1380 réponses à ce sujet

[Aradace]

jsachun wrote...

Aradace wrote...

jsachun wrote...

So what makes you think you'll do it better in light armor or as a rogue?

Have you ever actually WORN plate armor? Seriously? (and yes, I have...Replica of course but still.) For you to even ASK that question is kind of silly.  Leather Armor is SOOOO much easier to move in and your arms have a wider range of movement.  With plate, your arms dont have the same full range of motion as they would wearing leather or chain it's pretty much that simple.

Well in reality foot soldier's never wore massive armor so the point you make defeats the purpose all together. Aren't we all some sort of super human in this game? How does reality come into it. Ofcourse I know massive armor is restricted to knights on horse back, does that mean you should not wear maasive armor at all in DA?

No, but IMO anything above chain should be restricted to Warriors unless you complete some side quest (a grueling and difficult one.) to get the ability to do so and mages should only be able to wear it if they become battle mages.

[Akka le Vil]

Aradace wrote...

Yea, see I was wrong on the name.  And to be more specific I dont believe they were quite two full sized Katanas.  I seem to remember they were similar in size but one was definately shorter than the other.  The styles adopted later mostly used Katana/Wakazashi.

On the other hand, I don't see at all what the length of weapons used in DW have to do with the fact that warriors, which are a class BASED on fighting with weapons, are UNABLE to dual-wield.
Last I checked, the problem was not "we can't use two longswords of the same size with a warrior !", but more "warriors can't specialize in DW while rogue can, whereas a weaponized frontline style is much more the domain of a warrior".

[wwwwowwww]

Akka le Vil wrote...

wwwwowwww wrote...

I didn't cut your quote off, as you did mine, scroll back that's the full quote.

I cut the part I was answering to, that's all.

DW is no more warrior than it is Rogue. Pulling out a 2nd weapon to surprise your enemy catching them off guard is a cunning and deceptive tactic used by rogues.

Let me repeat myself, as you seem to have completely ignored what I wrote before about this exact specific case :

"Except that is not really DW, it's more of a "stealth attack" or "dirty
trick". It's not a "combat mode", it's a "special ability", which is
covered by, well, ability.
Using two weapons to fight is not "using
one weapon to fight and then surprising your opponent by punctunring him
with a hidden weapon"."

Let me repeat it again : fighting with one weapon and then getting a hidden weapon to surprise your opponent IS NOT DUAL-WIELDING ! It seems pretty obvious to me that fighting with ONE weapons and then making a dirty trick with another that you suddendly draw from its hidden location is not "wielding two weapons and fighting with both at the same time"...

I could give reasons why one could consider DW more for rogues, and this move by bioware does make sense, but why bother? your not going to listen to them.

You should be wary of throwing stones in a glass house, because for now the reason you gave was completely off-mark (comparing using ONE weapons and making a surprise attack with a hidden one that wasn't wielded) to actually wielding two weapons at the same time), and you are the one that didn't listen at all to something you were told (as I already gave the exact same counter-argument and you entirely skipped it).

Don't give lessons that you're the first they should apply...

Your not understanding what I'm saying, so let me try it this way. Your walking into a fight your expecting your opponent to pull out his knife, but suddenly he pulls out two and comes at you, that surprsises you and catches you off guard, and yes he is DW those weapons, you just weren't expecting it.

Same concept with what I'm saying, barring abnormally large daggers floating on ones back, they would normally be conceled or have one visible and one concealed, the 2nd being pulled out  at the last moment and wielded effectively.

Now for the most part we seem to agree on things so I don't quite understand why we are even going back and forth. The only realy difference is I don't believe DW is more for one than the other, and I don't believe DW is for anyone wearing heavier than light armor.

[Pzykozis]

Akka le Vil wrote...
On the other hand, I don't see at all what the length of weapons used in DW have to do with the fact that warriors, which are a class BASED on fighting with weapons, are UNABLE to dual-wield.
Last I checked, the problem was not "we can't use two longswords of the same size with a warrior !", but more "warriors can't specialize in DW while rogue can, whereas a weaponized frontline style is much more the domain of a warrior".

You're forgetting about the fact that DW is a dexterity based skill and not strength based, therefore the rogue which in the DA universe is a dexterity based fighter (in some regards sure it has some old staple thief skills) suits it better than a warrior (which uses its strength to overwhelm its foes).

