470 réponses à ce sujet

[errant_knight]

Maria Caliban wrote...

As I understand it, warriors get:

High armor
High HP
Threat generation
Basic attack does AOE melee damage
Abilities that become more powerful the more enemies are around them
Shield bash/charge for single targets and Tremor for an area around them.

If you want to focus on tanking, pick up a sword and shield, and load up on the defense and armor. If you want to focus on offense, pick up a two-hander and load up on the strength and stamina.

In contrast, rogues have lower HP and armor. They can only do single target damage in melee, but can operate at range as well. They have abilities to help them stun and disorient groups.

That is, they're made to focus on one opponent and have panic buttons if they find themselves surrounded.

Tremor? Like where their very presence make the ground shake? Or people shake with fear at their awesomeness? Damn it! Area effects were bad enough. Why are they making these classes so ridiculous and magical? *Takes a deep breath* Is that a specific ability? Can I ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist or is it going to be an inherent thing that will be forced on me?

[Ziggeh]

Maria Caliban wrote...
High armor
High HP
Threat generation
Basic attack does AOE melee damage
Abilities that become more powerful the more enemies are around them
Shield bash/charge for single targets and Tremor for an area around them.

Those are all in combat skills, and that makes a difference because........otherwise my position makes no sense.

[upsettingshorts]

I haven't been following the thread so excuse me if this has already been brought up but - why should a warrior be about anything other than combat?

[Ziggeh]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I haven't been following the thread so excuse me if this has already been brought up but - why should a warrior be about anything other than combat?

It's a debate from another thread, that lockpicking is part of the decision you make when including a rogue or not. Essentially another "is sacrificing choice ever valuable?" debate, made unique by Aermas attempting to argue it objectively by erecting imaginary or inappropriate limitations. Out of combat is seperate from in combat when making that decision, warriors aren't strength defined in reality, that warriors are smart because Eisenhower was, etc.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 22 décembre 2010 - 05:03 .

[bsbcaer]

errant_knight wrote...

Tremor? Like where their very presence make the ground shake? Or people shake with fear at their awesomeness? Damn it! Area effects were bad enough. Why are they making these classes so ridiculous and magical? *Takes a deep breath* Is that a specific ability? Can I ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist or is it going to be an inherent thing that will be forced on me?

I haven't seen it in action nor in a screen shot, but when Maria mentioned "tremor", I thought something along the lines that the 2 handed fighter smashed his/her weapon down causing a tremor in the ground, causing an effect to enemies in a very small area surrounding the fighter.

[Maria Caliban]

These conversations have done nothing but convince me that like Syvanus, Aermas is not someone who should be designing games.

Errant knight,
It's an active talent. The icon shows a fist hitting the ground but I didn't catch the animation.

[errant_knight]

Maria Caliban wrote...

These conversations have done nothing but convince me that like Syvanus, Aermas is not someone who should be designing games.

Errant knight,
It's an active talent. The icon shows a fist hitting the ground but I didn't catch the animation.

Whew. As long as I can just not use the things that seem too 'magic character', it doesn't matter if they exist. Of course, if that turns out to be the bulk of the talents, my characters will be pretty minimal.

[errant_knight]

bsbcaer wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

Tremor? Like where their very presence make the ground shake? Or people shake with fear at their awesomeness? Damn it! Area effects were bad enough. Why are they making these classes so ridiculous and magical? *Takes a deep breath* Is that a specific ability? Can I ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist or is it going to be an inherent thing that will be forced on me?

I haven't seen it in action nor in a screen shot, but when Maria mentioned "tremor", I thought something along the lines that the 2 handed fighter smashed his/her weapon down causing a tremor in the ground, causing an effect to enemies in a very small area surrounding the fighter.

Hrm...unless warriors are the size of Shale, that's way too unbelievable to me. I like my heros and companions to be normal people not demigods who can make the ground shake with the force of their blow.

[Zjarcal]

errant_knight wrote...
Hrm...unless warriors are the size of Shale, that's way too unbelievable to me. I like my heros and companions to be normal people not demigods who can make the ground shake with the force of their blow.

But didn't this already happened in Origins to an extent? I mean, I doubt one can just scream and knock down their opponents in real life (War Cry with Superiority). Or hit enemies at the speed of light (Momentum).

Granted, those were more like exceptions, were the norm was more believable talents, but still, it's not as if over the top stuff wasn't included in Origins (and Awakening).

[errant_knight]

Zjarcal wrote...

errant_knight wrote...
Hrm...unless warriors are the size of Shale, that's way too unbelievable to me. I like my heros and companions to be normal people not demigods who can make the ground shake with the force of their blow.

But didn't this already happened in Origins to an extent? I mean, I doubt one can just scream and knock down their opponents in real life (War Cry with Superiority). Or hit enemies at the speed of light (Momentum).

Granted, those were more like exceptions, were the norm was more believable talents, but still, it's not as if over the top stuff wasn't included in Origins (and Awakening).

