197 réponses à ce sujet

[Koralis]

It's entirely possible (likely?) that Warriors will have some talents available to them that are useful in non-combat scenarios. For instance, a templarish branch that makes them immune to magical traps. Rogues may not even be able to see them, let alone disarm them.



Warriors may get enhanced senses, and can tell when living creatures are near. (a spidey-sense sort of thing.)



Mages could be given the ability to teleport themselves to a visible location that they can concievably walk to. Slowish casting time, but may allow them to sidestep a hallway guantlet of spears, etc.



Mages could cast a illusionary voices/images to distract or lure away guards.

[Apollo Starflare]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

Apollo Starflare wrote...

Rogue's aren't changing that much from their Origins form in DA2... Their lockpicking skill is just one of their defining traits and it makes them much more attractive as a choice of companion or player character when otherwise a Warrior and Mage can do almost everything the Rogue can do - but better. This isn't a multiplayer game that requires delicate balancing anyway, it just seems to me like a lot of Warrior players don't like missing loot? As a member of the Rogue union I don't like getting squashed into a fine paste by various beasties and not getting to wear cool armor with my normal build.

That last one might be invalidated by DA2 but it counts if you prefer the heavier armors regardless.

as a good rogue, you only get squashed if the enemy hits you:wizard:.  

as for cool armors, take it up with the artists, maybe they'll do a better job in da2.
and as a member of the warrior order, yes i love to loot and no i don't want to miss a good item because i didn't choose to be a rogue or if my party doesn't have a rogue at that given time.
lockpicking shouldn't be a freepass card into the party for the rogue. if i want a rogue, it's because he/she can disarm traps, kill in a fast manner, killing magic resistant enemies from afar and other combat related abilities 

DA2 isn't becomming a twitch game, Rogue's might have some new tricks in their arsenal but they don't prevent you from getting hit at all. You are still squishier than a Warrior, and in fact sound even more focused on attacking from behind and such. I'm sure someone will figure out a rogue tank build or something, but that isn't the way the class is designed to be used.

As I pointed out in my post, even if DA2 has improved the look of the armors there is still the fact that rogue's cannot properly wear any armor class above medium. And really, most of my rogues didn't want to even wear medium. That is significantly limited to choice of armor, or do you think rogue's should be given a special ability that lets them wear anything? Seems fair if Warrior's get to 'pick' locks?

It isn't the games fault if you refuse to bring a rogue with you, or refuse to go back to areas you have already been to in order to get the loot. Loot shouldn't just be given to the player, it should require choice or sacrifice - in this case you needing an expert with locks. Having an expert with locks is no different to having an expert with traps. Incidentally other classes can fulfil all the things you just said.

I've played DAO without a rogue in my party, it sucks when you come across a chest you can't open, but I shrugged and moved on knowing it was my own choice not to bring the party's lockpicking expert. You aren't entitled to every locked chest, and there are plenty of cases where someone without a mage or warrior could regret not having said class's traits.

[Wulfram]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Wulfram wrote...
Rogues should be useful enough that you pick them for your party because you actually want them, not because you need to be bribed with XP and loot to take them.

Right, because RPGs are all about killing stuff. No situations or challenges other than endless slaughter.

No, it's clearly endless slaughter broken by occasional bits of looting.

I don't consider opening unattended baggage counts as a challenge.  Lockpicking is utterly boring.  Either you have a sufficiently good rogue and you get some inconsequential loot, or you don't and move on.  Who cares?  That's not something which should be an important part of a class.

[nightcobra]

Apollo Starflare wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

Apollo Starflare wrote...

Rogue's aren't changing that much from their Origins form in DA2... Their lockpicking skill is just one of their defining traits and it makes them much more attractive as a choice of companion or player character when otherwise a Warrior and Mage can do almost everything the Rogue can do - but better. This isn't a multiplayer game that requires delicate balancing anyway, it just seems to me like a lot of Warrior players don't like missing loot? As a member of the Rogue union I don't like getting squashed into a fine paste by various beasties and not getting to wear cool armor with my normal build.