Besides we're not sure if you're unable to dual-wield or merely unable to use the skills which rely more on dexterity than strength, you could say that it doesn't matter regardless since not being able to use dual wield skills effectively makes combat with those weapons useless but then I'd use that retort against the fact that you were advocating removing weapon skills from rogues in general and making them have their own 'rogue abilities'.

[Akka le Vil]

wwwwowwww wrote...

Your not understanding what I'm saying, so let me try it this way. Your walking into a fight your expecting your opponent to pull out his knife, but suddenly he pulls out two and comes at you, that surprsises you and catches you off guard, and yes he is DW those weapons, you just weren't expecting it.

Same concept with what I'm saying, barring abnormally large daggers
floating on ones back, they would normally be conceled or have one
visible and one concealed, the 2nd being pulled out  at the last moment
and wielded effectively.

There is surprise because he pulls one other knife while you expected him to fight with only one (so you're saying the expectation for a rogue is that he fights with one weapon, or else there wouldn't be surprise, which already doesn't really go with the "DW is typical of rogues"), but once the surprise is punctual - hence is more an "ability activated" - and once it has worn off, it ends up being frontline fighting, which is more "warrior" than "rogue" (not that rogue should be unable to fight toe to toe, but it's not supposed to be their strong point, while it IS supposed to be the strong point of warriors).

Now for the most part we seem to agree on things so I don't quite understand why we are even going back and forth. The only realy difference is I don't believe DW is more for one than the other, and I don't believe DW is for anyone wearing heavier than light armor.

Yes it's the only real difference, but this difference is precisely what makes the choice of Bioware completely absurd and stupid, as they are attempting to distinguish warriors and rogues by making rogues MORE LIKE warriors, as DW is more "warriorish", and they deprive warriors of one of their core ability.
So this difference is quite important.

[Aradace]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Yea, see I was wrong on the name.  And to be more specific I dont believe they were quite two full sized Katanas.  I seem to remember they were similar in size but one was definately shorter than the other.  The styles adopted later mostly used Katana/Wakazashi.

On the other hand, I don't see at all what the length of weapons used in DW have to do with the fact that warriors, which are a class BASED on fighting with weapons, are UNABLE to dual-wield.
Last I checked, the problem was not "we can't use two longswords of the same size with a warrior !", but more "warriors can't specialize in DW while rogue can, whereas a weaponized frontline style is much more the domain of a warrior".

*shrugs* A valid point.  Dont get me wrong, I still agree that ONLY rogues should be able to DW because to alot of DnD'ers (albiet not all of them apparently) such as myself just feel that if you are DW'ing and not a Rogue it just feels....off...somehow.

[JoHnDoE14]

  I completely agree with Aradace from above. In real medieval warfare, very VERY few actually did dual wield. And even then, they were lightly armored, dexterous, versatile and of course the most common way for them to fight was a rapier and a dagger, (again, as Aradace said) .
 However, prohibiting warriors from being archers is a little silly. If you think of it a warrior, who in fact is a master of warfare, would surely know how to use a bow.

Modifié par JoHnDoE14, 06 septembre 2010 - 12:52 .

[Akka le Vil]

Pzykozis wrote...

You're forgetting about the fact that DW is a dexterity based skill and not strength based, therefore the rogue which in the DA universe is a dexterity based fighter (in some regards sure it has some old staple thief skills) suits it better than a warrior (which uses its strength to overwhelm its foes).

It's neither dexterity nor strength based, it's skill/training based. Samurai weren't acrobats, and real fencers don't do jumps and the like - only in Hollywood.
The difficulty from dual-wielding comes from mastery of the weapon, not from requiring to be nimble and lithe.

The fact that rogues are shown as "dexterity-based warriors" is precisely why I say that the argument from Bioware "we removed DW from warriors to make more distinction between the classes" is completely bogus. Making rogues "dex-based WARRIORS" isn't making them a different class. As it was said several times, they should differentiate the classes by playing on their "essence" and their strength, not by putting arbitrary and counter-productive restrictions.

Make the rogue use more guile, more surprise attacks, more crippling strikes, more backstabs and the like. THAT is "roguish".
Make the warrior specialize in all manner of direct hand to hand fighting, be it light or heavy, DW or two-handers, etc. THAT is "warriorish".

