470 réponses à ce sujet

[bsbcaer]

Aermas 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?

My apologies if I seem to misread you're question, but Im working on my first cup of coffee.  Everyone can't have rogue skills because they are just that:  Skills.  It takes time and practice just to get the basics of skills (basing this on the assumption that each class spent time before we start the game learning the basics of skills to allow the opportunity to use the skills during the game), so I think that it doesn't make sense for certain classes to have the skills (Fighters spent time honing combat skills, Mages spent time with their magic).

As I previously stated, I think that Rogues are not as combat effective as Fighters in the Dragon Age universe...They're squishier and are less effective as a front-line fighter in combat

[bsbcaer]

Aermas wrote...

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

This is something that has been missing from your argument (at least I haven't seen it)...What do you mean by "mobile"??

[Aermas]

Move in & out of combat quickly & effectively, & to lose aggro.

[Ziggeh]

Aermas wrote...

The trinity is a flawed & corrupted system.

But importantly it's the one in place. Arguing that they should use non trinity resolutions within a trinity system is entirely ignoring the state of affairs.

[Aermas]

bsbcaer wrote...

Aermas 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?

My apologies if I seem to misread you're question, but Im working on my first cup of coffee.  Everyone can't have rogue skills because they are just that:  Skills.  It takes time and practice just to get the basics of skills (basing this on the assumption that each class spent time before we start the game learning the basics of skills to allow the opportunity to use the skills during the game), so I think that it doesn't make sense for certain classes to have the skills (Fighters spent time honing combat skills, Mages spent time with their magic).

As I previously stated, I think that Rogues are not as combat effective as Fighters in the Dragon Age universe...They're squishier and are less effective as a front-line fighter in combat

By that logic should not all warriors be able to trained in every weapon?

[Maria Caliban]

soteria wrote...

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.

I've said that previously. I dislike 'open lock' spells and 'bash locks' in a class based system. I have no problem with it in classless systems like Elder Scrolls, the Fallout series, or Deus Ex.

[bsbcaer]

Aermas wrote...

Move in & out of combat quickly & effectively, & to lose aggro.

Aggro = aggression? 

I don't know about you, but I had no issue moving my PC around going from enemy to enemy (even running away from enemies) in DA:O as a sword and shield fighter, so I don't know what more you want from them? 

As for aggression:  If I were an enemy, I would be most concerned with someone close up and in front of me holding a big sword and shield and less concerned (at that moment) with other enemies.  If the guy started moving away from me, I'd think I had the advantage and would move to press it (trying to take the guy out so its one less for my team to worry about).

You asked us in your original post for our definition of a fighter/warrior.  What is YOUR definition of a fighter/warrior?

[bsbcaer]

Aermas wrote...

By that logic should not all warriors be able to trained in every weapon?

Go back a page or so and you'll see that I said exactly that.  Although I also argued that I think that, while a fighter should be allowed access to every combat style in the Dragon Age Universe, once a player had selected 2 combat styles, the other two should be closed off from the fighter (doesn't make sense to me for a fighter to be skilled in more than two styles).  I also argued that Archery as a skill should not be useable for a character wearing anything above medium armour (going back to AD&D, that would be about Chainmail)

[bsbcaer]

Maria Caliban wrote...

soteria wrote...

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.

I've said that previously. I dislike 'open lock' spells and 'bash locks' in a class based system. I have no problem with it in classless systems like Elder Scrolls, the Fallout series, or Deus Ex.

I agree with the "knock" type spells, but I actually miss the option to bash a lock open (force a door) or break into a chest.  I think that with respect to chests, there should be a high percentage (maybe 75% or more) that items within the chest would be destroyed/rendered useless.  With the removal of a large amount of "junk" from chests and the like, it would make it liability for fighters to open chests because of the chance of losing good stuff.  For chests containing main plot specific items, you can make it magically impossible for a fighter to bash it, while for chests with side quest items, it's a chance you take bashing open a chest and failing a side quest

[Aermas]

bsbcaer wrote...

You asked us in your original post for our definition of a fighter/warrior.  What is YOUR definition of a fighter/warrior?

Someone trained in the art of war. Someone trained with weapons. Someone trained to strategize. Someone trained to outflank an enemy. Someone trained to stand on the front lines. Basically someone trained. How you fight is based on what strategy you use & what you were trained to do. Rogues are notoriously untrained. But this lack of discipline is balanced  by them fighting by taking advantage of their opponents, & to use traps & the like.

[soteria]

Maria Caliban wrote...

soteria wrote...

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.

I've said that previously. I dislike 'open lock' spells and 'bash locks' in a class based system. I have no problem with it in classless systems like Elder Scrolls, the Fallout series, or Deus Ex.

