276 réponses à ce sujet

[Ziggeh]

DSerpa wrote...

There's a difference between giving different combat capabilities to different classes and giving an non-combat utility to a single class.

Why? Being out of combat doesn't change the fact that it's achieving the same thing.

DSerpa wrote...
The ability
to create and use traps and the ability to track enemies would be
excellent combat utilities to give to rogues; and they both fit the
"theme" of a rogue just as well as lockpicking does.

You'd need to implement them in ways that had similar "potency", but yeah, they'd achieve the same thing, but it'd be an even trade so I don't see much purpose, beyond meeting an arbitrary distinction.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 09 décembre 2010 - 09:48 .

[crimzontearz]

and THAT is why I dislike classes.



it would have been better if we had half classes like Mass Effect at least we would not feel like we HAVE to have a rogue in the party solely for lockpicking.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

Ms. Lovey Dovey wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Warriors get nothing special, they need something special

They get to use the weapon and shield fighting style and massive armor, if that is still about. No one else gets that!

I really hate these class limitations, I wish they were all just tossed.

I can see where you are coming from but in the long run - It makes for a more unique run-through when you replay the game.

Perhaps this is in your personal opinion, but it isn't mine. Sure, each playthrough might seem unique if you play the game three times as each of the classes seperately. But what if you make four characters or five? Having a classless system based on stats and purchased skills would give a player much more variety for the PC as well as for NPCs to be tweaked in interesting ways.

What seperates Isabella as a pirate in the skills she's learned from a lifetime at sea and in ports from any other rogue? Not much when you look at a character sheet and compare it to another rogue character. It's strange when people create classes in games like these, then become concerned with balancing them with skills that end up illogical in and out of the context of the gaming world. It becomes far more trouble than it's worth in my opinion.

[PsychoBlonde]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

Actually mages do get content that is *mage only* in the form of spells and certain items and weapons. Warriors get content in the form of skills and armors or weapons.

Scuse me, I meant content as in access to in-game stuff rather than game mechanics.  If there are quests you can't do, loot you can't access, people you can't talk to, etc. for a given class, I find this annoying.

And I don't see why balance is an issue--all builds WITHIN a class aren't balanced so who cares it all potential paths in a classless system are balanced or not.

[Ziggeh]

DSerpa wrote...

A warrior-exclusive taunt and a mage-exclusive heal doesn't ****block access to content if you choose not to bring warriors or mages with you.

If it didn't, it wouldn't matter whether you brought one or not. The whole point of them having it is so that you want to.

It's just a different type of consequence.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 09 décembre 2010 - 10:05 .

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...

Actually mages do get content that is *mage only* in the form of spells and certain items and weapons. Warriors get content in the form of skills and armors or weapons.

Scuse me, I meant content as in access to in-game stuff rather than game mechanics.  If there are quests you can't do, loot you can't access, people you can't talk to, etc. for a given class, I find this annoying.

And I don't see why balance is an issue--all builds WITHIN a class aren't balanced so who cares it all potential paths in a classless system are balanced or not.

In game stuff like what I just said? Items and equipment? Locked chests are essentially items for rogues who can access them. Swords, armors and other weapons were mage only or warrior only. The mages had their own origin other classes couldn't access, would that also count as in-game stuff to you?

I agree with you that it can be annoying at times. I also agree that class balancing in a game that isn't even multiplayer can seem a little strange. I don't really care about class balance.

[IRMcGhee]

Pretty sure they said that any chests with anything major in it (plot stuff, special armour and weapons etc.) wouldn't be locked, so you won't miss out on any of that. Wouldn't surprise me if there are class-specific quests within the game, same as DA:O.

[Marionetten]

DSerpa wrote...

A warrior-exclusive taunt and a mage-exclusive heal doesn't ****block access to content if you choose not to bring warriors or mages with you.

Exactly. Not having a healer can easily be fixed by bringing some extra healing potions. Not bringing a rogue means missing out on every single locked chest in the game. Unless they're going to give warriors the unique ability to bust down barricaded doors and mages the unique ability of being able to detect magically hidden objects I say scrap it.

IRMcGhee wrote...

Pretty sure they said that any chests with anything major in it (plot stuff, special armour and weapons etc.) wouldn't be locked, so you won't miss out on any of that. Wouldn't surprise me if there are class-specific quests within the game, same as DA:O.

While this is true it still irks the completionist in me to have to leave chests behind just because I didn't bring a rogue. As a direct result of this I feel forced to bring a rogue along for every single playthrough. This discourages some of the more interesting party configurations. I've experienced the same dialogue lines from Leliana and Zevran way too many times.

Modifié par Marionetten, 09 décembre 2010 - 10:18 .

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

All the more reason to make cross-class skills for purchase like lockpicking.

