169 réponses à ce sujet

[ErichHartmann]

BioWare has been inconsistent with bashing locked chests in the past. You could do it in NWN but risked destroying items. KOTOR doesn't have that risk. I'd love to see lock bashing return with the possibility of ruining items. /rambling post

[Addai]

maxernst wrote...

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.

A lightly armored, quicker fighter will have a great advantage in melee over a more heavily armored, defense-oriented character.  They each have their relative strength and weaknesses.  A heavily armored shieldbearer should tire more easily and not be able to move as quickly, a quickness and offense-oriented character should get hurt more badly if the opponent actually does land a blow.  I don't see any reason why rogues should have an inherent handicap in melee.

And I have to LOL a bit at the other poster's statement that rogues had no advantages in DAO.  Higher critical chance, higher armor penetration, special attacks not available to warriors, and party buffs with the Bard specialization- what exacly is the advantage of a DW warrior over a rogue??

[KJandrew]

KLUME777 wrote...

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

Most definitely not.

How did you come to that conclusion? 
can you see into the mind of everyone who will buy DA2?

[Addai]

KJandrew wrote...

KLUME777 wrote...

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

Most definitely not.

How did you come to that conclusion? 
can you see into the mind of everyone who will buy DA2?

I'm assuming the poster is speaking of him/herself.

People do get shirty about this kind of thing.  Isn't it obvious that we all only represent our own opinion?

[Melca36]

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.

No advantage?

Did you set your points right?  All my rogues had the greater advantage.

[maxernst]

Addai67 wrote...

maxernst wrote...

A lightly armored, quicker fighter will have a great advantage in melee over a more heavily armored, defense-oriented character.  They each have their relative strength and weaknesses.  A heavily armored shieldbearer should tire more easily and not be able to move as quickly, a quickness and offense-oriented character should get hurt more badly if the opponent actually does land a blow.  I don't see any reason why rogues should have an inherent handicap in melee.
?

I'm skeptical that the disadvantages of heavy armor completely cancel out its advantages--if they did, why would anyone have spent so much money on plate mail?  And even if they do, in reality, from a game balance perspective, warriors should absolutely be better than rogues in melee combat because that's the warrior's specialty.  There's no purpose to the existence of warriors otherwise.

[Lumikki]

Playing some back stabber just doesn't interest me. I could play bow type rogue, like ranger, but that's all. I'm not so interesting to play melee classes, they are so booring as hell. Now there are some skills what could be interesting in rogue class, but in reality you don't need them in hack and slash games. Because every problem can be solved just by kill them all. No point to stealth, no point to waste time for traps, no point to any rogue skills, because you can just use pure force to get through alot faster and easyer.

[Melca36]

Lumikki wrote...

Playing some back stabber just doesn't interest me. I could play bow type rogue, like ranger, but that's all. I'm not so interesting to play melee classes, they are so booring as hell. Now there are some skills what could be interesting in rogue class, but in reality you don't need them in hack and slash games. Because every problem can be solved just by kill them all. No point to stealth, no point to waste time for traps, no point to any rogue skills, because you can just use pure force to get through alot faster and easyer.

Its more than just back stabbing so we'll have to agree to disagree. 

You just  sound like you have no patience to play a rogue.

[Zal Air]

Rendon Howe, a noble rogue was able to acquire 3 titles during DA:O, you think he never picked a lock?

[Dan-mac RI]

maxernst wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

maxernst wrote...

A lightly armored, quicker fighter will have a great advantage in melee over a more heavily armored, defense-oriented character.  They each have their relative strength and weaknesses.  A heavily armored shieldbearer should tire more easily and not be able to move as quickly, a quickness and offense-oriented character should get hurt more badly if the opponent actually does land a blow.  I don't see any reason why rogues should have an inherent handicap in melee.
?

I'm skeptical that the disadvantages of heavy armor completely cancel out its advantages--if they did, why would anyone have spent so much money on plate mail?  And even if they do, in reality, from a game balance perspective, warriors should absolutely be better than rogues in melee combat because that's the warrior's specialty.  There's no purpose to the existence of warriors otherwise.

In a straight forward fight, the warrior wins everyday. Rogues don't fight straight forward, they use poisons, debilitating attacks to chinks in the armor, and can set traps before the battle begins. Fat lot of good armor does when someone puts an axe in the weak section in the knee and drops you. It's low and hard to defend even with a shield. Not fair, but he who lives decides that. If the first attack fails, the the ball is in the warrior's court until the rogue can reposition. It basically goes back and forth, until someone makes a serious mistake.

[hangmans tree]

KJandrew wrote...

 I've had about seven playthroughs of DAO and I've been a rogue for one, it's just something i can never bring myself to do. To me it just makes very little sense why the Prince of Orzammer or Teyrn of Highever would know how to picklock. It was only as a city elf that i managed to convince myself that it made sense.
I'm wondering if people will play as a rogue in DA2 on their first playthrough because for it's something that i just won't be able to do.
When i picture the Champion of Kirkwall i either think of a great warrior who can fight off any enemy or a mage whose spells can kill dozens not someone whose defining ability is that they can make it harder for people to spot them or they pick a lock. 

Do you know Rhapsody by E. Haydon? There was a rougish assassin who made himself a king and a ruler of a vast empire gathering scattered tribes of Firbolgs.
I see no problem of a cunning man taking the political scene and carving a huge chunk of the power for himself.

Conan was a warrior, a thief, a scoundrel, rogue...and a king, a leader.

