470 réponses à ce sujet

[Winter Wraith]

errant_knight wrote...
You don't have to play your warrior as a tank, I never do. [...] I still have my sword, I still have my shield, and I still have a good set of armor. Nothing wrong there.

I'm curious as to what you do with a sword and shield warrior to warrant playing them as such over a double-handed warrior when you seem to be playing the role of DPS? Or is it simply an aesthetics choice?

[Niberts]

I have a question Aermas....you seem to spend alot of time talking about history.....but i'm kinda confused as to what historical warrior you're trying to draw upon when you talk about a 'mobile' sword and board character...because as far as i'm aware ....they don't exist...not in the context you want.

Spartans fought in giant blocks covering each others backs Knights certainly weren't mobile. Feel free to point out a warrior who counteracts this but i don't remember any. In real life (without aggro) you try and move away from a guy without killing him...he'll stab you in the back...the sort of mobile warriors you seem to want....are horse mounted warriors who are made mobile by horses.

Also you're assumption that rogues wouldn't be 'trained' is ridiculous. Both Zevran (he was raised from childhood to be a killer) AND Leliana from the previous game were 'trained'. Ninjas were 'trained' and modern rogues like the KGB or the CIA field operatives are also 'trained'. All this people are trained in killing and hand to hand combat. You could also argue a navy seal or the SAS (English or otherwise) are modern 'rogues' (sure they fight but they also have stealth missions or espionage missions) and I DARE you to go tell them they're not properly 'trained'.

If on the other hand, you're just focused on gameplay your point is kinda just superfluous (I want to play this EXACT kind of character) and if you REALLY are that determined that's what modding is for. Btw there is a reason games deal in archetypes of characters and that is recognition, you build a character based on assumptions. Consequently games are designed to have instantly recognizable classes that allow you to make informed choices. Not a perfect system, but a pretty good one.

Modifié par Niberts, 24 décembre 2010 - 06:38 .

[Aermas]

Niberts wrote...

I have a question Aermas....you seem to spend alot of time talking about history.....but i'm kinda confused as to what historical warrior you're trying to draw upon when you talk about a 'mobile' sword and board character...because as far as i'm aware ....they don't exist...not in the context you want.

Spartans fought in giant blocks covering each others backs Knights certainly weren't mobile. Feel free to point out a warrior who counteracts this but i don't remember any. In real life (without aggro) you try and move away from a guy without killing him...he'll stab you in the back...the sort of mobile warriors you seem to want....are horse mounted warriors who are made mobile by horses.

Also you're assumption that rogues wouldn't be 'trained' is ridiculous. Both Zevran (he was raised from childhood to be a killer) AND Leliana from the previous game were 'trained'. Ninjas were 'trained' and modern rogues like the KGB or the CIA field operatives are also 'trained'. All this people are trained in killing and hand to hand combat. You could also argue a navy seal or the SAS (English or otherwise) are modern 'rogues' (sure they fight but they also have stealth missions or espionage missions) and I DARE you to go tell them they're not properly 'trained'.

If on the other hand, you're just focused on gameplay your point is kinda just superfluous (I want to play this EXACT kind of character) and if you REALLY are that determined that's what modding is for. Btw there is a reason games deal in archetypes of characters and that is recognition, you build a character based on assumptions. Consequently games are designed to have instantly recognizable classes that allow you to make informed choices. Not a perfect system, but a pretty good one.

I guess the character could be called a Barbarian, but to me that would imply a negative image on who he is. He would fulfill the role of line-breaker & battle-charger, throwing the enemies defenses into disarray, & running down the Mages & archers in the back. Because contrary to popular demand Barbarians did use shields & because he would be away from the Healer he would carry a shield to improve his defenses.

If someone was to break down your defensive line & bypass most of the soldiers before they can react, they don't need to worry about others attacking them from behind, especially if they have a companion fill the breach. Or have an AoE stun from the mage make them ineffective.

Look up Rogue in a dictionary, it will tell you something different. As for Leliana & Zevran, I would say that they are the product of people who want to exalt the rogue & to make them more than what they actually are & are a plague to the balance & role of classes in combat. I dare you to tell the SEALs that they are "rogues", they are trained warriors.

[Dave of Canada]

*typing outside in the cold from a mobile, it sucks and I most likely won't be able to reply back in a while*

... I don't get where Aermas is getting this whole people are saying "shut up and tank", I don't... see this at all in this thread?

Also saying people to look up the definition of rogue is silly, we're talking about a game where rogues have always fit a melee DPS trope in most of the genre.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 25 décembre 2010 - 06:57 .

[AlanC9]

Aermas wrote...
Look up Rogue in a dictionary, it will tell you something different.