But reducing the martial abilities of warriors, and making rogue more of a frontline fighter than a backstabing assassin ? No, that's not really giving the class more personality, ON THE CONTRARY, that's weakening their CORE PRINCIPLES.

I'd use that retort against the fact that you were advocating removing weapon skills from rogues in general and making them have their own 'rogue abilities'.

Then I'd retort that you should learn to read, because I stated SEVERAL TIMES that I didn't ask for removing weapon skills or abilities.

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 06 septembre 2010 - 12:50 .

[Aradace]

Though ultimately, in the end it boils down to this:



Whether you agree with BW's decison to make DW'ing exclusive to Rogues is irrelevant because you have one of two choices to make having that knowledge:



A.) Accept the fact that it's another change and get over it and stop judging based off a game that isnt even completed yet.



or B.) Dont accept it and just dont buy the game. If opting for B however, dont be so delusional that "speaking with your wallet" is going to matter because much like the other "changes" being made, there isnt enough people AGAINST the changes to affect BW's profits in any substantial way.



Sure people can still whine and complain I suppose. But that doesnt mean that they're going to change their minds in the slightest. BW isnt the company it used to be guys because now they have EA at the reigns.

[Aradace]

JoHnDoE14 wrote...

I completely agree with Aradace from above. However, prohibiting warriors from being archers is a little silly. If you think of it a warrior, who in fact is a master of warfare, would surely know how to use a bow.

Now that much, I DO agree with.  Bows SHOULDNT be restricted.  At the very least, Warriors should get access to Xbows.

[Akka le Vil]

Aradace wrote...

*shrugs* A valid point.  Dont get me wrong, I still agree that ONLY rogues should be able to DW because to alot of DnD'ers (albiet not all of them apparently) such as myself just feel that if you are DW'ing and not a Rogue it just feels....off...somehow.

And I point to you again that you're not making a lot of sense in this case because, again, D&D had fighter being MORE ABLE TO DW THAN ROGUES...
So I don't really get from where you get this idea that "rogues are the only one able to DW in D&D", considering they were outclassed by TWO warrior-like classes (ranger and fighter) ?

[ashwind]

Aradace wrote...

*shrugs* A valid point.  Dont get me wrong, I still agree that ONLY rogues should be able to DW because to alot of DnD'ers (albiet not all of them apparently) such as myself just feel that if you are DW'ing and not a Rogue it just feels....off...somehow.

In DnD DW is the specialty of Rangers not rogues... Rangers automatically gain DW not Rogues.

In DnD (3.5) even archery is the specialty of Rangers not rogues.

In DnD Rogues are Jack of all trades but Master of NONE.

Bioware is NOT adhering to DnD rules in anyway (not saying it is a good or bad thing)

[Aradace]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Aradace wrote...

*shrugs* A valid point.  Dont get me wrong, I still agree that ONLY rogues should be able to DW because to alot of DnD'ers (albiet not all of them apparently) such as myself just feel that if you are DW'ing and not a Rogue it just feels....off...somehow.

And I point to you again that you're not making a lot of sense in this case because, again, D&D had fighter being MORE ABLE TO DW THAN ROGUES...
So I don't really get from where you get this idea that "rogues are the only one able to DW in D&D", considering they were outclassed by TWO warrior-like classes (ranger and fighter) ?

Outclassed? Negative....Because a DW'ing Rouge when you factor in backstab damage FAR exceeds the damage a DW'ing Warrior can do. And if you're playing a rogue in DnD and NOT trying to use your sneak skill in battle to get a good backstab in, then you just arent playing your rogue right.

Modifié par Aradace, 06 septembre 2010 - 12:51 .

[Akka le Vil]

Aradace wrote...

Outclassed? Negative....Because a DW'ing Rouge when you factor in backstab damage FAR exceeds the damage a DW'ing Warrior can do.

Nice way to dodge the point. We're talking about how warriors are more able to DW, then you say "no, because rogues can backstab !", which has absolutely nothing to do with DW.

Additionnally, I'd like to remind you that D&D2 allowed only ONE backstab (when you take your opponent by surprise), and that ADD3, which allowed backstab for each strike where the opponent was flat-footed, you needed to take several "martial feats" to lessen dual-wield penalty.
And SURPRISE, which class was the most "feat-based", making it able to master the most easily two-handed fighting ? Hint : it's not the rogue.
Not to add that fighters had high BAB, which allowed them to strike more often, making them FAR better at DW than rogues (who did much more damage through BS, of course, but not because they DW better ; they DW far worse in fact).

