197 réponses à ce sujet

[Aermas]

 In Origins a rogue was the only one who could open locks, making it a good idea to always have one on your team. They seem to have the same monopoly  going in DA:2. They are then further gifted with "awesome combat prowess" on par with the Warrior, so that rogues feel useful in combat. That leaves them with better combat & non-combat capabilities than other classes.

My question is, Is there any way to add more utility to the other two classes so that they can be on par with the rogue?

Modifié par Aermas, 19 novembre 2010 - 01:48 .

[Ziggeh]

Tanking and healing would probably be the response. Utiliy is essentially "things you have to think about when considering party composition", rogues needed something to make them part of that equation.

[Nerivant]

I don't think anything will ever be on-par with mages.

[Aermas]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Tanking and healing would probably be the response. Utiliy is essentially "things you have to think about when considering party composition", rogues needed something to make them part of that equation.

Those are combat abilities, I'm talking about non-combat usefulness.

[HopHazzard]

I think the utility of the warrior is its ability to soak up damage in a way that a rogue can't. Also the fact that this time around warriors are specializing in multi-target damage while rogues still are single target fighters. As for mages if you don't think wrapping healing, AoE dps, and crowd control into one character qualifies as "utility", I'd like to hear what you have in mind.

[Aermas]

HopHazzard wrote...

I think the utility of the warrior is its ability to soak up damage in a way that a rogue can't. Also the fact that this time around warriors are specializing in multi-target damage while rogues still are single target fighters. As for mages if you don't think wrapping healing, AoE dps, and crowd control into one character qualifies as "utility", I'd like to hear what you have in mind.

Again that is only useful in combat, I am talking about non-combat utility.

[Ziggeh]

Aermas wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Tanking and healing would probably be the response. Utiliy is essentially "things you have to think about when considering party composition", rogues needed something to make them part of that equation.

Those are combat abilities, I'm talking about non-combat usefulness.

I understand, but it's a usefulness that only exists for the purpose I stated. Also to increase the sense of "rpg-ness" I suppose.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 18 novembre 2010 - 07:23 .

[ViSeiRa]

I think the classes in DA2 have a lot of diversity as far as we know, Mages have healing, CC, AOE, Warriors have Tanking and Melee AOE and Rogues specialize in single target DPS and lockpicking and disarming traps..... combat or non-combat there's enough uniqueness in there to make playing different classes at the least a moderately different experience and I totally like that part of DA2.

[HopHazzard]

Aermas wrote...

HopHazzard wrote...

I think the utility of the warrior is its ability to soak up damage in a way that a rogue can't. Also the fact that this time around warriors are specializing in multi-target damage while rogues still are single target fighters. As for mages if you don't think wrapping healing, AoE dps, and crowd control into one character qualifies as "utility", I'd like to hear what you have in mind.

Again that is only useful in combat, I am talking about non-combat utility.

Did any class other than rogues have non-combat utility in Origins? I guess I'm not seeing what your issue is.

[Maverick827]

HopHazzard wrote...

Did any class other than rogues have non-combat utility in Origins? I guess I'm not seeing what your issue is.

I think his issue is that no classes other than rogues had non-combat utility in Origins.

[Eveangaline]

Rogues needed a non-combat utility to make up for the fact they weren't really required in combat, while the other two classes were. If rogues couldn't pick locks and disarm traps, someone could easily play the whole game through with just mages and warriors, never putting the rogues in their parties.

[hexaligned]

Really I wish they would add a bunch of out of combat skills (that any class COULD take), Drakensang does it pretty well imo, but I think that game has something like 20ish conversation/world interaction related skills that need to be leveled separately. I usually end up with 3 combat characters and one I tote around just as a skill monkey (that skill monkey usually being  rogue, since he needs to level up rogue skills anyways). Which is fine by me... it might be a bit excessive for some people, I still think the DA ruleset could use with some more noncombat related stuff though, even if it isn't taken to that extreme.

Modifié par relhart, 18 novembre 2010 - 07:46 .

[lv12medic]

What non-combat utility abilities would Warrior and Mage have?
Besides lock-bashing and spells to open locks and detect traps.  (Which are essentially different versions of the Rogue's utility).

I guess mages could allow you to access magically warded doors or something.  Different from mechanical lockpicking.  If inventory wasn't a set amount for everybody, I would suggest warriors could carry more loot.

In the end it's just extra and redundant game mechanics to throw in that has little to no useful return.

[Selene Moonsong]

The question would be, what kind of non-combat Talents and Skills other than what the Rogue has?

[bsbcaer]

Aermas wrote...