Yep, and none of the meanings work for a class. Blame D&D 3.0 -- they knew that "thief" was a bad name for the thief class, since many "thieves" weren't actually played as thieves. They didn't have any word that was better than "rogue." Do you?

Edit: mind, that's only of historical interest. What the WotC guys were doing isn't binding on the DAO designers.

As for Leliana & Zevran, I would say that they are the product of people who want to exalt the rogue & to make them more than what they actually are & are a plague to the balance & role of classes in combat.

Saying that they're trying to exalt the rogue with these characters is just incoherent. In DAO this is what rogues are. These characters are good at being DAO rogues, but all companions are good at their profession. How else should it be?

Modifié par AlanC9, 25 décembre 2010 - 07:25 .

[errant_knight]

Winter Wraith wrote...

errant_knight wrote...
You don't have to play your warrior as a tank, I never do. [...] I still have my sword, I still have my shield, and I still have a good set of armor. Nothing wrong there.

I'm curious as to what you do with a sword and shield warrior to warrant playing them as such over a double-handed warrior when you seem to be playing the role of DPS? Or is it simply an aesthetics choice?

I like using my shield. It's fun. And it's good to have one when you're fighting face to face, rather than hitting from behind which is generally my way, unless we're all ganging up on a big bad. Also, I just don't really like playing duel wield. It's kind of...stabby.

I like wearing decent armor, because if you can avoid getting a sword in the gut, it's a good idea. Also, the light armor is silly, uncovered chest and all. All my PCs and Companions wear medium armor or higher, even the rogues, although I put them in low level medium armor so it won't interfere too much. Boy, am I ever not looking forward to losing control of the armor....

I don't have anyone tank, including my character, because it just feels wrong to send one person out to get the crap kicked out of them for everyone else. I prefer to use tactics to make sure everyone gets out alive rather than managing aggro. The only time I use those talents is for roleplaying reasons. I also prefer to get my warriors' dexterity high enough that they don't miss half their swings, and get hit by everything. That's annoying.

Basically, I like playing S&S warriors for all kinds of reasons, and I like them not to die easly, to hit consistantly and to do decent damage. I make them versatile, rather than a max strength tank. It seems to work fairly well. Generally, my PC and Alistair are the last fighters standing in tough battles. And I play on nightmare. Think I'm going to try that nightmare plus mod, though. Only a few of the battles are really challenging anymore.

Modifié par errant_knight, 25 décembre 2010 - 08:51 .

[In Exile]

Winter Wraith wrote...

I'm curious as to what you do with a sword and shield warrior to warrant playing them as such over a double-handed warrior when you seem to be playing the role of DPS? Or is it simply an aesthetics choice?

2-hander requires a lot of micromanagement to be good DPS and sacrifices defence and armour to do it. I think the trade-off in less micromanagement for roughly similar combat performance is worth it.

But that would be the justification for a non-tank S&S warrior over a 2-hander.

[soteria]

I dare you to tell the SEALs that they are "rogues", they are trained warriors.

If we're using fantasy definitions, they're rogues. They're warriors using the dictionary definition. We really don't care about the dictionary definition, despite your repeated attempts to appeal to it. It's pretty hypocritical of you to appeal to the dictionary definitions of "rogue" and "warrior" but ignore the dictionary definition of "tank." If you're going by the dictionary you should do it consistently.

[Aermas]

soteria wrote...

I dare you to tell the SEALs that they are "rogues", they are trained warriors.

If we're using fantasy definitions, they're rogues. They're warriors using the dictionary definition. We really don't care about the dictionary definition, despite your repeated attempts to appeal to it. It's pretty hypocritical of you to appeal to the dictionary definitions of "rogue" and "warrior" but ignore the dictionary definition of "tank." If you're going by the dictionary you should do it consistently.

Ah yes, I don't want my combatants confused with storage devices.

[Aermas]

AlanC9 wrote...

Aermas wrote...
Look up Rogue in a dictionary, it will tell you something different.

Yep, and none of the meanings work for a class. Blame D&D 3.0 -- they knew that "thief" was a bad name for the thief class, since many "thieves" weren't actually played as thieves. They didn't have any word that was better than "rogue." Do you?

D&D 3.0's Rogue wasn't nearly as combat oriented as rogues in games. They are mostly skilled characters & can only be effective in combat if they are flanking or ambushing.

[Zimary]

To me, a warrior is a front line fighter. Slower than a rogue, but more powerful and capable of taking some punishment.



Personally, I would love it if they had a health regen ability. Nothing big, but mages can heal themselves, rogues can avoid damage and strike critical hits, so it would be nice if warriors had something special. If anyone has played Mass Effect, Im saying something like the armor mod for health regeneration. I would have though this was a perfect ability for the Templar skill set....meh.

