. He is still a fighter who is ambidexterous, capable of holding his footing in very unstable situations and using both of his arms separately for attack and defense and instead of battering the foe to submission he tries to find weakspots to exploit. A trademark skills for dualwield fighter like Drizzt Do'Urden. (I know its such a clichee example, but he is still an example) It doesnt matter if he is on the ground or on a ship.

[joriandrake]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Dual wielding two handers goes slightly into anime territory. No, wait. Hentai territory.

What the heck do you mean with hentai territory? What the hell did you imagine, wielding two huge dildos?

and while DW 2handed weapons is not realistic who cares? It looks awesome and heroic, many games and movies and animes, and monkey's grip from DnD 3.5 / NWN2 proves that

Modifié par joriandrake, 05 septembre 2010 - 10:44 .

[Morroian]

tmp7704 wrote...
Kinda makes you wonder what's the point of trying to split that into two separate classes, isn't it. Maybe they should just merge these two and make archer a separate class if it's so desperately needed to have more than two of them at all...

Splitting classes based on whether strength or dexterity is the primary attribute is logical IMHO.

[Xerthil]

I can understand Dual Wielding going to Rogues.. But.. What about Archery? Archery is the most basic, both Rogues and Warriors should know about it... Unless they're going to add Rogue specific animations to Archery too?

[tmp7704]

Morroian wrote...

Splitting classes based on whether strength or dexterity is the primary attribute is logical IMHO.

Using this logic shouldn't rogues be split into separate agility- and cunning-based classes, then? Considering you can build them either way which quite negates the concept of "primary attribute per class"?

[Axekix]

Siven80 wrote...

I too am OK with this.

It helps give the rogue class more identity. Rogues and wsrriors in DAO were far too similar and shared too many of the same abilities.

Same here.  Although my DAO warriors were exclusively 2h. 

I kind of like what Addai suggested way back, ie making unique DW animations and/or restricting warriors to axes/maces/swords (c'mon trailer Qunari looked beastly), but if that's not in the cards I'm not too upset by the change.

[Morroian]

Akka le Vil wrote...

The problem is precisely that removing dual-wield for warrior makes no sense. Mastery at arms is a staple of WARRIORS, not rogues. Rogues are more archetypal of hidden strike in vital area than machine-gunning people with swords.
I'm all for differenciation, but not about idiotic, arbitrary and counter-intuivite restriction.

IMHO dual wielding 2 full size medieval style swords even 1 handers doesn't make sense no matter how cool it looks.

It makes so little sense that it was actually a common fighting style (samurais used often the katana + wakizashi combination after the style had overcome the initial "it's not traditionnal" backlash, and samurai are much more
"warriors" than "rogues" I think).

Thats essentially a sword and dagger combination, not 2 full sized medieval swords as most people used in DAO. You obviously didn't read the link I posted that pointed out wielding 2 FULL SIZED swords is impractical and not commonly used in history ie. its not counter-intuitive at all. What you're saying about being a master at arms ISTM that a duelist based rogue is more a master at arms, if you took this away from rogues they would almost be superfluous in melee combat.

Modifié par Morroian, 05 septembre 2010 - 11:16 .

[Icinix]

I don't mind duel wielding being restricted to rogues, but archery should be available to both...

[thegreateski]

tmp7704 wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Splitting classes based on whether strength or dexterity is the primary attribute is logical IMHO.

Using this logic shouldn't rogues be split into separate agility- and cunning-based classes, then? Considering you can build them either way which quite negates the concept of "primary attribute per class"?

There are two primary attributes per class. but those attributes can vary from spec to spec.

Warrior - Strength/Stamina, Strength/Willpower, Strength/Dexterity, Stamina/Dexterity, ect.
Rogue - Dexterity/Cunning, Dexterity/Willpower, Cunning/Dexterity, Strength/Cunning, ect.
Mage - Magic/Willpower and Willpower/Magic (Mages have less attribute possiblities but a wide variety of spells to make up for it.)

[joriandrake]

Xerthil wrote...

I can understand Dual Wielding going to Rogues.. But.. What about Archery? Archery is the most basic, both Rogues and Warriors should know about it... Unless they're going to add Rogue specific animations to Archery too?

Like what? Standing on the left foot while bending back and shooting with one eye closed while doing all this jumping?

[tmp7704]

Morroian wrote...

