139 réponses à ce sujet

[ztonkin]

I think it's a safe bet that a Rogue is limited to light and maybe medium armor. Seeing a character flipping all over the place in heavy plate wouldn't make a lot of sense.

[joriandrake]

ztonkin wrote...

I think it's a safe bet that a Rogue is limited to light and maybe medium armor. Seeing a character flipping all over the place in heavy plate wouldn't make a lot of sense.

yep, because in a high/dark fantasy RPG game sense is what we want to make

[AlanC9]

Kilshrek wrote...
Besides, if the DAO inventory is maintained (which I will say here needed a bit of fixing, but not wholesale removal. But that shouldn't be a concern right now) rogues will be disinclined to equip heavy armour again, simply because it is impractical. Having a strong rogue is pointless since the core rogue skills (like lock-pick etc) depend on another stat.

That's a good point. Do heavy armored rogues work as the system stands? I was never tempted to even try it.

[pChar]

I really dont care if rogues can wear heavy armor or not. I will be playing rogues as they are meant to be played and a rogue with heavy armor just doesnt make sense to me. Thats just me though, Im sure many people will want to play rogues with heavy armor.

[Demon Velsper]

I play rogues with heavy armor. But it's mostly because it's a royal pain in the arse to play anything else in regards to traps and locked chests and doors.



People will generally want their characters to look appealing. Massive armor looks good, the light armors, well there's what, 2 different types and one is almost naked and the other only comes in blue.



I don't particulary care if my rogue "makes sense" according to some D&D logic, it's the least annoying class on console and being able to outfit it with whatever I want however I want is a good thing.



But hey, either give the warrior mechanism skill or at least don't force me to switch characters to use it like ME did and I'll bite.

[Fishy]

Thieve/Rogue wearing Full plate .. Now that something

*Gling Gling Gling Gling*

Guard 1 :I hear something!!
Guard 2:No you can't it's a thief
Guard 1 :But !!
Guard 2: **** man just roleplay it.

edit

Has i see it.Playing a rogue with full plate/50 streng you're just metagaming and not roleplaying.You want the best of both world.

PPl talking about NWN!!I played a lot NWN1 online . I remember those NWN pvp server .. It's was so unbalancing  . Everyone was a fighter/Cleric.Better melee than a fighter with heal and magic power!

Modifié par Suprez30, 05 septembre 2010 - 05:39 .

[AlanC9]

Demon Velsper wrote...

I play rogues with heavy armor. But it's mostly because it's a royal pain in the arse to play anything else in regards to traps and locked chests and doors.

I don't follow this at all.

[Quercus]

Suprez30 wrote...

Thieve/Rogue wearing Full plate .. Now that something

*Gling Gling Gling Gling*

Guard 1 :I hear something!!
Guard 2:No you can't it's a thief
Guard 1 :But !!
Guard 2: **** man just roleplay it.

edit

Has i see it.Playing a rogue with full plate/50 streng you're just metagaming and not roleplaying.You want the best of both world.

PPl talking about NWN!!I played a lot NWN1 online . I remember those NWN pvp server .. It's was so unbalancing  . Everyone was a fighter/Cleric.Better melee than a fighter with heal and magic power!

This is just your problem of picturing a rogue as a sneaky thief/ninja.
While there sure are a bunch like you, and even pretty much all the devs think alike.
I disagree though.

A rogue is more some like this:


While most people and devs think a rogue should be this:

[Demon Velsper]

AlanC9 wrote...



I don't follow this at all.

Concept ain't difficult. Not playing rogue causes extra annoyance. Not playing heavy armor rogue causes unappealing character. Solution: play appealing character with less annoyance.

[Quercus]

Demon Velsper wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I don't follow this at all.

Concept ain't difficult. Not playing rogue causes extra annoyance. Not playing heavy armor rogue causes unappealing character. Solution: play appealing character with less annoyance.

You can be a warrior and have Leliana there for the traps and such.

[Kiely]

StonerMkII wrote...

Would be awesome if they still could. Ive had plenty of Strength-based Rogues that donned Full Plate & Scimitar/w shield in NWN. Guess thats why i love NWN so much, anything is possible with the classes in that game. The Fighter class can be as dexterous and acrobatic as a Rogue, and a Rogue can be a defensive powerhouse with Full Plate, like the Fighter.

Keep in mind you pay more for skills outside your class in AD&D. That system works because you can take any skill but you are handicapping your character for "playing outside his class" so to speak.

AD&D (and NWN) also presents the opportunity to dual and multiclass, allowing for a multitude of race, class and multiclass combinations. DA does not have that amount of variety.

[AlanC9]

Demon Velsper wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I don't follow this at all.

Concept ain't difficult. Not playing rogue causes extra annoyance. Not playing heavy armor rogue causes unappealing character. Solution: play appealing character with less annoyance.

You could play a non-rogue and let NPCs handling the roguing, of course. Unless you're one of those folks who insists on soloing. Or are you worried about Leiliana only looking good in plate armor?

[Siven80]

Everyones idea of a rogue is different.



For me a rogue in any game is a lightly armored agile, dodging quick fighter.



Which means in my mind cloth, leather, light chainmail armor. The fought of rogues wearing Heavy and massive armor just doesnt enter my mind, while it may do for others.

DAO doesnt have a mechanic in place to show heavy/massive armor as being movement restrictive as it should be.