[soteria]

Aermas wrote...

soteria wrote...

I dare you to tell the SEALs that they are "rogues", they are trained warriors.

If we're using fantasy definitions, they're rogues. They're warriors using the dictionary definition. We really don't care about the dictionary definition, despite your repeated attempts to appeal to it. It's pretty hypocritical of you to appeal to the dictionary definitions of "rogue" and "warrior" but ignore the dictionary definition of "tank." If you're going by the dictionary you should do it consistently.

Ah yes, I don't want my combatants confused with storage devices.

It's cute how you avoid the obvious.   It's a shame you can't make the next logical step and realize that maybe the dictionary definitions of "rogue" and "warrior" also only have tenuous application.

Modifié par soteria, 25 décembre 2010 - 02:33 .

[Aermas]

You think I'm cute^_^?

Here's a definition of tank

TANK
Noun: A player-character, typically in a MMORPG, that is able to occupy an agressor and take the brunt of the aggressor's attacks while the other players deal damage, heal, or perform some other action. The "tank" can survive longer while taking damage than the other characters. Typically, the tank has higher hitpoints (health) and a higher armor rating than the other characters. Less commonly, a character with a lower armor rating can perform the actions of the tank by using avoidance abilities. Ultimately, the tank needs to be able to occupy the agressor without dying. The method employed, whether avoidance or absorption, does not matter, as long as the tank can mitigate damage in some way.

Modifié par Aermas, 25 décembre 2010 - 04:00 .

[nightcobra]

Aermas wrote...

TANK
Noun: A player-character, typically in a MMORPG, that is able to occupy an agressor and take the brunt of the aggressor's attacks while the other players deal damage, heal, or perform some other action. The "tank" can survive longer while taking damage than the other characters. Typically, the tank has higher hitpoints (health) and a higher armor rating than the other characters. Less commonly, a character with a lower armor rating can perform the actions of the tank by using avoidance abilities. Ultimately, the tank needs to be able to occupy the agressor without dying. The method employed, whether avoidance or absorption, does not matter, as long as the tank can mitigate damage in some way.

it's also a very effective way to take the fun out of playing a warrior. to me, tanking equals boredom, staying alive and being a punching bag while the rest of the party gets to have fun...


tank....seriously i hate that term. 

[Boost31]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

Aermas wrote...

TANK
Noun: A player-character, typically in a MMORPG, that is able to occupy an agressor and take the brunt of the aggressor's attacks while the other players deal damage, heal, or perform some other action. The "tank" can survive longer while taking damage than the other characters. Typically, the tank has higher hitpoints (health) and a higher armor rating than the other characters. Less commonly, a character with a lower armor rating can perform the actions of the tank by using avoidance abilities. Ultimately, the tank needs to be able to occupy the agressor without dying. The method employed, whether avoidance or absorption, does not matter, as long as the tank can mitigate damage in some way.

it's also a very effective way to take the fun out of playing a warrior. to me, tanking equals boredom, staying alive and being a punching bag while the rest of the party gets to have fun...


tank....seriously i hate that term. 

its yours opinion

[errant_knight]

Boost31 wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

Aermas wrote...

TANK
Noun: A player-character, typically in a MMORPG, that is able to occupy an agressor and take the brunt of the aggressor's attacks while the other players deal damage, heal, or perform some other action. The "tank" can survive longer while taking damage than the other characters. Typically, the tank has higher hitpoints (health) and a higher armor rating than the other characters. Less commonly, a character with a lower armor rating can perform the actions of the tank by using avoidance abilities. Ultimately, the tank needs to be able to occupy the agressor without dying. The method employed, whether avoidance or absorption, does not matter, as long as the tank can mitigate damage in some way.

it's also a very effective way to take the fun out of playing a warrior. to me, tanking equals boredom, staying alive and being a punching bag while the rest of the party gets to have fun...


tank....seriously i hate that term. 

its yours opinion

As would be anything anyone says here other than things like 'the sky is blue' and 'E = mc2.' Well, the second one is probably up for debate, too, in the off topic section. Of course it's his opinion.

[Winter Wraith]

errant_knight wrote...
As would be anything anyone says here other than things like 'the sky is blue' and 'E = mc2.' Well, the second one is probably up for debate, too, in the off topic section. Of course it's his opinion.

The sky isn't blue either, so you can add that one to the debate.

[bsbcaer]

Aermas wrote...

You think I'm cute^_^?