And the point is still : backstab have nothing to do with DW, it's a completely different ability.

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 06 septembre 2010 - 01:00 .

[Aradace]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Outclassed? Negative....Because a DW'ing Rouge when you factor in backstab damage FAR exceeds the damage a DW'ing Warrior can do.

Nice way to dodge the point. We're talking about how warriors are more able to DW, then you say "no, because rogues can backstab !", which has absolutely nothing to do with DW.

Additionnally, I'd like to remind you that D&D2 allowed only ONE backstab (when you take your opponent by surprise), and that ADD3, which allowed backstab for each strike where the opponent was flat-footed, you needed to take several "martial feats" to lessen dual-wield penalty.
And SURPRISE, which class was the most "feat-based", making it able to master the most easily two-handed fighting ? Hint : it's not the rogue.
Not to add that fighters had high BAB, which allowed them to strike more often, making them FAR better at DW than rogues (who did much more damage through BS, of course, but not because they DW better ; they DW far worse in fact).

And the point is still : backstab have nothing to do with DW, it's a completely different ability.

Ok...let me point out that I come from the DnD 3rd ed ruleset and know absolutely nothing about 3.5 or 4 or whatever the new ruleset is because it's been about 10 years (unfortunately) since Ive actually played.  Secondly, it does have to do with DW'ing because after the initial BS attack you still have your offhand weapon to inflict even more damage (albiet minus the BS but still that's an extra die damage you're getting in there.) and even in 3rd ed you were allow to used your Rogue's sneak ability at ANY point in combat in order to try and get around to another enemy and get another backstab in.  In terms of damage when you factor all that in, a Rogue can DW just as well if not better than an warrior.  And by "better" I mean as in raw damage.

[Pzykozis]

Akka le Vil wrote...
The fact that rogues are shown as "dexterity-based warriors" is precisely why I say that the argument from Bioware "we removed DW from warriors to make more distinction between the classes" is completely bogus. Making rogues "dex-based WARRIORS" isn't making them a different class. As it was said several times, they should differentiate the classes by playing on their "essence" and their strength, not by putting arbitrary and counter-productive restrictions.

Make the rogue use more guile, more surprise attacks, more crippling strikes, more backstabs and the like. THAT is "roguish".
Make the warrior specialize in all manner of direct hand to hand fighting, be it light or heavy, DW or two-handers, etc. THAT is "warriorish".

But reducing the martial abilities of warriors, and making rogue more of a frontline fighter than a backstabing assassin ? No, that's not really giving the class more personality, ON THE CONTRARY, that's weakening their CORE PRINCIPLES.

I'd use that retort against the fact that you were advocating removing weapon skills from rogues in general and making them have their own 'rogue abilities'.

Then I'd retort that you should learn to read.

You see you refuse to let go of the fact that warrior = frontline fighter whilst everything else isn't. Your definition and Biowares definition are different evidentally, and there can't really be any discussion whilst you refuse to see that.

I think the idea of definition is a key problem in this discussion in general, see your idea of a rogue seems more to me as an assassin, whereas my idea of a rogue is more bladedancerish, using agility to lead an opponent off guard. Likewise your idea of warrior is.. a catch all term for toe to toe fighters where mine is more the soldier that uses his power / strength to overwhelm. My definitions line up with what Bioware are proposing really whereas your's don't, it's a case of speed vs power rather than frontline vs pure sneakyness.

You couldn't retort that I need to learn to read because (well you could but that'd mean you'd need to learn to read) it was a possible arguement which i'd rebutted prior to it happening, it didn't really happen (so it doesn't matter) though in a round a bout manner you still seem to be advocating the removal of weapon based skills from rogues because they apparently don't know how to use them.

[Akka le Vil]

Aradace wrote...

Ok...let me point out that I come from the DnD 3rd ed ruleset and know absolutely nothing about 3.5 or 4 or whatever the new ruleset is because it's been about 10 years (unfortunately) since Ive actually played.  Secondly, it does have to do with DW'ing because after the initial BS attack you still have your offhand weapon to inflict even more damage (albiet minus the BS but still that's an extra die damage you're getting in there.) and even in 3rd ed you were allow to used your Rogue's sneak ability at ANY point in combat in order to try and get around to another enemy and get another backstab in.  In terms of damage when you factor all that in, a Rogue can DW just as well if not better than an warrior.  And by "better" I mean as in raw damage.