[PsychoBlonde]

Ryllen Laerth Kriel wrote...
The mages had their own origin other classes couldn't access, would that also count as in-game stuff to you?

Yeah, that was a little odd--and they were nice to the mages, too, none of the chests in the mage origin are locked.  It's just warriors in the other origins who get reamed because they can't open the locked boxes.

[crimzontearz]

uh....really? because in locked chests you end up finding out items that rogues cannot use like platemail and staves...

[Ziggeh]

Marionetten wrote...

Exactly. Not having a healer can easily be fixed by bringing some extra healing potions. Not bringing a rogue means missing out on every single locked chest in the game.

You could spend some money in order to not take mages, while not taking rogues loses you some vendor trash you could vendor for money.

Seriously though, I think these are arbitrary distinctions.

[ErichHartmann]

I've said this before but the lock bash system from NWN is more than fair. It allows for the possibility to destroy items inside a chest if you don't have a rogue handy. KOTOR made it too easy by having bash but no consequences.

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

I with Erichhartmann about the lock bashing and also wish DA:O would borrow from NWN's D&D 3rd edition ruleset somewhat in regards to certain skills and multiclassing.

[Ziggeh]

DSerpa wrote...

Do you see why it's a terrible system? You aren't encouraged to bring a diverse group of characters with different
talents. You're strong-armed into bringing one of each class, unless you want to miss out on all of the additional content.

And I'm saying that's a good thing, and the reason for the existance of lock picking. These things make group construction a decision making process rather than just going with whatever. In origins, damage potential was part of that decision as well because you had to choose it over combat skills.

It's more of a problem than a choice, because there is an optimal path: take one of each and then one other, but it doesn't actually preclude it being a choice, it just presents you with a consequence if you make it so.

Gear is the same, theres almost always an optimal path: the best tool for the job, but you don't have to take it. I prefered Morrigan's robe to the disco-sack fashion of the mages circle or the knobbly-knee birds nest effect of the tevinter roves, so she wore it for most of the game, depriving me of certain statistical advantages. I accepted that consequence of my gearing decision.

I consider this very good design.

edit: to clarfiy that, I think "consequences" are good design, not forcing me to wear starting gear on characters due to horrible robe fashions.

DSerpa wrote...
In my opinion, the best party to bring to the Deep Roads (plot-wise) is Alistair, Shale, and Oghren. Alistair because he's a Grey Warden and there's a ton of darkspawn in them thar tunnels, Oghren because he has the map and is tracking Branka, and Shale because she was found in the Deep Roads and might find answers through returning. Unfortunately, unless The Warden is a rogue, there's also a ton of traps and locked chests that you can't disarm or unlock unless you make a second trip. You could always replace one of the characters with a rogue, but that means forgoing what seems logical and immersive in favor of metagaming. It's bad design.

I would call it a decision presented to you, one with no easy answer. Again, something I consider good design, and sort of the reason I was playing the game in the first place.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 09 décembre 2010 - 10:59 .

[mopotter]

n2nw wrote...

I don't care if only Rogues can lockpick, but I want the option to be able to bash.

Agree.  I don't even care of part of the loot gets broken because I bash.  I really missed this and the mage spell for opening things.  This was one of the first mods I downloaded for the pc version of DA:O.  

[Maria Caliban]

If you want to open a lock, play a rogue or bring one with you. The point of a class based system is to give people choices by having different classes have different strengths and weaknesses? Should warriors toss fireballs? No, because that's a mage thing. Should mages be able to tank in massive armor using their int? No, because tanking is a warrior skill and wearing massive armor is based on strength. Should warriors and mages be able to pick locks? No, because that's a rogue ability.

[highcastle]

I like that opening locks is restricted to rogues. It means you need to balance your party more if you want access to all the loot. Really, the only times it bothered me in the slightest was in the origin stories where you don't have access to a rogue and thus just have to miss out. But that's the price you pay for playing a mage or a warrior, which can do things rogues can't.

[Ryzaki]

Warriors and mages already can't dual wield or use archery. So I fail to see how making lockpicking A noncombat ability exclusive is fair without some sort of trade-off for mages and warriors.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 10 décembre 2010 - 12:26 .

[TJPags]

Maria Caliban wrote...

If you want to open a lock, play a rogue or bring one with you. The point of a class based system is to give people choices by having different classes have different strengths and weaknesses? Should warriors toss fireballs? No, because that's a mage thing. Should mages be able to tank in massive armor using their int? No, because tanking is a warrior skill and wearing massive armor is based on strength. Should warriors and mages be able to pick locks? No, because that's a rogue ability.

Yes, but a really strong warrior who's carrying a sword or an axe should be able to crack open any boxes they find laying around, shouldn't they?  Or break open a door?

[Ziggeh]

"Fair" clearly isn't an aim of the system, and neither is realism.