276 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

Nope instead it's ridiculousness. Somehow warriors and mages just are utterly incapable of picking locks. Or destroying chests. 

Might be a good idea for the big bad to hide in a box if Hawke isn't a rogue. He'd be undefeatable.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 10 décembre 2010 - 12:37 .

[Perfect-Kenshin]

Perhaps being a Warrior automatically makes the player too dumb to figure out that he/she can just crack open the chest with his/her weapon. Of course, the Rogue realizes this, but keeps quiet on the basis that he/she would be left around sitting at the camp (or in DA2's case, Kirkvwall) if the Warrior were to discover that rogues are realistically useless (then again, so are warriors . Realistically, mages would dominate the battlefield).

Modifié par Perfect-Kenshin, 10 décembre 2010 - 12:40 .

[TJPags]

Ryzaki wrote...

Nope instead it's ridiculousness. Somehow warriors and mages just are utterly incapable of picking locks. Or destroying chests. 

Might be a good idea for the big bad to hide in a box if Hawke isn't a rogue. He'd be undefeatable.

Meh, just lock the door to his/her lair, and watch warrior or mageHawke go running all over Kirkwall looking for a rogue . . . .

[Ziggeh]

Ryzaki wrote...

Nope instead it's ridiculousness.

Maybe he could just stand in a room that's not on the player characters map. There were plenty of them in denerim.

[Ryzaki]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Nope instead it's ridiculousness.

Maybe he could just stand in a room that's not on the player characters map. There were plenty of them in denerim.

Far better simply to taunt the player from behind a locked door as the PC rages that they aren't a rogue.

[Aermas]

I few pages late;



Warriors having a taunt ability is a build decision, not a class restriction. Warriors have no niche other than the combat builds, while rogues have combat builds & out of combat builds. This kills any out of combat effect a warrior can have in the game. While rogues get content, experience, & quest.



Ziggehunderslash: "Vendor Trash" is still content, don't pretent like it isn't.

[Ziggeh]

Aermas wrote...

Ziggehunderslash: "Vendor Trash" is still content, don't pretent like it isn't.

It's a resource mechanic.

[Ziggeh]

Aermas wrote...

Warriors having a taunt ability is a build decision, not a class restriction.

This is the flaw in my argument. If you pick a dps warrior or dps oriented mage, it fills your other slots by default. That's a problem, one that would be solved by removing rogues from the "trinity" of "pick-me" abilities, but that leaves you without that setup for all the other spec's and combo's, another problem.

You can't really solve either without defenstrating the whole party game staple of tank/healer/dps.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 10 décembre 2010 - 01:56 .

[Ziggeh]

DSerpa wrote...

How would you feel if there were path-obstructing objects, such as boulders, that only warriors could neutralize? Or if there were cursed areas that could only be entered if first cleansed by a mage? Would you jump for joy at class balance or would you be pissed off that bringing a warrior and mage with you was the only way to fully explore an area?

I'd see them as redundant mechanics that didn't really interfere with my gameplay duirng party sections, so I'd largely ignore them. During solo periods I'd get things I couldn't open, and as I say, I rather like that that questions my relationship with shiny loot delivery systems. It would be a consequence of my character selection, so a positive thing. So I suppose my overall feeling would depend upon how often I spent solo in a party based game.

DSerpa wrote...
The classes should be unique and have special roles in combat.

Put aside the fairness issues for a moment, forget having symmetry among the classes, forget that you get extra things and dps and quests (do you get quests?). Leaving these things aside: what difference does it make if the "pick-me" ability is in or out of combat?

DSerpa wrote...
When characters rely on out-of-combat mechanics to make them viable, you really only bring them along for that one specific thing. It limits your choice.

And I consider that a good thing, with the two exceptions I listed above.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 10 décembre 2010 - 02:17 .

[Eski.Moe]

It's ok. I'll be in the corner with my mage, doing some alohomora.

[Maria Caliban]

TJPags wrote...

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?

No. classes have nothing to do with modeling reality. They're a set of strengths, weaknesses, and abilities based around stylistic or tactical themes.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Yeah, it's not about realism. Otherwise no lock should be able to stop a heavily-armed band of adventurers. The Warden had the option to bash Dwyn's door open in addition to picking the lock.

A strong warrior bashing down doors just because he's strong doesn't make sense when you consider STR isn't a warrior-specific attribute. The only instances where I pump up STR in Origins are dual sword wielding rogues and shapeshifters, for example. Warriors always end up far behind in strength department, with either CON or DEX increased. And bashing involves brute force, not skill. A warrior incapable of picking locks despite high CUN isn't as inconceivable as a rogue incapable of smashing doors despite high STR.