That last one might be invalidated by DA2 but it counts if you prefer the heavier armors regardless.

as a good rogue, you only get squashed if the enemy hits you:wizard:.  

as for cool armors, take it up with the artists, maybe they'll do a better job in da2.
and as a member of the warrior order, yes i love to loot and no i don't want to miss a good item because i didn't choose to be a rogue or if my party doesn't have a rogue at that given time.
lockpicking shouldn't be a freepass card into the party for the rogue. if i want a rogue, it's because he/she can disarm traps, kill in a fast manner, killing magic resistant enemies from afar and other combat related abilities 

DA2 isn't becomming a twitch game, Rogue's might have some new tricks in their arsenal but they don't prevent you from getting hit at all. You are still squishier than a Warrior, and in fact sound even more focused on attacking from behind and such. I'm sure someone will figure out a rogue tank build or something, but that isn't the way the class is designed to be used.

As I pointed out in my post, even if DA2 has improved the look of the armors there is still the fact that rogue's cannot properly wear any armor class above medium. And really, most of my rogues didn't want to even wear medium. That is significantly limited to choice of armor, or do you think rogue's should be given a special ability that lets them wear anything? Seems fair if Warrior's get to 'pick' locks?

It isn't the games fault if you refuse to bring a rogue with you, or refuse to go back to areas you have already been to in order to get the loot. Loot shouldn't just be given to the player, it should require choice or sacrifice - in this case you needing an expert with locks. Having an expert with locks is no different to having an expert with traps. Incidentally other classes can fulfil all the things you just said.

I've played DAO without a rogue in my party, it sucks when you come across a chest you can't open, but I shrugged and moved on knowing it was my own choice not to bring the party's lockpicking expert. You aren't entitled to every locked chest, and there are plenty of cases where someone without a mage or warrior could regret not having said class's traits.

i wrote this proposition on another thread:


locked chest/doors that can be opened by rogues and is dependant on cunning stat.

magical locks and barriers that can be dispelled by mages (like how the spirit form in the fade did with transparent doorways) and is dependant on magic stat.

and large obstacles like boulders or toppled statues that can be destroyed by warriors (like how the golem form in the fade was able to burst open through heavy doors) and is dependant on strenght stat. 

with this, the choice/sacrifice is still there but is now appliable to all classes.

say you don't a warrior, then you can't lift that boulder on the path that might lead to a treasure

say you don't want a mage, then you can't see the door masked by an illusion that might lead to a secret area.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Wulfram wrote...

No, it's clearly endless slaughter broken by occasional bits of looting.

I don't consider opening unattended baggage counts as a challenge.  Lockpicking is utterly boring.  Either you have a sufficiently good rogue and you get some inconsequential loot, or you don't and move on.  Who cares?  That's not something which should be an important part of a class.

Yes, currently the design of Dragon Age involves too much emphasis on combat and less attention to other situations. But dismissing already minimized non-combat elements altogether isn't exactly helping.

Unless you'd prefer full emphasis on combat instead. I don't want to jump to conclusions here.

[bsbcaer]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Except that rogues do have mundane skills.

Suppose you come to my store to buy a new computer. For your budget, I present you three options.

Option 1: Quad-core CPU, 4GB RAM, 1GB-memory graphics card, gigabit ethernet support for network access, wi-fi support for wireless network access, etc.

Option 2: Dual-core CPU, 8GB RAM, 1.5GB-memory graphics card, gigabit ethernet support for network access, wi-fi support for wireless network access, etc.

Option 3: Dual-core CPU, 4GB RAM, 1GB-memory graphics card, gigabit ethernet support for network access, PSC all-in-one office solution.

You see where I'm getting at?

Actually no, I have no idea what either option really does and it looks all greek to me

[Ortaya Alevli]

bsbcaer wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Except that rogues do have mundane skills.