Well, I never used momentum--too out there for me, but point taken about war cry. My way of rationalizing it was that your war cry was intimidating enough to freeze them in their tracks for a moment, and that falling down was just a visualization of that fear. Tremor goes further down that road to the point that it feels like momentum--impossible in terms of physics. It's a fine line, I know.

[In Exile]

errant_knight wrote...
Tremor? Like where their very presence make the ground shake? Or people shake with fear at their awesomeness? Damn it! Area effects were bad enough. Why are they making these classes so ridiculous and magical? *Takes a deep breath* Is that a specific ability? Can I ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist or is it going to be an inherent thing that will be forced on me?

As opposed to a champion yelling loudly enough to physically knock people back? Tremor is that sort of unreal class ability, not the ability to actually create an earthquake with their mind. Just with their sword.

[In Exile]

errant_knight wrote...
Well, I never used momentum--too out there for me, but point taken about war cry. My way of rationalizing it was that your war cry was intimidating enough to freeze them in their tracks for a moment, and that falling down was just a visualization of that fear. Tremor goes further down that road to the point that it feels like momentum--impossible in terms of physics. It's a fine line, I know.

I don't understand - all magic, dragons - they take a lead to physics and bash it to death without mercy. Why is there a line for you in the game at all?

[grregg]

In Exile wrote...

errant_knight wrote...
Well, I never used momentum--too out there for me, but point taken about war cry. My way of rationalizing it was that your war cry was intimidating enough to freeze them in their tracks for a moment, and that falling down was just a visualization of that fear. Tremor goes further down that road to the point that it feels like momentum--impossible in terms of physics. It's a fine line, I know.

I don't understand - all magic, dragons - they take a lead to physics and bash it to death without mercy. Why is there a line for you in the game at all?

Sure, but magic, dragons != warriors, right? In other words, fantasy introduces certain supernatural elements (e.g. magic), but to me it does not automatically mean that everything should be magical.

Moreover I like consistency. If I accept that a warrior is able to punch the ground with enough force to make it shake, I would expect that he can also punch an opponent with similar effect. Can he?

[soteria]

Vaeliorin wrote...

That seems very bizarre to me. Most books I've read that had a pre-existing game/rules system felt off to me because I can almost watch the turns taking place, and the various attacks/skills used. It's almost more like reading a description of a game session than something akin to real combat.

But hey, if it works for him, more power to him.

It's not quite like that. It's more a matter of avoiding deus ex by using "magic" to solve problems. IMO, magical combat actually seems more like a real fight because the rules don't get bent on the fly and plot holes don't get explained away with nonsense like "a confluence of magical powers bent the fabric of reality."

[soteria]

Aermas wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

In other words, you want Warriors to have everything a Rogue has (and Rogue have none of it) combat wise and you want Rogues to be totally useless except for lockpicking?

Not totally useless. Just enough less useless than the Warrior so the Warrior looks good.

Exactly, & in return they get to have lockpicking & trap-smithing & more skills than all the other classes

I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read this.  +1.

I really can't agree that rogues are equal with warriors in DA:O.  How many people felt like it was a good idea to bring more than a single rogue along?  Not many, I'd guess, unless they were doing something gimmicky like 3 rangers.  I suspect most of us brought along one rogue or less in DA:O.  Rogues (or at least companion rogues) were not equally as strong as warriors in Origins.

[errant_knight]

grregg wrote...

In Exile wrote...

errant_knight wrote...
Well, I never used momentum--too out there for me, but point taken about war cry. My way of rationalizing it was that your war cry was intimidating enough to freeze them in their tracks for a moment, and that falling down was just a visualization of that fear. Tremor goes further down that road to the point that it feels like momentum--impossible in terms of physics. It's a fine line, I know.

I don't understand - all magic, dragons - they take a lead to physics and bash it to death without mercy. Why is there a line for you in the game at all?

Sure, but magic, dragons != warriors, right? In other words, fantasy introduces certain supernatural elements (e.g. magic), but to me it does not automatically mean that everything should be magical.

Moreover I like consistency. If I accept that a warrior is able to punch the ground with enough force to make it shake, I would expect that he can also punch an opponent with similar effect. Can he?

Exactly.

[In Exile]

grregg wrote...

Sure, but magic, dragons != warriors, right? In other words, fantasy introduces certain supernatural elements (e.g. magic), but to me it does not automatically mean that everything should be magical.

I'm not saying it's magical - I'm just saying that if you want physics to be consistent, magic seems to be at odds with this entirely.

I do not see why a warrior breaking the laws of physics with a sword is any different than a warrior breaking the laws of physics with a scream or with actual magic, e.g. templar abilities.

Moreover I like consistency. If I accept that a warrior is able to punch the ground with enough force to make it shake, I would expect that he can also punch an opponent with similar effect. Can he?

Why would you think it is the arm strength, and not the weapon, that allows for this?