 In Origins a rogue was the only one who could open locks, making it a good idea to always have one on your team. They seem to have the same monopoly  going in DA:2. They are then further gifted with "awesome combat prowess" on par with the Warrior, so that rogues feel useful in combat. That leaves them with better combat & non-combat capabilities than other classes.

My question is, Is there any way to add more utility to the other two classes so that they can be on par with the rogue?

Rogue's are focused on single target DPS (Damage per second?), while Warriors are going to be more focused on AOE (Area of Effect) damage, so they will be differentiated that way.  Mages were overpowered in the first game (in my opinion), so they're going to remain useful seeing how they're the only ones capable of using magic. 

[bsbcaer]

Aermas wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Tanking and healing would probably be the response. Utiliy is essentially "things you have to think about when considering party composition", rogues needed something to make them part of that equation.

Those are combat abilities, I'm talking about non-combat usefulness.

Kind of misread your question...I think that if you're talking non-combat usefulness, I'd say that you will always have rogues being more useful outside of combat than say a warrior mostly because, in my opinion, one is obviously focused on combat (warrior) while the other sees combat as a second, third, or fourth choice when dealing with situations (so has skills that are going to be useful outside of combat)

[Lord Gremlin]

Well, according to DAO lore mages are ridiculously overpowered, to the point where one maleficar can overtake a whole country. And I think it should be this way - by the end of game a mage should be able to solo anything.

As for rogues and locks - since chests mostly contained cheap generic garbage you could ignore them. But I don't think any non-combat abilities should be class-exclusive. Oblivion handled locks very well for example.

As I see it now in combat though is warrior - AOE damage and crowd control, rogue - massive damage to single target, ineffective against groups. And mage is everything in one and incredibly overpowered - that's why everyone in DA universe fear mages and there are those Templars with their draconian rules.

[Aermas]

The thing is; Rogues used to suck in combat, they could fight but they didn't fight well, now there is a change in the perceptions of what a rogue does making them more & more combat related & less of a skill monkey. In DA2 they are making the rogue have on par fighting abilities as the other classes, albeit in a different role (single target DPS), but they continue to be more useful than any other class when outside of combat because of there lockpicking skills. In Origins it was more rewarding to play a rogue because you didn't have to worry about always having Leliana or Zevran in the party, & you could loot the origin levels of loot.



I would like to see Warriors able to knockdown "stuck" doors, this would be a different mechanic than Lockpick because there is not lock to pick (just a really heavy door) & maybe push objects around (like in the mage origins when you have to move the bookshelf) They could call it Athletics or something & it would work of strength.

[Arrtis]

fuse the warrior and rogue together and let the player customize if their fighter becomes more like a rogue or warrior.

[Darkhour]

Aermas wrote...

 In Origins a rogue was the only one who could open locks, making it a good idea to always have one on your team. They seem to have the same monopoly  going in DA:2. They are then further gifted with "awesome combat prowess" on par with the Warrior, so that rogues feel useful in combat. That leaves them with better combat & non-combat capabilities than other classes.

My question is, Is there any way to add more utility to the other two classes so that they can be on par with the rogue?

Mages have more utiliy than a rogue.  You can alway run through a dungeon with a rogue to get all the missed chests after you've killed everything inside.  But the mage is far more useful when doing that actual mission.  They have high damage, buffs, debuffs and crowd control.

During the urn of sacred ashes.. my mage could solo the entire doppleganger group provided I immediately paralyzed my own counterpart.  Mages, by far, are the best class in the game and put both rogues and warriors to shame.

But I did not notice any advantages for a warrior over a rogue.  I could see if they were really squishy, but they weren't.

Modifié par Darkhour, 19 novembre 2010 - 01:05 .

[Maria Caliban]

Aermas wrote...

Again that is only useful in combat, I am talking about non-combat utility.

Not every class needs a specific non-combat utility. class balance doesn't work that way nor should it.

[Xewaka]

Aermas wrote...

 My question is, Is there any way to add more utility to the other two classes so that they can be on par with the rogue?

Warriors can dish damage and take it. Mages can dish damage and heal it. Rogues can ony dish damage. It is rogues who needed the off-combat utility boon to be on par with the other two classes, not the other way around.

If you give Warriors and Mages non-combat utilities, what secondary combat function are you willing to give to the Rogue?

[soteria]

I always figured warriors were supposed to be good at combat. From a lore perspective, I don't really see them bringing anything special to the table outside of combat. In Origins, at least, warriors were better than rogues at fighting so it worked out. Will DA:2 be different in that regard? We'll see.

[Archereon]

Mages, I imagine, will keep their INSANE damage dealing abilities, plus they're still the only healers.  And since AWs are gone (at least in terms of damage dealing), warriors are the only tanks.

Modifié par Archereon, 19 novembre 2010 - 01:37 .

[Aermas]

I edited the title as to narrow my point