Suppose you come to my store to buy a new computer. For your budget, I present you three options.

Option 1: Quad-core CPU, 4GB RAM, 1GB-memory graphics card, gigabit ethernet support for network access, wi-fi support for wireless network access, etc.

Option 2: Dual-core CPU, 8GB RAM, 1.5GB-memory graphics card, gigabit ethernet support for network access, wi-fi support for wireless network access, etc.

Option 3: Dual-core CPU, 4GB RAM, 1GB-memory graphics card, gigabit ethernet support for network access, PSC all-in-one office solution.

You see where I'm getting at?

Actually no, I have no idea what either option really does and it looks all greek to me

They compute.

[bsbcaer]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

bsbcaer wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Except that rogues do have mundane skills.

Suppose you come to my store to buy a new computer. For your budget, I present you three options.

Option 1: Quad-core CPU, 4GB RAM, 1GB-memory graphics card, gigabit ethernet support for network access, wi-fi support for wireless network access, etc.

Option 2: Dual-core CPU, 8GB RAM, 1.5GB-memory graphics card, gigabit ethernet support for network access, wi-fi support for wireless network access, etc.

Option 3: Dual-core CPU, 4GB RAM, 1GB-memory graphics card, gigabit ethernet support for network access, PSC all-in-one office solution.

You see where I'm getting at?

Actually no, I have no idea what either option really does and it looks all greek to me

They compute.

At this point in my life, I would be asking you point me to one that will allow me easiest access to the internet and the ability to write my dissertation (bonus points if the computer writes the fracker for me! 

[Ortaya Alevli]

bsbcaer wrote...

At this point in my life, I would be asking you point me to one that will allow me easiest access to the internet and the ability to write my dissertation (bonus points if the computer writes the fracker for me! 

Then I present you with Legionnaire Scout XT-1000. Available for an additional fee of only $40!

[Aermas]

The fact is that Rogues can fight, Warriors can fight, & Mages can fight.

Rogues can do things outside of combat, Warriors, & Mages CANNOT.

They should add things that only Warriors, & Mages can do so that they feel useful outside of combat. Illuminating dark areas, moving large things. Busting through a stuck door. This will balance their non-combat utility

[Wulfram]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Yes, currently the design of Dragon Age involves too much emphasis on combat and less attention to other situations. But dismissing already minimized non-combat elements altogether isn't exactly helping.

Unless you'd prefer full emphasis on combat instead. I don't want to jump to conclusions here.

More non combat uses of Rogue's stealthy abilities would be welcome - and rogues should be the only people able to open a locked door or chest quietly - but opening unattended chests is just boring.

Modifié par Wulfram, 19 novembre 2010 - 09:16 .

[Mykel54]

Thing is, normally rogue get all those utility non-combat skills to make them more useful in the party. It is similar to how when in a mmo party people look first for a tank and healer, those roles can only be filled by a warrior and a mage. On the other hand, a rogue can only do dps, ranged or melee. But a two handed warrior can also do dps, and a mage do ranged dps, therefore, the rogue is a very specialized class that needs very badly the other two classes to be able to fill it´s role without dying. A rogue attacking a hard mob without a tank and healer will die. Warriors and mages are useful enough that they don´t need any extra motivation for players to have them, they are just basic for the game, period. You can´t win your combats with only rogues, you need the other two classes very badly. The class that traditionally is more "optional" to beating the game is the rogue, because as i said his function can be assumed by either warrior or mage focused on doin dps.

[PsychoBlonde]

Mykel54 wrote...
A rogue attacking a hard mob without a tank and healer will die.

Depends on the MMO.  My rogue in DDO is a solo-machine, with sky-high armor class, the ability to go invisible/incorporeal at will, and self-healing with wands.

This isn't an MMO.  This is a single-player game, and there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to play just as well with 4 mages as with 4 rogues or 4 fighters.  You don't need a "tank" and a "healer" (as the people who solo nightmare can attest).  So why should you get left out of stuff because you're playing one class instead of another?