What is the part of "backstab has nothing to do with DW" which escapes you ?
I said it myself : yes, rogues do more damage, but it's because of backstab, not because they DW better, and I took the pain to explain where and why warrior-like classes of D&D were better at DW (not better at overall damage, better at DW, is that clear ?).

Or are you just grasping at straw because you can't bear the idea that you simply were wrong and that D&D doesn't make rogue but warriors the specialist at DW, so when you're hopelessly proven wrong at every turn you just attempt to camouflage it by putting some completely irrelevant fact (like backstab) in the argument ?

And I didn't talk about ADD4, I talked about ADD2 and ADD3, so I don't see what your disclaimer point at...

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 06 septembre 2010 - 01:10 .

[Aradace]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Ok...let me point out that I come from the DnD 3rd ed ruleset and know absolutely nothing about 3.5 or 4 or whatever the new ruleset is because it's been about 10 years (unfortunately) since Ive actually played.  Secondly, it does have to do with DW'ing because after the initial BS attack you still have your offhand weapon to inflict even more damage (albiet minus the BS but still that's an extra die damage you're getting in there.) and even in 3rd ed you were allow to used your Rogue's sneak ability at ANY point in combat in order to try and get around to another enemy and get another backstab in.  In terms of damage when you factor all that in, a Rogue can DW just as well if not better than an warrior.  And by "better" I mean as in raw damage.

What is the part of "backstab has nothing to do with DW" which escapes you ?
I said it myself : yes, rogues do more damage, but it's because of backstab, not because they DW better, and I took the pain to explain where and why warrior-like classes of D&D were better at DW (not better at overall damage, better at DW, is that clear ?).

Or are you just grasping at straw because you can't bear the idea that you simply were wrong and that D&D doesn't make rogue but warriors the specialist at DW, so when you're hopelessly proven wrong at every turn you just attempt to camouflage it by putting some completely irrelevant fact (like backstab) in the argument ?

And I didn't talk about ADD4, I talked about ADD2 and ADD3, so I don't see what your disclaimer point at...

Even w/o said statements from before, a Rogue can DW just as easily as a Warrior.  What I fail to see is where you THINK a fighter DW's better.  A Ranger, yea, Ill give you that.  But a Fighter? Negative. 

And grasping at straws? Right lol....Whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night friend.  Im clearly not the one being an ass right now so we just need to agree to disagree on this and ignore each other before YOU actually start making pointless personal attacks and getting yourself banned

In the end...I STILL win really because BW clearly agrees on some level otherwise they'd be keeping Warriors being able to DW....Im not the one who's grasping at straws really, you are because you're angry yet another change is happening to your game that you cant bear....As I said before, it's happening, get over it

Modifié par Aradace, 06 septembre 2010 - 01:18 .

[Akka le Vil]

Pzykozis wrote...

You see you refuse to let go of the fact that warrior = frontline fighter whilst everything else isn't. Your definition and Biowares definition are different evidentally, and there can't really be any discussion whilst you refuse to see that.

I think the idea of definition is a key problem in this discussion in general, see your idea of a rogue seems more to me as an assassin, whereas my idea of a rogue is more bladedancerish, using agility to lead an opponent off guard. Likewise your idea of warrior is.. a catch all term for toe to toe fighters where mine is more the soldier that uses his power / strength to overwhelm. My definitions line up with what Bioware are proposing really whereas your's don't, it's a case of speed vs power rather than frontline vs pure sneakyness.

I can totally go with your swashbuckler vision of a rogue, but that's not my main point. My point is that the reason why Bioware strip warriors from DW is counter-productive, as instead of making the rogue special and different from the warrior, it makes the rogue a variation of the warrior.
There is nothing in the dexterity-based fighter that makes him MORE "dual-wielder" than the "armoured fighter".

Is this clear enough ?

You couldn't retort that I need to learn to read because (well you could but that'd mean you'd need to learn to read) it was a possible arguement which i'd rebutted prior to it happening, it didn't really happen (so it doesn't matter) though in a round a bout manner you still seem to be advocating the removal of weapon based skills from rogues because they apparently don't know how to use them.

