169 réponses à ce sujet

[KLUME777]

"Will some people find find themselves unable to play as a rogue?"



Most definitely not.



Will some people find themselves unable to play asa warrior?



Yes (me).

[mopotter]

GodWood wrote...

In 80% of my playthroughs I'm a rogue.
I hate not being able to open chests and bring whoever I want.

Me too.  But DA:O is one of the few games I play on the pc and it's mostly so I can use mods to "fix" things.  One of the first mods I downloaded was was that let you bash and spell locked objects.    - saw you have the console.  I usually play that too, but have found I like these kind (anything with mage) on the pc so I can get more stuff for them.

Modifié par mopotter, 18 octobre 2010 - 11:13 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

TiaraBlade wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Nine out of my ten playthroughs are always rogues. A rogue allows more freedom at forming the party since they can take care of themselves quite well to begin with. Mages are fun, too, but they're nothing out of the battle. Warriors are simply bland.
CUN was the most important attribute outside combat in Origins and only rogues were able to make decent use of it. Which somewhat forces me to think of rogues as clever, witty people and warriors as stupid oafs. Their respective fighting styles reflect that as well; rogues employ a fast, agile, out-of-harm's-way style whereas warriors just stand there like an idiot and soak up bullets while swinging their swords casually. A rogue among warriors is like a Tom Cruise among the barehanded boxers of Boston in Far and Away.

Not TOOOO biased there, eh?

I *am* biased, yes. And with good reason, as you will appreciate.

[DMC12]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

 A rogue among warriors is like a Tom Cruise among the barehanded boxers of Boston in Far and Away.

So rogues are overrated, closeted homosexual, placenta eating cultists? I'll be sticking with warriors and mages in that case.

Modifié par DMC12, 18 octobre 2010 - 11:50 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

DMC12 wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

 A rogue among warriors is like a Tom Cruise among the barehanded boxers of Boston in Far and Away.

So rogues are overrated, closeted homosexual, placenta eating cultists? I'll be sticking with warriors and mages in that case.

What.

[AlexXIV]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

DMC12 wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

 A rogue among warriors is like a Tom Cruise among the barehanded boxers of Boston in Far and Away.

So rogues are overrated, closeted homosexual, placenta eating cultists? I'll be sticking with warriors and mages in that case.

What.

Rogues are just a special sort of warriors tbh. I don't know why there is a extra class at all. Probably because someone thought that warriors or mages could never learn how to move silently or pick a lock, and everyone agreed. Or in Bioware case, someone thought warriors and mages can't hold two weapons at once.

[crimzontearz]

I never play rogue so.....

[Querne]

On the third playtrough atm, with my third rogue, so the answer is: NO.



All of them fight with dual weapons, have manipulation maxed and are able to open their locks themselves. If you don´t want to tank, it´s the better warrior for me.

[maxernst]

Someone who can afford heavy weapons and armor is not likely to learn to fight like a rogue, and I would have preferred a human commoner origin. However, we take what we're given and I wanted to play a human rogue, so I created a backstory to explain my nobleman's unconventional fighting style. Although if Ferelden were a more sexist society, it might make sense for a human noble female to be a rogue, since she would have to learn to fight on the sly.

Modifié par maxernst, 18 octobre 2010 - 02:54 .

[Addai]

maxernst wrote...

Someone who can afford heavy weapons and armor is not likely to learn to fight like a rogue, and I would have preferred a human commoner origin. However, we take what we're given and I wanted to play a human rogue, so I created a backstory to explain my nobleman's unconventional fighting style. Although if Ferelden were a more sexist society, it might make sense for a human noble female to be a rogue, since she would have to learn to fight on the sly.

What does being able to afford armor have to do with it??  It's a fighting style, and some nobles may simply prefer stealth and quickness while saving their armor budget for their heavy calvary/ infantry.  If you're more of a lithe build, for instance, you would be working against your strengths to try to be a linebacker.

[upsettingshorts]

Addai67 wrote...
What does being able to afford armor have to do with it?? 

Historical basis.  Nobles wore heavy armor - and rode horses, but that doesn't apply to DA:O - because they were the ones who could afford it.

In addition being nobility they would have had extensive training in how to fight in it, whereas your average conscript peasant would simply have to make do with whatever weapon his lord was able to supply him with.

The nobility - knights and others - plus professional soldiers that worked under them called sergeants constituted the bulk of the heavy infantry during the historical period that corresponds best to the technology of Dragon Age.

My noble Rogue simply doesn't choose to use those skills or equipment, preferring others.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 18 octobre 2010 - 03:04 .

[Dan-mac RI]

How I rationalize playing as a noble rogue is practicality. Warriors are the tanks. They need to be really strong to use the right armor. If, as a child, someone wasn't very strong, but was very agile and clever, wouldn't it make more sense to train them as light infantry(aka a rogue)?



As for lock-picking, a misspent youth of breaking into liquor cabinets. Stealth, eavesdropping. Poison, well, I can't explain that one as easily, sociopath?

[DAOME2FTW]

in DAO rogues didn't really have very many advantages, i found making a warrior with dagger was better. But i have faith in bioware, i believe in DA2 they will makes rogues faster, and more stabbity.

[DAOME2FTW]

I also think mage would probably be better suited to hawke, as magic runs in their family, he would be an apostate, which would be awesome! And it would provide a relation to the warden if you import a human mage.

[Addai]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
What does being able to afford armor have to do with it?? 