I really, really hated in BGII that there wasn't a good NPC rogue available, because if you didn't play one yourself you wound up eating a lot of traps.  It was dumb.  Let people play what they want and don't arbitrarily "lock" them out of things as a result.  Rogues are plenty combat-effective in Dragon Age, they don't need any reason to make you haul them around.

[Xewaka]

Aermas wrote...

The fact is that Rogues can fight, Warriors can fight, & Mages can fight.
Rogues can do things outside of combat, Warriors, & Mages CANNOT.
They should add things that only Warriors, & Mages can do so that they feel useful outside of combat. Illuminating dark areas, moving large things. Busting through a stuck door. This will balance their non-combat utility

Yet non-combat utility exclusive to rogues is there to balance the dual utility of mages and warriors in combat as opposed to the single use of rogues in combat. Asking for mages and warriors to get something more is actually unbalancing classes, not balancing them.

Modifié par Xewaka, 19 novembre 2010 - 10:55 .

[nightcobra]

Xewaka wrote...

Aermas wrote...

The fact is that Rogues can fight, Warriors can fight, & Mages can fight.
Rogues can do things outside of combat, Warriors, & Mages CANNOT.
They should add things that only Warriors, & Mages can do so that they feel useful outside of combat. Illuminating dark areas, moving large things. Busting through a stuck door. This will balance their non-combat utility

Yet non-combat utility exclusive to rogues is there to balance the dual utility of mages and warriors in combat as opposed to the single use of rogues in combat. Asking for mages and warriors to get something more is actually unbalancing classes, not balancing them.

on that point i disagree though since i think rogues actually are already a very versatile class, even more so with the changes we've seen for DA2.

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 19 novembre 2010 - 10:57 .

[Xewaka]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

on that point i disagree though since i think rogues actually are already a very versatile class, even more so with the changes we've seen for DA2.

They can do single target damage up close or single target damage at a distance. They have no support role, only a damage role. Or rather, their support role applies off-combat.

Keep in mind that I consider trap disarming to be a part of the "security bypass" off-combat role of the rogue (calling it lockpicking exclusively might cause an argument over semantic, so I will specify this from now on).

Modifié par Xewaka, 19 novembre 2010 - 11:07 .

[Kileyan]

Aermas wrote...

The fact is that Rogues can fight, Warriors can fight, & Mages can fight.
Rogues can do things outside of combat, Warriors, & Mages CANNOT.
They should add things that only Warriors, & Mages can do so that they feel useful outside of combat. Illuminating dark areas, moving large things. Busting through a stuck door. This will balance their non-combat utility

How does this make the game better? Earlier you were upset that a rogue is forced upon you. Your fix for this issue is to contrive a bunch of situations where all the classes are forced upon you. Sounds like the style of balancing you are asking for is just busy work, for the sake of saying X class can do something out of combat, but no real pay off (IMHO).

Kinda seems like, if you are required to bring a rogue, your answer is "by damn make everyone else bring X class". Except that most people will have at least one of each class already, and the game doesn't need to be balanced around the few who refuse to use rogues. I hope class balance isn't hinged upon making 100% completions possible for every persons quirks on what classes they like to use(or refuse to use).

Modifié par Kileyan, 19 novembre 2010 - 11:40 .

[nightcobra]

Xewaka wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

on that point i disagree though since i think rogues actually are already a very versatile class, even more so with the changes we've seen for DA2.

They can do single target damage up close or single target damage at a distance. They have no support role, only a damage role. Or rather, their support role applies off-combat.

again, i disagree.

from what we know from peter thomas, the threat system is pratically identical to origins, if i'm not mistaken that usually means that the enemy will target the one who hits him harder.
with this knowledge, a rogue becomes the aggro management class of choice for particularly strong enemies such as ogres, dragons and other bosses, even more so if the rogue uses a talent similar to "flicker" which attacks nearby enemies by "teleporting" (ergo, moving really fast) and in turning reaping the aggro off the other party members.