Modifié par In Exile, 22 décembre 2010 - 05:59 .

[Aermas]

If Rogue skills are not unbalanced then why can't everyone have them?



If Rogue skills are unbalanced then why not trade some combat effectiveness for them?

[errant_knight]

I'm not saying that warriors can't have magical abilities--ie templars--but if all warriors are magical, it becomes less meaningful. Personally, I wish war cry didn't knock people down, but as I said in my post, I can rationalize it as merely being a visualization of a mental effect. The more grandiose these things are, the harder a time I have doing it. And if every warrior has a magic sword that causes tremor, then that's too much magic, too. Part of the charm of the DA world is the fact that it's rooted in a world not unlike our own past. The more 'high magic' it goes, the more this is lost.

[Maria Caliban]

grregg wrote...

Moreover I like consistency. If I accept that a warrior is able to punch the ground with enough force to make it shake, I would expect that he can also punch an opponent with similar effect. Can he?

Yes.

Heck, in Jade Empire and BG, if you hit someone hard enough, they literally exploded into bloody chunks. This only happened to me once in DA:O, but it was impressive.

[soteria]

If Rogue skills are not unbalanced then why can't everyone have them?

If Rogue skills are unbalanced then why not trade some combat effectiveness for them?

I think rogues are already a little behind warriors in combat effectiveness and utility. If they wanted to let mages and warriors open locks (which is pretty much all rogues have), then fine, but make rogues better at fighting while they're at it, please. Your second question has already been answered--lockpicking and trap disarming is optional. Combat is not.

You seem to be setting up a straw man to argue against. I don't recall seeing anyone in this thread really argue against warriors being able to bash locks, for example. In the past when I've seen people make that argument it's usually been on the basis that rogues are worse at fighting and they need a bone tossed their way.

[Piecake]

errant_knight wrote...

I'm not saying that warriors can't have magical abilities--ie templars--but if all warriors are magical, it becomes less meaningful. Personally, I wish war cry didn't knock people down, but as I said in my post, I can rationalize it as merely being a visualization of a mental effect. The more grandiose these things are, the harder a time I have doing it. And if every warrior has a magic sword that causes tremor, then that's too much magic, too. Part of the charm of the DA world is the fact that it's rooted in a world not unlike our own past. The more 'high magic' it goes, the more this is lost.

Well, I for one am glad they are making warrior and rogue attacks more magical and fantastic.  Personally, I find that a lot more consistent and believable that a group of 4 like that can kill vast hordes of enemies, including trolls and dragons and what not.  I really can't see normal, but skilled dudes(not including the mage of course) doing any of that, and find that a lot more absurd than warriors and rogues getting a bit of magical 'out-there' attacks.

Now, if we got rid of the hordes of enemies, especially the absurdly magical and powerful ones, then that would be a different story

[Ziggeh]

Aermas wrote...

If Rogue skills are not unbalanced then why can't everyone have them?

Unique class abilities are unique.

Aermas wrote...
If Rogue skills are unbalanced then why not trade some combat effectiveness for them?

The trinity system has three roles. Tank, healer, dps. All three classes can fulfill the dps element in situationally superior, roughly equivelant manners. This leaves rogues needing something class specific to match the other two, with no other roles available within the combat trinity.

This problem is often solved with buffs/debuffs or crowd control, but as there isn't an extensive class system (which personally feel is a plus for this kind of single player party system), and none of these really fit with the classes gaming stereotype.

[Aermas]

soteria wrote...

If Rogue skills are not unbalanced then why can't everyone have them?
If Rogue skills are unbalanced then why not trade some combat effectiveness for them?

I think rogues are already a little behind warriors in combat effectiveness and utility. If they wanted to let mages and warriors open locks (which is pretty much all rogues have), then fine, but make rogues better at fighting while they're at it, please. Your second question has already been answered--lockpicking and trap disarming is optional. Combat is not.
You seem to be setting up a straw man to argue against. I don't recall seeing anyone in this thread really argue against warriors being able to bash locks, for example. In the past when I've seen people make that argument it's usually been on the basis that rogues are worse at fighting and they need a bone tossed their way.

This is just an off shoot of my original intention; Wanting a Mobile Sword & Board fighter.

[Aermas]

Ziggeh wrote...

Aermas wrote...

If Rogue skills are not unbalanced then why can't everyone have them?

Unique class abilities are unique.

Aermas wrote...
If Rogue skills are unbalanced then why not trade some combat effectiveness for them?

The trinity system has three roles. Tank, healer, dps. All three classes can fulfill the dps element in situationally superior, roughly equivelant manners. This leaves rogues needing something class specific to match the other two, with no other roles available within the combat trinity.

This problem is often solved with buffs/debuffs or crowd control, but as there isn't an extensive class system (which personally feel is a plus for this kind of single player party system), and none of these really fit with the classes gaming stereotype.

The trinity is a flawed & corrupted system.