Historical basis.  Nobles wore heavy armor - and rode horses, but that doesn't apply to DA:O - because they were the ones who could afford it.

It's true that armor was expensive and that fighters tended to wear the best they could afford, but in the DA universe better doesn't always equal heavy.  Maric wore silverite plate but said that it was remarkably light, and according to Gaider he was a rogue.  Nathaniel Howe is a noble but obviously not a heavy plate kind of guy.  Nor was his father.  In fact I would say the rebel generation favors rogue fighting, since they were guerillas whereas the heavy calvary/ infantry style is more Orlesian.

You don't want to fight like an Orlesian, do you? 

Modifié par Addai67, 18 octobre 2010 - 03:14 .

[upsettingshorts]

Addai67 wrote...
You don't want to fight like an Orlesian, do you? 

Depends, is this fantasy Agincourt or fantasy Patay?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 18 octobre 2010 - 03:24 .

[DalishRanger]

Addai67 wrote...
You don't want to fight like an Orlesian, do you? 

I dunno... Leliana was pretty awesome in combat if you speced her right. She even beat Loghain using a bow during the Landsmeet duel in one of my playthroughs.

[Addai]

DalishRanger wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
You don't want to fight like an Orlesian, do you? 

I dunno... Leliana was pretty awesome in combat if you speced her right. She even beat Loghain using a bow during the Landsmeet duel in one of my playthroughs.

Yes, it's true, there is the whole bard thing.  You got me there. 

[mauss]

I'll probably play as a warrior on my first playthrough, just cause I feel like that's the "default" option, and you're right, when I think of the Champion of Kirkwall, I think of a warrior, not a rogue or a mage. But I think in DAO at least, it's more fun to be a rogue or a mage than it is to be a warrior, cause they use different ways to defeat the enemy, instead of just brute strength. And I rarely if ever control a warrior during a battle, cause they never need to do anything special. But that you said made me think of how awesome it would be if we had origin stories that relate to being a warrior, a rogue or a mage, so like if you're a city elf or a dwarf commoner you would be a rogue, if you're a noble you'd be a warrior, etc. Then you won't feel like being a rogue when you're a human noble is weird.

[Kevin Lynch]

Rogue-like characters have always been a personal favorite, and I will play DA2 as one eventually. My standard practice, though, is to play my first game of an RPG of this style as a fighter-type. I may change that up come release but it has worked well in past decades.

[KJandrew]

thegreateski wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

thegreateski wrote...

A whole thread full of kleptomaniacs. Just what this forum needed.

If you think that is the sole purpose of being a rogue then you do NOT get it at all. <_<

NONE of the rogues I played pickpocketed.  

Stereotype much?

Did you open a lot of locked chests and take whatever was inside? Loot a rotting corpse for its ring? Stick your hand in a big pile of dragon filth for an action figure? If so then your character has Kleptomania.

[leggywillow]

That depends on how much they change the rogue's role in the party and how much fun the warrior class is.  In DA:O I never enjoyed sword-and-shield or two-handed very much.  When I was going melee, it was dual-wield all the way baby!  However, with the faster combat S&S and 2-handed may be more tempting in DA2.

Even if it didn't make necessarily make sense from a role-playing stance, if I'm going to dual-wield or be an archer in DA:O I may as well be a rogue instead of a warrior so I could open chests and disarm traps without always having to have Leliana or Zevran with me.  Taking on that role myself gave me a lot more flexibility and variety in picking my party.

If DA2 works in much the same way, I'll probably find myself rolling more rogues than warriors just for the practicality.

[Andaril78]

To the OP:

Well the day they introduces us to an rogue who from the first minute is my loyal companion, it is when I start to play another classes I HATE to skip all the doors, chests, and whatever only because my stabby warrior doesn´t have an clue to how to break down an fragile and aged chest.....

Dont mention the Mage with all of their magic arsenal...

[maxernst]

DAOME2FTW wrote...

in DAO rogues didn't really have very many advantages, i found making a warrior with dagger was better. But i have faith in bioware, i believe in DA2 they will makes rogues faster, and more stabbity.

I'd actually like to see rogues be a little less stabbity.  In a straight-up fight, a warrior of comparable skill should be able to handle a rogue fairly easily and that really wasn't the case in DA:O.

What I'd like to see for DA2
1. a bigger impact of critical hits and backstabs on the combat, so that that first attack from surprise should be very dangerous even lethal, but once the rogue's in a melee, he should be substantially more vulnerable than a warrior.
2. better loot in locked chests and more danger from traps, so that those skills are more tempting for a rogue to invest in. 

Rogues don't have to be quite as wimpy in combat as they were in D&D (I always felt the game balance was off and that the hit points and attack skill of clerics & thieves should have been reversed), but I really think they shouldn't be equal to warriors in a melee.

[KJandrew]

Andaril78 wrote...

To the OP:
Well the day they introduces us to an rogue who from the first minute is my loyal companion, it is when I start to play another classes I HATE to skip all the doors, chests, and whatever only because my stabby warrior doesn´t have an clue to how to break down an fragile and aged chest.....
Dont mention the Mage with all of their magic arsenal...

That was really annoying, in KOTOR we could bash open chests but no a warrior carrying a sword that can break through the strongest armour, flesh and bones in one go but can't break a wooden chest.
And after playing Awakening i saw a genlock blow open a huge wooden gate with magic but apparently my mage can't replicate that on a box