Here's a definition of tank

TANK
Noun: A player-character, typically in a MMORPG, that is able to occupy an agressor and take the brunt of the aggressor's attacks while the other players deal damage, heal, or perform some other action. The "tank" can survive longer while taking damage than the other characters. Typically, the tank has higher hitpoints (health) and a higher armor rating than the other characters. Less commonly, a character with a lower armor rating can perform the actions of the tank by using avoidance abilities. Ultimately, the tank needs to be able to occupy the agressor without dying. The method employed, whether avoidance or absorption, does not matter, as long as the tank can mitigate damage in some way.

Good thing that your "mobile and fast fighter" doesn't fit your definition of a tank

[errant_knight]

Winter Wraith wrote...

errant_knight wrote...
As would be anything anyone says here other than things like 'the sky is blue' and 'E = mc2.' Well, the second one is probably up for debate, too, in the off topic section. Of course it's his opinion.

The sky isn't blue either, so you can add that one to the debate.

Point taken. I should have said 'the sky looks blue.'

[soteria]

Here's a definition of tank...

Good! You moved away from Miriam-Webster's definition and decided to use a gamer's definition. To avoid inconsistency, you should look up the modern gaming usage of "rogue" and "warrior."

[AlanC9]

Aermas wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Aermas wrote...
Look up Rogue in a dictionary, it will tell you something different.

Yep, and none of the meanings work for a class. Blame D&D 3.0 -- they knew that "thief" was a bad name for the thief class, since many "thieves" weren't actually played as thieves. They didn't have any word that was better than "rogue." Do you?

D&D 3.0's Rogue wasn't nearly as combat oriented as rogues in games. They are mostly skilled characters & can only be effective in combat if they are flanking or ambushing.

Like I said, the term's only of historical interest. But exactly which "rogue" dictionary definition do you figure covers that? Going by Free Online Dictionary just because it Googles up nicely, we've got:

1. An unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person; a scoundrel or rascal.2. One who is playfully mischievous; a scamp.3. A wandering beggar; a vagrant.4. A vicious and solitary animal, especially an elephant that has separated itself from its herd.5. An organism, especially a plant, that shows an undesirable variation from a standard.

Are you saying that any of these work? The advantage over "thief" is that it describes a stereotypical personality rather than specific criminal actions, but there's no way you get to the character's combat role from here.

Edit: it's pretty clear what happened to Aermas here. With a somewhat shaky grasp of English, he internalized the D&D-specific gaming definition of "rogue" as somehow true for general application, and now has himself quite muddled up as to exactly what he's trying to defend.

Modifié par AlanC9, 25 décembre 2010 - 06:00 .

[Boost31]

errant_knight wrote...

Boost31 wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

Aermas wrote...

TANK
Noun: A player-character, typically in a MMORPG, that is able to occupy an agressor and take the brunt of the aggressor's attacks while the other players deal damage, heal, or perform some other action. The "tank" can survive longer while taking damage than the other characters. Typically, the tank has higher hitpoints (health) and a higher armor rating than the other characters. Less commonly, a character with a lower armor rating can perform the actions of the tank by using avoidance abilities. Ultimately, the tank needs to be able to occupy the agressor without dying. The method employed, whether avoidance or absorption, does not matter, as long as the tank can mitigate damage in some way.

it's also a very effective way to take the fun out of playing a warrior. to me, tanking equals boredom, staying alive and being a punching bag while the rest of the party gets to have fun...


tank....seriously i hate that term. 

its yours opinion

As would be anything anyone says here other than things like 'the sky is blue' and 'E = mc2.' Well, the second one is probably up for debate, too, in the off topic section. Of course it's his opinion.

but sometimes people forget that theirs opinions are opinions not facts

[errant_knight]

I don't know if they forget that so much as get bored of putting 'IMO' before each statement, or couching every belief in diplomatic terms such as 'While you have every right to your entirely valid opioning, it's my strongly held opiond that *declarative statement.* Really, assuming best intent rather than an attempt to deprive you of free will is just the easiest way to go. Unless they're totally rude about it. ie '*Sigh* I don't know how you could be so wrongheaded. Clearly you're insane or incapable of coherent thought.' Then nailing them to the wall is perfectly appropriate.

[Piecake]

Boost31 wrote...

errant_knight wrote...

Boost31 wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...


it's also a very effective way to take the fun out of playing a warrior. to me, tanking equals boredom, staying alive and being a punching bag while the rest of the party gets to have fun...


tank....seriously i hate that term. 

its yours opinion

As would be anything anyone says here other than things like 'the sky is blue' and 'E = mc2.' Well, the second one is probably up for debate, too, in the off topic section. Of course it's his opinion.

but sometimes people forget that theirs opinions are opinions not facts

I find those pretty clear indicators that he knew he was giving his opinion on the matter.