[Ryzaki]

...Wait what? You need high strength to wear massive armor. And CON is practically worthless if your DEX is high and your Warrior is wearing massive armor

/has never raised constitution above 20 unless she was playing a blood mage.

Strength also directly translates to damage for 2HDs. So...yeah you sort of do want high strength for Warriors. 2HDs for damage, dual wielders for damage and S&S for the ability to wear massive armor.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 10 décembre 2010 - 04:06 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

Ryzaki wrote...

...Wait what? You need high strength to wear massive armor. And CON is practically worthless if your DEX is high and your Warrior is wearing massive armor

/has never raised constitution above 20 unless she was playing a blood mage.

Strength also directly translates to damage for 2HDs. So...yeah you sort of do want high strength for Warriors. 2HDs for damage, dual wielders for damage and S&S for the ability to wear massive armor.

Yeah, DEX totally saves your hide against magic attacks.

42 STR is enough for dragonbone massive armor. Bonuses included.

And I don't care about the damage my warriors deal. I have rogues and mages for that. Warriors are good as long as they keep the enemy occupied, that's enough for me.

Uh, and my point wasn't about the most effective playstyle, you know. I just wanted to say it's very well possible to raise STR for non-warrior classes, even higher than those of warriors.

[Maria Caliban]

DSerpa wrote...

How would you feel if there were path-obstructing objects, such as boulders, that only warriors could neutralize? Or if there were cursed areas that could only be entered if first cleansed by a mage?

I'd think that's fine. Why would that be a problem?

[Ryzaki]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...
Yeah, DEX totally saves your hide against magic attacks.

42 STR is enough for dragonbone massive armor. Bonuses included.

And I don't care about the damage my warriors deal. I have rogues and mages for that. Warriors are good as long as they keep the enemy occupied, that's enough for me.

Uh, and my point wasn't about the most effective playstyle, you know. I just wanted to say it's very well possible to raise STR for non-warrior classes, even higher than those of warriors.

If you're playing smartly you don't ever have to worry about mages because they'll be dead in a few seconds. Not to mention all the strength you have means you kill them pretty damn quickly.

And that's pretty high strength you realize?

I never understood the point of a warrior that wasn't  damage dealer. Frankly I always thought rogues should do less damage than warriors. They just happen to get hit a lot less. Almost all my warriors are better damage dealers than my rogues. (Mostly because I refuse to use stealth because to me it's retarded). And mages in my mind are better off healing/buffing/debuffing than killing enemies.

Anyways it's also very possible to give warriors a high cunning stat. Even more so than a rogue. So lockpicking being exclusive to rogues makes as much sense as warrior's only being able to move boulders.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 10 décembre 2010 - 07:19 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

Ryzaki wrote...

If you're playing smartly you don't ever have to worry about mages because they'll be dead in a few seconds. Not to mention all the strength you have means you kill them pretty damn quickly.

And that's pretty high strength you realize?

I never understood the point of a warrior that wasn't  damage dealer. Frankly I always thought rogues should do less damage than warriors. They just happen to get hit a lot less. Almost all my warriors are better damage dealers than my rogues. (Mostly because I refuse to use stealth because to me it's retarded). And mages in my mind are better off healing/buffing/debuffing than killing enemies.

Anyways it's also very possible to give warriors a high cunning stat. Even more so than a rogue. So lockpicking being exclusive to rogues makes as much sense as warrior's only being able to move boulders.

I want to play smartly, but it's not as much fun... *sob* Blasted dragon keeps kicking me away before I can swing the stupid Yusanis.

The only reason I keep a warrior in the party is their taunt ability. But, again, that's just me. To each their own.

You may find stealth retarded, but I think it's hella fun. Especially in certain scenarios. Slim Couldry quests and such.

But the last bit... It's all about how much BioWare is willing to diverge from RPG traditions. Like, you know, rogues shine with nimble fingers while warriors are known for pure combat prowess.

[Aermas]

Warriors should be the main form of melee damage & defense
Rogues should be the lockpicks & mobility
Mages should be the Boomstick & the Utility.

Some where down the line the Rogue changed from a Skill Monkey into a flippy assassin/thief, this needs to be fixed.

Modifié par Aermas, 10 décembre 2010 - 08:12 .

[Crimson Invictus]

This:

Aermas wrote...
Rogues should be the lockpicks & mobility

Is not this:

Aermas wrote...
Skill Monkey

And is, somewhat ironically, more this:

Aermas wrote...
flippy assassin/thief

Aermas wrote...
 this needs to be fixed.

Did I miss something?

Modifié par Liana Nighthawk, 10 décembre 2010 - 08:19 .

[Aermas]

Mobility on the battlefield has more to do with faster land speed & higher evasion, than backflipping & DPS, Rogues should never be able to do more damage than a Warrior. Especially when they are supposed to be a Skill Monkey, it's like having a Computer Tech suddenly start doing martial arts & kicking the jocks a**. It doesn't make sense.