I don't mind those abilities if a class is defined and balanced according to how it performs in combat.  If all the classes are designed to have distinct and balanced combat roles, it makes sense to do the same for non-combat abilities.  An example from DnD would be rogues having lockpicking skills, warriors being able to carry a lot of stuff, and mages having crafting/lore skills.  Of course, in practice everyone could do everything with the right magical items, but that's the idea.

[Maria Caliban]

Aermas wrote...

The trinity is a flawed & corrupted system.

No, it's a system you don't like. Your statement is like me saying that sushi is flawed and corrupt because I don't like fish. Every system has strengths and weaknesses. Some of these systems will appeal more to some than others.


You say you want to be strong and fast. Well, pick a rogue and you can do that. But you want a strong and fast warrior. Well, you can do that with a two-handed warrior. But you want a strong and fast warrior who uses a shield.

You want 'mobility.' What does that even mean? At any time, you can click on a spot on the ground and your avatar walks there. This isn't like DnD where characters can actually block you, or you can only move a certain number of squares per turn, or an opponent can make an attack of opportunity against you as you pass.

If you watched the leaked XBox demo, a mage can run around kiting a ogre. I'm sure a warrior can also run around.

Do you want a special backflipping animation for your warrior like the rogue has?

[AlanC9]

@: bsbcaer: "Aggro" is MMO-speak for the enemy's propensity to target that particular character. We speak of a tank "holding aggro" because it's the tank's job to keep enemies attacking him rather than the rest of the party.

Note that DAO already has the Disengage talent to permit a fighter to reduce aggro. It's of limited usefulness for a tank, but a 2-H warrior can sometimes find it useful.

Modifié par AlanC9, 22 décembre 2010 - 06:59 .

[bsbcaer]

Aermas wrote...

bsbcaer wrote...

You asked us in your original post for our definition of a fighter/warrior.  What is YOUR definition of a fighter/warrior?

Someone trained in the art of war. Someone trained with weapons. Someone trained to strategize. Someone trained to outflank an enemy. Someone trained to stand on the front lines. Basically someone trained. How you fight is based on what strategy you use & what you were trained to do. Rogues are notoriously untrained. But this lack of discipline is balanced  by them fighting by taking advantage of their opponents, & to use traps & the like.

Let's take out the "Someone trained to strategize. Someone trained to outflank an enemy" part of it because you're basically describing what a rogue is forced to do in "taking advantage of their opponents."  (going up against a trained enemy, I'd certainly plan a strategy or have a plan on how Im going to take him down as a rogue). 

That being said, you think a fighter is someone who (in the DA Universe) can essentially pick up a weapon and be effective with said weapon correct?  Im having a little bit of trouble really grasping your definition (it is a little vague), can you give me an example (literature, movies, games, doesn't matter from wear) of someone or something that you could point at and say "that person/thing there, THAT is a fighter"

[upsettingshorts]

AlanC9 wrote...

Note that DAO already has the Disengage talent to permit a fighter to reduce aggro. It's of limited usefulness for a tank, but a 2-H warrior can sometimes find it useful.

Minor correction: It's of limited use for a tank in DA:O.  In MMOs, aggro swapping between tanks can be a major part of a particular encounter.  So being able to lose aggro is a useful ability for a tank to have.

That being said I imagine aggro swapping could work with two tanks on Nightmare for boss fights - I just never tried that particular setup.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 décembre 2010 - 06:58 .

[bsbcaer]

AlanC9 wrote...

"Aggro" is MMO-speak for the enemy's propensity to target that particular character. We speak of a tank "holding aggro" because it's the tank's job to keep enemies attacking him rather than the rest of the party.

Note that DAO already has the Disengage talent to permit a fighter to reduce aggro. It's of limited usefulness for a tank, but a 2-H warrior can sometimes find it useful.

Thanks...I think I had the concept from hanging around these forums enough, but have never played a MMORPG before in my life (I think The Old Republic is going to pop that gaming cherry for me

[AlanC9]

Aermas wrote...
Someone trained in the art of war. Someone trained with weapons. Someone trained to strategize. Someone trained to outflank an enemy. Someone trained to stand on the front lines. Basically someone trained. How you fight is based on what strategy you use & what you were trained to do. Rogues are notoriously untrained.

For someone who doesn't really believe in character classes, you seem to be pretty free about demanding that classes enforce the stereotypes you prefer.

[grregg]

In Exile wrote...

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?

Well, what I would like is to have a world that is for the most part like ours, with a limited number of exceptions. Or perhaps with an extra set of rules. This is purely a personal preference, I simply enjoy understanding the governing rules of a world. If said world's rules are different then ours, fine, I have no problem with that, but I like it when there are rules.