[Lumikki]

Melca36 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Playing some back stabber just doesn't interest me. I could play bow type rogue, like ranger, but that's all. I'm not so interesting to play melee classes, they are so booring as hell. Now there are some skills what could be interesting in rogue class, but in reality you don't need them in hack and slash games. Because every problem can be solved just by kill them all. No point to stealth, no point to waste time for traps, no point to any rogue skills, because you can just use pure force to get through alot faster and easyer.

Its more than just back stabbing so we'll have to agree to disagree. 

You just  sound like you have no patience to play a rogue.

Maybe I'm little too unpatience.

I do understand the attraction of playing "thief" kind of character. It could be in some ways very interesting way to play. Why I don't play them? Because there isn't no other reason to play that type of gameplay than if you like it alot. Meaning there is no benefits. Example sneaking behind someone and successful do what you wanted can be rewarding. How ever, most games you can just walk directly agaist enemy without any fancy move and kill it. It's alot faster way to play as not wasting time to do some fancy moves when it's not really needed.  If game would actually have situation where it's more benefit to sneak than do direct acts, I ques it could make plaing rogue alot more interesting. Actually benefit as been rogue.

Because what I sayed, most player play rogue just for high offence damage as ability use two weapons. Not really as playing rogue..

Modifié par Lumikki, 19 octobre 2010 - 10:24 .

[hangmans tree]

Lumikki wrote...
Maybe I'm little too unpatience.

I do understand the attraction of playing "thief" kind of character. It could be in some ways very interesting way to play. Why I don't play them? Because there isn't no other reason to play that type of gameplay than if you like it alot. Meaning there is no benefits. Example sneaking behind someone and successful do what you wanted can be rewarding. How ever, most games you can just walk directly agaist enemy without any fancy move and kill it. It's alot faster way to play as not wasting time to do some fancy moves when it's not really needed.  If game would actually have situation where it's more benefit to sneak than do direct acts, I ques it could make plaing rogue alot more interesting. Actually benefit as been rogue.

Because what I sayed, most player play rogue just for high offence damage as ability use two weapons. Not really as playing rogue..

I advise you yo wait for The Witcher 2. Both approach are possible and rewarded with different outcomes...so they say

[Melca36]

Lumikki wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Playing some back stabber just doesn't interest me. I could play bow type rogue, like ranger, but that's all. I'm not so interesting to play melee classes, they are so booring as hell. Now there are some skills what could be interesting in rogue class, but in reality you don't need them in hack and slash games. Because every problem can be solved just by kill them all. No point to stealth, no point to waste time for traps, no point to any rogue skills, because you can just use pure force to get through alot faster and easyer.

Its more than just back stabbing so we'll have to agree to disagree. 

You just  sound like you have no patience to play a rogue.

Maybe I'm little too unpatience.

I do understand the attraction of playing "thief" kind of character. It could be in some ways very interesting way to play. Why I don't play them? Because there isn't no other reason to play that type of gameplay than if you like it alot. Meaning there is no benefits. Example sneaking behind someone and successful do what you wanted can be rewarding. How ever, most games you can just walk directly agaist enemy without any fancy move and kill it. It's alot faster way to play as not wasting time to do some fancy moves when it's not really needed.  If game would actually have situation where it's more benefit to sneak than do direct acts, I ques it could make plaing rogue alot more interesting. Actually benefit as been rogue.

Because what I sayed, most player play rogue just for high offence damage as ability use two weapons. Not really as playing rogue..

What makes you think all rogues steal and pick pocket? Mine never do. And Rogues do far more than what you assume they do. I think we should just agree to disagree. 

[Lumikki]

Melca36 wrote...

What makes you think all rogues steal and pick pocket? Mine never do. And Rogues do far more than what you assume they do. I think we should just agree to disagree. 

If you don't use rogues "special" abilities, you will have warrior like character what is just named as rogue.

[Lintanis]

 

[Addai]

Lumikki wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

What makes you think all rogues steal and pick pocket? Mine never do. And Rogues do far more than what you assume they do. I think we should just agree to disagree. 

If you don't use rogues "special" abilities, you will have warrior like character what is just named as rogue.

Rogue abilities go far beyond stealing.  I played lots of rogues and only had one who was a more than occasional thief.  My HNF character, who I figure picked it up much like celebrities shoplift. 

[maxernst]

Addai67 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

What makes you think all rogues steal and pick pocket? Mine never do. And Rogues do far more than what you assume they do. I think we should just agree to disagree. 

If you don't use rogues "special" abilities, you will have warrior like character what is just named as rogue.

Rogue abilities go far beyond stealing.  I played lots of rogues and only had one who was a more than occasional thief.  My HNF character, who I figure picked it up much like celebrities shoplift. 

I very rarely use rogues to steal.  The main reason I like to play them is because I like to scout ahead and know what's coming next so I can plan my attacks...though Bioware has the extremely irritating habit of forcing cut scenes on me for all major combats.  Grrrr....

[Melca36]

Lumikki wrote...

Melca36 wrote...

What makes you think all rogues steal and pick pocket? Mine never do. And Rogues do far more than what you assume they do. I think we should just agree to disagree. 

If you don't use rogues "special" abilities, you will have warrior like character what is just named as rogue.

Like I said, you don't get it and that is your right.  Rogues happen to be fun to play especially in Nightmare mode. Try it sometime

[Lumikki]

PS, I wasn't talking just about stealing and pick pockets. I did not even mentioned them in my posts.

Modifié par Lumikki, 20 octobre 2010 - 01:11 .