Modifié par Aermas, 10 décembre 2010 - 08:22 .

[Ryzaki]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

I want to play smartly, but it's not as much fun... *sob* Blasted dragon keeps kicking me away before I can swing the stupid Yusanis.

It shouldn't be knocking you down though if you have Indomitable on. Youonly stagger back like 2 steps.

And I'm not going into the problems I have with a heavy dragon bouncing around like a damn rabbit. <_<

The only reason I keep a warrior in the party is their taunt ability. But, again, that's just me. To each their own.

Yup. Only reason I bother with mages/rogues is for healing/lockpicking. Nothing is more fun to me than an All Warrior Party. Excellent DPS, control, and you don't have to worry about people dying every two damn seconds. (Plus with dog's Overwhelm Mages are nothing.) 

You may find stealth retarded, but I think it's hella fun. Especially in certain scenarios. Slim Couldry quests and such.

The fact that you turn invisible in the middle of battle is just omething that I can't accept. To me it's just too damn silly. Feign Death makes sense. Turning invisible with the exception of a haze of smoke? No. 

But the last bit... It's all about how much BioWare is willing to diverge from RPG traditions. Like, you know, rogues shine with nimble fingers while warriors are known for pure combat prowess.

Frankly I wish they would do this. Because honestly DA2 seems to give Rogues a lot of advantages while giving Warriors jack squat because rogues just have to be "special".

[Aermas]

Ryzaki wrote...

Frankly I wish they would do this. Because honestly DA2 seems to give Rogues a lot of advantages while giving Warriors jack squat because rogues just have to be "special".

*High-Fives Ryzaki

Modifié par Aermas, 10 décembre 2010 - 08:34 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

Ryzaki wrote...

It shouldn't be knocking you down though if you have Indomitable on. Youonly stagger back like 2 steps.

Right. Still interrupts the swing, though. A royal pain in the neck.

At least Barbarians got Concentration in Diablo II. Tsk.

Only reason I bother with mages/rogues is for healing/lockpicking. Nothing is more fun to me than an All Warrior Party. Excellent DPS, control, and you don't have to worry about people dying every two damn seconds. (Plus with dog's Overwhelm Mages are nothing.)

If only I could share the pleasure myself... They're too bland for my tastes, unfortunately.

The fact that you turn invisible in the middle of battle is just omething that I can't accept. To me it's just too damn silly. Feign Death makes sense. Turning invisible with the exception of a haze of smoke? No. 

A wizard did it! Well, I'm used to the blending into the shadows stuff for a long time. It doesn't bother me any more than magic. Besides, if it's fun, it's fair game!

Frankly I wish they would do this. Because honestly DA2 seems to give Rogues a lot of advantages while giving Warriors jack squat because rogues just have to be "special".

Rogues have always been the skillful ones, because they weren't meant to walk straight up to the enemy and beat the crap out of them just like that. A rogue being capable of going toe-to-toe with enemies is a rather new concept. When I beat Loghain using Zevran for the first time, I couldn't help but think BioWare might have missed the point there. In the end, however, Dragon Age is a new setting. Their game, their rules and all that.

[Ryzaki]

[quote]Ortaya Alevli wrote...


Right. Still interrupts the swing, though. A royal pain in the neck.

At least Barbarians got Concentration in Diablo II. Tsk.[/quote]

Ah yes that is the first thing I fixed. That ridculously slow 2HD swing is riduclous.

[quote]If only I could share the pleasure myself... They're too bland for my tastes, unfortunately.[/quote]

I feel the same way about rogues/mages.

[quote]A wizard did it! Well, I'm used to the blending into the shadows stuff for a long time. It doesn't bother me any more than magic. Besides, if it's fun, it's fair game![/quote]

See to me magic at least is supposed to be out there. I prefer my warriors to actually be able to do normal things. (Like warcry instead of making people fall makes them take a few steps back and lowers their attack or defense.)

[quote]
Rogues have always been the skillful ones, because they weren't meant to walk straight up to the enemy and beat the crap out of them just like that. A rogue being capable of going toe-to-toe with enemies is a rather new concept. When I beat Loghain using Zevran for the first time, I couldn't help but think BioWare might have missed the point there. In the end, however, Dragon Age is a new setting. Their game, their rules and all that.[/quote]

Yeah I wouldn't have the problem if A. They didn't get ranged abilities while Warriors got squat. B. They didn't get lockpicking while warriors got squat. and C. They could do everything a warrior could do and more. There should be a tradeoff. And yes the rogue being able to get hit and not die under serious fire was facepalm worthy. Rogues/Mages are supposed to be squishy. Not have higher defense than warriors.
[/quote]