Thats essentially a sword and dagger combination, not 2 full sized medieval swords as most people used in DAO. You obviously didn't read the link I posted that pointed out wielding 2 FULL SIZED swords is impractical and not commonly used in history ie. its not counter-intuitive at all.

From what i read, the dual-wielding of full sized weapons was uncommon mostly because in order to be effective one would need first to become perfectly comfortable with fighting with just one weapon in either hand. Only such mastery would allow one to utilize two such weapons at the same time.

But ironically enough this sort of mastery is more likely to be something achieved by professional in art of war -- a warrior training extensively and daily-- than a rogue who tends to be someone fighting when they have to rather than practicing the art for hours and months in advance, and who generally focuses on other things.

[Ortaya Alevli]

joriandrake wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Dual wielding two handers goes slightly into anime territory. No, wait. Hentai territory.

What the heck do you mean with hentai territory? What the hell did you imagine, wielding two huge dildos?

and while DW 2handed weapons is not realistic who cares? It looks awesome and heroic, many games and movies and animes, and monkey's grip from DnD 3.5 / NWN2 proves that

No, I didn't imagine anything like that. Boy, do you have some imagination.

[joriandrake]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

joriandrake wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Dual wielding two handers goes slightly into anime territory. No, wait. Hentai territory.

What the heck do you mean with hentai territory? What the hell did you imagine, wielding two huge dildos?

and while DW 2handed weapons is not realistic who cares? It looks awesome and heroic, many games and movies and animes, and monkey's grip from DnD 3.5 / NWN2 proves that

No, I didn't imagine anything like that. Boy, do you have some imagination.

then how the heck did you bring up hentai?

[Ortaya Alevli]

Use your imagination. It apparently works wonders.

It was just a lighthearted comment along the lines of "you know you're in for a 'rough' surprise when a hulk with a claymore in each hand rushes your way", if you're curious.

[Morroian]

ashwind wrote...

 The problem I think is that Bioware is trying to distinct classes via the way( combat animation ) they fight. 

I agree with those who claim that DW is not what defines a Rogue or makes a Rogue more roguish. 
In DA 1, the reason Rogues do not feel like rogues is because they are not rogues. Bioware's definition of a rogue is a warrior locksmiths with crazy stealth skill (can stealth and run around in massive armor and nobody hears you etc >.<"). 

There are no situation in DA 1 that requires you to be a rogue. Save the Queen, please sneak in unseen - sounds like a job for a rogue? NO, Storm of the Century time. Why sneak in when the game is all about mindless killing? 
Warriors are defined by the prowess in battle, Rogues should be define by their resourcefulness.

Limiting DW to rogues only gives the name Rogue a new meaning: Warrior Ninja Locksmith holding two swords (exclusive).

So if you want to play a DW warrior in DA2 - you still can - they just have a different name thats all.

This is a good point, rogues in DA are different from other games, people get caught up in standard definitions and not how its presented in this specific game.

[joriandrake]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Use your imagination. It apparently works wonders.
It was just a lighthearted comment along the lines of "you know you're in for a 'rough' surprise when a hulk with a claymore in each hand rushes your way", if you're curious.

ah

k, sorry, I get a bit overprotective if people spam "hentai" every time anime or manga is mentioned or unrealistic things are brought up in a game, it was not the first time so I tried to make a preemptive strike

[Morroian]

biomag wrote...

Actually it won't feel like a ninja STEALTH warrior... at DA:O I never used stealth as it was totally pointless, seems they don't plan to change it as they already "improved" the rogue.

It wasn't pointless, once at the highest level my rogue could pretty much take out an entire darkspawn squad by stealth.

[Ortaya Alevli]

joriandrake wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Use your imagination. It apparently works wonders.
It was just a lighthearted comment along the lines of "you know you're in for a 'rough' surprise when a hulk with a claymore in each hand rushes your way", if you're curious.

ah

k, sorry, I get a bit overprotective if people spam "hentai" every time anime or manga is mentioned or unrealistic things are brought up in a game, it was not the first time so I tried to make a preemptive strike

No harm done.

I write my replies thinking I'm posting on a forum supposedly populated by adults (considering the ESRB rate of Dragon Age) so I don't feel the need of adding a "j/k" every time I make a lighthearted comment. Not here to offend people randomly, you see.

[Morroian]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

I would expect them to leave dual-wielding warriors alone and get rid of dual-wielding rogues instead, giving them a single weapon style and restricting them to daggers and bows.

Yeah but then rogues would suck.