I specifically said that I don't ask about removing any weapon skill from rogues, so YES I can totally call you out about not knowing to read when you say I asked about removing weapon skills from rogues.
If I said "I don't want A" and you accuse me of saying "you said you wanted A", then YES I can answer "learn to read". Don't you agree ?

What I said is that Bioware should differenciate classes by making their "core elements" stronger rather than depriving them of possibilities and mixing the core elements of one class with the core element of another. Which has absolutely nothing in common with asking to remove weapon skills from anyone. You just put words in my mouth to make a strawman.

[Aradace]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Pzykozis wrote...

You see you refuse to let go of the fact that warrior = frontline fighter whilst everything else isn't. Your definition and Biowares definition are different evidentally, and there can't really be any discussion whilst you refuse to see that.

I think the idea of definition is a key problem in this discussion in general, see your idea of a rogue seems more to me as an assassin, whereas my idea of a rogue is more bladedancerish, using agility to lead an opponent off guard. Likewise your idea of warrior is.. a catch all term for toe to toe fighters where mine is more the soldier that uses his power / strength to overwhelm. My definitions line up with what Bioware are proposing really whereas your's don't, it's a case of speed vs power rather than frontline vs pure sneakyness.

I can totally go with your swashbuckler vision of a rogue, but that's not my main point. My point is that the reason why Bioware strip warriors from DW is counter-productive, as instead of making the rogue special and different from the warrior, it makes the rogue a variation of the warrior.
There is nothing in the dexterity-based fighter that makes him MORE "dual-wielder" than the "armoured fighter".

Is this clear enough ?

You couldn't retort that I need to learn to read because (well you could but that'd mean you'd need to learn to read) it was a possible arguement which i'd rebutted prior to it happening, it didn't really happen (so it doesn't matter) though in a round a bout manner you still seem to be advocating the removal of weapon based skills from rogues because they apparently don't know how to use them.

I specifically said that I don't ask about removing any weapon skill from rogues, so YES I can totally call you out about not knowing to read when you say I asked about removing weapon skills from rogues.
If I said "I don't want A" and you accuse me of saying "you said you wanted A", then YES I can answer "learn to read". Don't you agree ?

What I said is that Bioware should differenciate classes by making their "core elements" stronger rather than depriving them of possibilities and mixing the core elements of one class with the core element of another. Which has absolutely nothing in common with asking to remove weapon skills from anyone. You just put words in my mouth to make a strawman.

This whole discussion is pointless really....It's going to happen whether you or anyone else likes it or not...Either accept that it IS happening and move on or simply dont buy the game....That simple.  Either way, quit whining lol

[Telum101]

Why couldn't Bioware just implement a separate dual wielding tree for warriors? It just comes across as nothing but lazy for them to remove what I see as a class in itself with the excuse of making the two different.



Personally, I always like to play a DPS class, but within the warrior class, the other two options just don't cut it for me. Sword and shield just doesn't fill the role, and 2H is too slow and heavy (And making it faster would actually just make it worse). That being said, I also like the overall image of a warrior in melee as apposed to a rogue. I like to the idea that my warrior can inspire fear, fight honorably, toe to toe, stand their ground and take a few hits in combat while dishing the damage back, which are some traits that just don't seem to fit the traditional rogue concept well.

[Jimmy Fury]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Pzykozis wrote...

You're
forgetting about the fact that DW is a dexterity based skill and not strength based, therefore the rogue which in the DA universe is a dexterity based fighter (in some regards sure it has some old staple thief skills) suits it better than a warrior (which uses its strength to overwhelm its foes).

It's neither dexterity nor strength based, it's skill/training based. Samurai weren't acrobats,and real fencers don't do jumps and the like - only in Hollywood.
The difficulty from dual-wielding comes from mastery of the weapon, not from requiring to be nimble and lithe.

The fact that rogues are shown as "dexterity-based warriors" is precisely why I say that the argument from Bioware "we removed DW from warriors to make more distinction between the classes" is completely bogus. Making rogues "dex-based WARRIORS" isn't making them a different class. As it was said several times, they should differentiate the classes by playing on their "essence" and their strength, not by putting arbitrary and
counter-productive restrictions.