Assuming that Tremor works as Maria described, it seems to be somewhat rule-free. If a warrior can perform a strike of that force, why not incorporate it into all combat? Making ground shake enough to throw people off balance requires a tremendous amount of momentum (unless of course the famous Kirkwall cliffs are rubber). A warrior with this capability should be able to punch door open without any trouble. Heck, he would likely be able to punch a hole in a wall. I doubt these are possible in DA2 though.

In the end it's kind of weird, why give a warrior a superhuman power, that's only active when you punch the ground? And it doesn't matter whether this is the warrior or the weapon. Can you imagine a weaponsmith saying "I just forged this legendary sword. It allows you to perform strokes of unimaginable power. But... only if they are aimed at the ground."

Again, it is purely my personal preference, that's just how I like my fantasy worlds. It feels weird to me that warrior gets a superhuman ability that's after all limited to simple crowd control.

Modifié par grregg, 22 décembre 2010 - 07:17 .

[AlanC9]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Note that DAO already has the Disengage talent to permit a fighter to reduce aggro. It's of limited usefulness for a tank, but a 2-H warrior can sometimes find it useful.

Minor correction: It's of limited use for a tank in DA:O.  In MMOs, aggro swapping between tanks can be a major part of a particular encounter.  So being able to lose aggro is a useful ability for a tank to have.

That being said I imagine aggro swapping could work with two tanks on Nightmare for boss fights - I just never tried that particular setup.

Thanks. I don't actually play MMOs myself -- DAO is the closest I've come.

Maybe I'll try aggro swapping in DA2 -- I've just finished a tank run in DAO, so I won't play a similar Warden again for a long time, if ever.

[Aermas]

 http://t1.gstatic.co...ND_driwfg67x3-4

This is what a warrior is

[AlanC9]

bsbcaer wrote...
That being said, you think a fighter is someone who (in the DA Universe) can essentially pick up a weapon and be effective with said weapon correct?  Im having a little bit of trouble really grasping your definition (it is a little vague), can you give me an example (literature, movies, games, doesn't matter from wear) of someone or something that you could point at and say "that person/thing there, THAT is a fighter"

The setting would also need to have physical combatants who are "not-fighters" for any such response to make sense. Otherwise, a less-trained character is just a lower-level fighter.

Edit: looks like Aermas punted. Not surprising, really.

Modifié par AlanC9, 22 décembre 2010 - 07:10 .

[Ziggeh]

grregg wrote...

Again, it is purely my personal preference, that's just how I like my fantasy worlds. It feels weird to me that warrior gets a superhuman ability that's after all limited to simple crowd control.

You know, I tend to view such things as a sort of analogy, as if "creating an earthquake that knocks dudes over" is essentially a synonym for "does something that knocks dudes over".  I appreciate we have evidence to the contrary, but I see the whole combat process as a set of helpful or attractive analogies.

[upsettingshorts]

Basically it's useful for a boss that hits extremely hard to the point that the encounter is designed to force at least two tanks to share the load. Sometimes - at least in Conan the only MMO with which I have significant endgame experience - there are advanced strategies that allow skilled tanks to go it alone, but usually aggro swapping is timed and necessary for the fight. It adds to the difficulty because any time a tank must deliberately lose aggro it puts the DPS and healers into a position where they have to exercise self discipline because the tank isn't doing everything they can to maximize their aggro, because if it builds too high their tanking partner won't be able to pull the boss off them.

I could maybe see it working in fights like the Flemeth one, but I'm not sure it's really necessary except in cases where the fight is designed for it. It's a good tactic to be familiar with in case you need to use it though, so I figured I'd spell out the basics for ya.

[Aermas]

AlanC9 wrote...

Aermas wrote...
Someone trained in the art of war. Someone trained with weapons. Someone trained to strategize. Someone trained to outflank an enemy. Someone trained to stand on the front lines. Basically someone trained. How you fight is based on what strategy you use & what you were trained to do. Rogues are notoriously untrained.

For someone who doesn't really believe in character classes, you seem to be pretty free about demanding that classes enforce the stereotypes you prefer.

When did I say I didn't believe in character classes? & no I'm "demanding" a break from the Tank-DPS-Healer mantra that ruins roleplay

[Piecake]

Aermas wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Aermas wrote...
Someone trained in the art of war. Someone trained with weapons. Someone trained to strategize. Someone trained to outflank an enemy. Someone trained to stand on the front lines. Basically someone trained. How you fight is based on what strategy you use & what you were trained to do. Rogues are notoriously untrained.

For someone who doesn't really believe in character classes, you seem to be pretty free about demanding that classes enforce the stereotypes you prefer.

When did I say I didn't believe in character classes? & no I'm "demanding" a break from the Tank-DPS-Healer mantra that ruins roleplay

You should, since your argument would make a lot more sense that way because what you are advocating makes a 3+ class party system pretty usless.