And the fact the Light and medium armor in DAO look horrid

[Annihilator27]

Shiroukai wrote...

Suprez30 wrote...

Thieve/Rogue wearing Full plate .. Now that something

*Gling Gling Gling Gling*

Guard 1 :I hear something!!
Guard 2:No you can't it's a thief
Guard 1 :But !!
Guard 2: **** man just roleplay it.

edit

Has i see it.Playing a rogue with full plate/50 streng you're just metagaming and not roleplaying.You want the best of both world.

PPl talking about NWN!!I played a lot NWN1 online . I remember those NWN pvp server .. It's was so unbalancing  . Everyone was a fighter/Cleric.Better melee than a fighter with heal and magic power!

This is just your problem of picturing a rogue as a sneaky thief/ninja.
While there sure are a bunch like you, and even pretty much all the devs think alike.
I disagree though.

A rogue is more some like this:


While most people and devs think a rogue should be this:

That aint a rogue, Thats a super ninja lol. Ryu is the ****.

[Sylvius the Mad]

javierabegazo wrote...

I think Rogues SHOULD be excluded from Heavy Plate armor. Heavy Plate armor is the antithesis of what it is to be a rogue. Rogues have agility, stealth, and lethal fast strikes, but they're fragile, to balance out their high DPS

Excvept that's not necessarily the case.  it's just an arbitrary restriction.

A strength-build rogue would totally wear heavy armour if had the option.  Why not get more protection?  And a strength-build perfectly suits a thug or enforcer, which is a character concept that fits neatly within a Thieves' Guild.  A rogue focussed on doing damage above all else probabaly should be a strength-build.

So I'm asking.  Given the reasoning behind the no-DW-for-Warriors decision, letting Rogues wear haevy armour undercuts their position pretty badly.  But it's also another restriction.

So I'm asking which it is.  Are they taking away even more options than they're telling us about, or are they inconsistent?

[tmp7704]

Dave of Canada wrote...

But wouldn't that just be the same problem but on a worse escale when all warriors and a majority of rogues also look the same?

I don't think this would be "on worse scale" considering they would only look the same if you make them look the same, yourself. You have option to do that, but aren't forced into narrow path by the game and all other options are still available.

Incidentally, there's example of a rogue in heavy armour (with actual appearance of massive armour) already in game -- i don't think there was much complaints about Sigrun in that regard, nor an outrage that "wtf she ain't proper rogue"... was there?

Ladybright wrote...

Specializations?

That falls under the 'minor differences' i mentioned. Getting 1-2 skills different from another rogue is hardly a difference at all, and certainly even less so when it comes to appearance of said rogue.

Modifié par tmp7704, 05 septembre 2010 - 08:26 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Suprez30 wrote...

Has i see it.Playing a rogue with full plate/50 streng you're just metagaming and not roleplaying.

That's nonsense.  Can't a big strongh guy want to learn how to disarm traps and pick locks?  And backstab?

As pointed out by many people who thought a DW Warrior was a poor imitation of a DW Rogue, a big strong guy with two weapons gains significant combat effectiveness by adding Rogue skills (like backstab).

[tmp7704]

Suprez30 wrote...

Has i see it.Playing a rogue with full plate/50 streng you're just metagaming and not roleplaying.You want the best of both world.

Unless you're roleplaying brute thug who simply breaks other people's legs in painful manner rather than bother with stealth. "Rogue" means "a scoundrel, deceitful person" and as such isn't limited just to a guy who skulks around. That's just one (and narrow) view on the concept of such character.

[Sylvius the Mad]

tmp7704 wrote...

Unless you're roleplaying brute thug who simply breaks other people's legs in painful manner rather than bother with stealth. "Rogue" means "a scoundrel, deceitful person" and as such isn't limited just to a guy who skulks around. That's just one (and narrow) view on the concept of such character.

This is the very reason why D&D changed the name of the class from Thief to Rogue.  Thief suggested only one type of Rogue, but the class design accommodated much greater variety.

If DA isn't going to give us the variety, they should change the name of the class to Thief.

[tmp7704]

filaminstrel wrote...

Why is it inconsistent if they want to make the classes more distinct talent-wise, but keep being able to equip armor a matter of stat requirements?

The inconsistency is in provided explanation -- "we took dual-wielding from warriors because new dual-wielding attack animations would look silly on character in heavy armour". If the rogues aren't prohibited from wearing heavy armour then they'll look just as silly, and that's apparently a no-no so big that it led to removing specialization from a class.

[SnakeHelah]

Guys, this is getting silly, First, Ninjas and Rogues are kinda different, (referring to the pics above) and rogues sure ain't as hell walking with 2h axes and all. I mean, it is how you understand the definition "rogue" but you shouldn't portrait them as dwarfs with two handed axes, cause that's just stupid. As I said before, Rogues use agility rather than brute strength, they are fast and swift, so they can dodge most attacks, unlike warriors who wear heavy armor, and withstand attacks with high constitution.

Stereotype is one thing, but when you say that rogues can wear heavy armor it's just wrong.

Put some heavy armor on a rogue and he loses that title. How do you sneak in plate armor? How do you run, dodge in plate armor? A rogue is supposed to be sneaky, silent, nimble, precise, he does not rely on strength, he exploits weaknesses and so on, why do you have to hit someone with a sword with strength, when you can strike a vital organ with a dagger? it just goes on and on. So do not misplace what is a rogue, that very title has a certain definition.