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 19 novembre 2010 - 11:13 .

[Xewaka]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

again, i disagree.

from what we know from peter thomas, the threat system is pratically identical to origins, if i'm not mistaken that usually means that the enemy will target the one who hits him harder.
with this knowledge, a rogue becomes the aggro management class of choice for particularly strong enemies such as ogres, dragons and other bosses, even more so if the rogue uses a talent similar to "flicker" which attacks nearby enemies by "teleporting" (ergo, moving really fast) and in turning reaping the aggro off the other party members.

I might be mistaken, but I believe that the aggro system of Origins factored the level of armor of the character when determining the threat level, thus higher armored characters (warriors) caused a higher amount of threat with the same damage input. Besides, the aggro management which you describe can be applied to mages in the same way. However, the only class to actually have skills that directly influence the threat levels is the warrior, which combined with his higher armor (and thus, higher survival chances against continued damage) suggests that aggro management -or rather, aggro control - is, in fact, the intended warrior support role. The aggro management of both rogue and wizard is mainly to avoid exposure to damage and continue their intended functions, and thus part of the damage dealing role shared amongst all three classes.

[Maria Caliban]

Aermas wrote...

Rogues can do things outside of combat, Warriors, & Mages CANNOT.

This is fine. One class should be able to do things that others cannot.

For example, mages have long distance, AOE damage abilities. Should rogues and mages have the same? No.

Warriors have the ability to take large amounts of physical damage. Should mages and rogues have the same ability? No.

classes need to have different strengths and weaknesses. Giving them all the same strengths and weaknesses defeats the purpose of having a class.

Xewaka wrote...

I might be mistaken, but I believe that the aggro system of Origins factored the level of armor of the character when determining the threat level, thus higher armored characters (warriors) caused a higher amount of threat with the same damage input.

There were three threat levels: No armor, light armor, and heavy armor. Moreover, the level of threat generated by heavy armor wasn't enough to outrank the amount of aggro gained from being the first person spotted.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 19 novembre 2010 - 11:36 .

[nightcobra]

Xewaka wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

again, i disagree.

from what we know from peter thomas, the threat system is pratically identical to origins, if i'm not mistaken that usually means that the enemy will target the one who hits him harder.
with this knowledge, a rogue becomes the aggro management class of choice for particularly strong enemies such as ogres, dragons and other bosses, even more so if the rogue uses a talent similar to "flicker" which attacks nearby enemies by "teleporting" (ergo, moving really fast) and in turning reaping the aggro off the other party members.

I might be mistaken, but I believe that the aggro system of Origins factored the level of armor of the character when determining the threat level, thus higher armored characters (warriors) caused a higher amount of threat with the same damage input. Besides, the aggro management which you describe can be applied to mages in the same way. However, the only class to actually have skills that directly influence the threat levels is the warrior, which combined with his higher armor (and thus, higher survival chances against continued damage) suggests that aggro management -or rather, aggro control - is, in fact, the intended warrior support role. The aggro management of both rogue and wizard is mainly to avoid exposure to damage and continue their intended functions, and thus part of the damage dealing role shared amongst all three classes.

i admit it's a bit unconventional method of playing as a rogue, but it worked in origins (amazingly enough).
i still stand by my point that any class can become whatever you want it to be if you know how to manage them and to use every resource (either talents or items) available to complement the inherent class weaknesses.

i suppose it's better to agree to disagree by this point in the discussion.

[nightcobra]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Rogues can do things outside of combat, Warriors, & Mages CANNOT.

This is fine. One class should be able to do things that others cannot.

For example, mages have long distance, AOE damage abilities. Should rogues and mages have the same? No.

Warriors have the ability to take large amounts of physical damage. Should mages and rogues have the same ability? No.

classes need to have different strengths and weaknesses. Giving them all the same strengths and weaknesses defeats the purpose of having a class.

Xewaka wrote...