Psykozis didn't say dexterity based warrior though. You've done that at least twice now I believe, where someone calls rogues fighters and you change it to warriors to prove your point. it's invalid. Both classes are fighters but that's not synonymous with warrior, at least not in DA. Heck, even mages are fighters since most of the spells are attacks.
DW is a dexterity based skill set in the game. The real world has very little to do with it, although as many people have pointed out, it's still a matter of speed and mobility over pure strength.
There are no weapons mastery traits in the game. They do not exist in DA. They should, but they don't. so you can't base a classes traits or abilities off of something that doesn't exist in the game. Nor are their samurai in the game. So again, completely irrelivant in terms of Dragon Age.

In The Game, DW is a purely dexterity based skill set. Every. Single. Ability. is based on your dexterity level. Thus, it is a dexterity based tree and is more appropriate for Dexterity focused characters. That is the purpose of moving it. To seperate Rogues and Warriors by their focuses on dexterity and strength.
Rogues and all the "rogueish" abilities and their "essence" are dexterity/cunning based skills.
Warriors and all of their warriorish abilities and their essence are strength/constitution based skills.
This is how they are being seperated. It makes sense.
It preserves Bioware's definition of a rogue (as opposed to your definition) while removing the major overlap between the two classes.

And as i've said multiple times, it does not prevent warriors from using 2 weapons at once. It just prevents them from performing the DW-Tree-Specific dexterity based abilities. There is a difference. It's no more an arbitrary and counter-productive restriction than your suggestion to restrict rogues to only using daggers.

edit-bloody formatting

Modifié par Jimmy Fury, 06 septembre 2010 - 01:24 .

[Akka le Vil]

Aradace wrote...

Even w/o said statements from before, a Rogue can DW just as easily as a Warrior.  What I fail to see is where you THINK a fighter DW's better.  A Ranger, yea, Ill give you that.  But a Fighter? Negative. 

I'm pretty sure it's explained in detail everywhere in my previous posts. I can't force you to read them, but the explanations are here if you actually don't try to look away. I could copy'n'paste them, but if you didn't read them at first, I don't see how it would change anything.

And grasping at straws? Right lol....Whatever you have to tell yourself to sleep at night friend.  Im clearly not the one being an ass right now so we just need to agree to disagree on this and ignore each other before YOU actually start making pointless personal attacks and getting yourself banned

You're the one using unrelated arguments to try to prove a point where you have simply been wrong. That's quite the definition of "grasping at straws", you've nothing solid to support your argument (as every attempt to use D&D backup has been demolished because, sadly for you, I actually know the rules and can point where you're wrong), so you just get to use whatever you can put your hand on, even if it's as bent and fragile as a straw. 
Sorry that my tone reflects the irritation I have when people simply try to use bogus argumentation, like using backstab as an argument for "being better at DW"...

In the end...I STILL win really because BW clearly agrees on some level otherwise they'd be keeping Warriors being able to DW....Im not the one who's grasping at straws really, you are because you're angry yet another change is happening to your game that you cant bear....As I said before, it's happening, get over it

It's not because BW decides to do it that it's not stupid. That was the point, in fact, I think.

[Elanareon]

Aradace wrote...

This whole discussion is pointless really....It's going to happen whether you or anyone else likes it or not...Either accept that it IS happening and move on or simply dont buy the game....That simple.  Either way, quit whining lol

Huh? The reason we are discussing this is to avoid it in the next games.... Do you really just take whatever hits you dude?

Anyway, I agree that removing DW from Warriors is a stupid idea... I mean, just taking out a weapon skill tree from warriors is absolutely absurd enough!

[Aradace]

Elanareon wrote...

Aradace wrote...

This whole discussion is pointless really....It's going to happen whether you or anyone else likes it or not...Either accept that it IS happening and move on or simply dont buy the game....That simple.  Either way, quit whining lol

Huh? The reason we are discussing this is to avoid it in the next games.... Do you really just take whatever hits you dude?

Anyway, I agree that removing DW from Warriors is a stupid idea... I mean, just taking out a weapon skill tree from warriors is absolutely absurd enough!

No, usually when people start these whiny threads they do it so that they can try and changes BW's mind.  And the point still stands:  If BW wants to do it the same way in DA3, they're going to regardless of what you or anyone else wants them to or not....Just like those STILL complaining about Hawke being voiced....If BW wants to go that route again in DA3, it's their business.  Only people that are complaining about these changes are the one's who are too set against change to even give it a fair chance.