I might be mistaken, but I believe that the aggro system of Origins factored the level of armor of the character when determining the threat level, thus higher armored characters (warriors) caused a higher amount of threat with the same damage input.

There were three threat levels: No armor, light armor, and heavy armor. Moreover, the level of threat generated by heavy armor wasn't enough to outrank the amount of aggro gained from being the first person spotted.

rogues do have some AOE ranged abilities as stated by peter thomas but that is besides the point.

i still stand for wanting mages and warriors to have a non-battle skill akin to the lockpick but tailored to the class in question.

like i said earlier:


locked chest/doors that can be opened by rogues and is dependant on cunning stat.

magical locks and barriers that can be dispelled by mages (like how the spirit form in the fade did with transparent doorways) and is dependant on magic stat.

and large obstacles like boulders or toppled statues that can be destroyed by warriors (like how the golem form in the fade was able to burst open through heavy doors) and is dependant on strenght stat. 

with this, the choice/sacrifice is still there but is now appliable to all classes.

say you don't a warrior, then you can't lift that boulder on the path that might lead to a treasure

say you don't want a mage, then you can't see the door masked by an illusion that might lead to a secret area.

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 19 novembre 2010 - 11:43 .

[Xewaka]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

rogues do have some AOE ranged abilities as stated by peter thomas but that is besides the point.

I still stand for wanting mages and warriors to have a non-battle skill akin to the lockpick but tailored to the class in question.

like i said earlier:


locked chest/doors that can be opened by rogues and is dependant on cunning stat.

magical locks and barriers that can be dispelled by mages (like how the spirit form in the fade did with transparent doorways) and is dependant on magic stat.

and large obstacles like boulders or toppled statues that can be destroyed by warriors (like how the golem form in the fade was able to burst open through heavy doors) and is dependant on strenght stat. 

with this, the choice/sacrifice is still there but is now appliable to all classes.

say you don't a warrior, then you can't lift that boulder on the path that might lead to a treasure

say you don't want a mage, then you can't see the door masked by an illusion that might lead to a secret area.

I was going to answer to this that if you don't have a warrior you don't have tanking capabilities, and if you don't have a mage you lack healing capabilities, and that is enough balance between classes. That is, if you don't break the system. But...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

i admit it's a bit unconventional method of playing as a rogue, but it worked in origins (amazingly enough).
i still stand by my point that any class can become whatever you want it to be if you know how to manage them and to use every resource (either talents or items) available to complement the inherent class weaknesses.

i suppose it's better to agree to disagree by this point in the discussion.

Fair enough. There is simply no way of knowing how people will break the system when it's being made, so there has to be a design call to make all classes have roughly the same value when adventuring; this means giving each class a defined support role. You managed to break the system enough to make the support roles of two classes redundant, so I understand why you feel the rogue class is superior. Since I didn't see the need to break the system, I can't agree to your position.

Modifié par Xewaka, 19 novembre 2010 - 11:58 .

[nightcobra]

Xewaka wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

i admit it's a bit unconventional method of playing as a rogue, but it worked in origins (amazingly enough).
i still stand by my point that any class can become whatever you want it to be if you know how to manage them and to use every resource (either talents or items) available to complement the inherent class weaknesses.

i suppose it's better to agree to disagree by this point in the discussion.

Fair enough. There is simply no way of knowing how people will break the system when it's being made, so there has to be a design call to make all classes have roughly the same value when adventuring; this means giving each class a defined support role. You managed to break the system enough to make the support roles of two classes redundant, so I understand why you feel the rogue class is superior. Since I didn't see the need to break the system, I can't agree to your position.

i don't think i was breaking the system though, just using whatever was available at the time and making the most of it.

[Xewaka]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

i don't think i was breaking the system though, just using whatever was available at the time and making the most of it.

My pen and paper experience has taught me that where one thing starts and another ends is in the eye of the beholder. There are many ways to "break the system" while fully applying the rules of said system.