470 réponses à ce sujet

[Hawksblud]

Aermas wrote...

How does a warrior not fit a fast archetype, when there are marial artist & swashbucklers? (not the pirate kind)
How does a warrior not fit a smart archetype when you have men like Eisenhower & Patton or Alexander the Great?

I agree with the logic, but within the confines of the classes that have been presented, it doesn't fit. (Not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing, just that it's the worldview that has been presented.) As 'duelist' was a rogue specialization, and the warrior specializations ran to 'champion', 'berserker', etc. I think we're operating within the assumption that warrior = knight, and rogue = swashbuckler, scout, etc. 

Edit: Love the Ash Warrior idea; it would also work as a revamp of the Ranger, which IMO definitely needed revamping.

Modifié par Hawksblud, 22 décembre 2010 - 02:23 .

[Ziggeh]

Aermas wrote...

How does a warrior not fit a fast archetype, when there are marial artist & swashbucklers? (not the pirate kind)
How does a warrior not fit a smart archetype when you have men like Eisenhower & Patton or Alexander the Great?

Are you being sarcastic? Is this some sort of elaborate irony?

I don't know how to respond, either I start by explaining base principles or I just type "Patton was clearly a mage".

[Ziggeh]

Hawksblud wrote...

I think we're operating within the assumption that warrior = knight, and rogue = swashbuckler, scout, etc.

I'm personally operating on the assumption that the game uses class definitions based purely on game constructs rather than ones found in a dictionary.

[Maria Caliban]

Aermas wrote...

I don't yet where people get it into their head that warriors are slow & stupid.

It's a good thing no one said that.

If you want to be a warrior, you need to be strong and have high endurance. That's the primary attribute for warriors. A warrior can be smart or dumb, slow or fast, but if they're a 90 pound weakling who collapses after jogging a mile, then they're not fantasy warrior material.

It's the same with the rogue archetype. A character might be built like a linebacker or wasting away from black lung - it doesn't matter. What matters is that they're dexterous and cunning. This is because their weaponry usually rewards precision while they tend to have non-combat skills.

Mages? What matters is that they're intelligent because 1) magic is usually considered a mental discipline, and 2) mages tends to have a wide range of functions. So if you want to be a good mage, you need to be able to utilize the swiss army knife of spells correctly.

These are class archetypes. They're not meant to reflect reality. classes are based on thematic elements and a desire to create different roles for people to explore.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 22 décembre 2010 - 02:26 .

[Aermas]

ziggehunderslash wrote...
 "Patton was clearly a mage".

& I can no longer take you seriously.

[Aermas]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Aermas wrote...

I don't yet where people get it into their head that warriors are slow & stupid.

It's a good thing no one said that.

If you want to be a warrior, you need to be strong and have high endurance. That's the primary attribute for warriors. A warrior can be smart or dumb, slow or fast, but if they're a 90 pound weakling who collapses after jogging a mile, then they're not fantasy warrior material.

It's the same with the rogue archetype. A character might be built like a linebacker or wasting away from black lung - it doesn't matter. What matters is that they're dexterous and cunning. This is because their weaponry usually rewards precision while they tend to have non-combat skills.

Mages? What matters is that they're intelligent because 1) magic is usually considered a mental discipline, and 2) mages tends to have a wide range of functions, so if you want to be a good mage, you need to be able to utilize the swiss army knife of spells correctly.

These are class archetypes. They're not meant to reflect reality. classes are based on thematic elements and a desire to create different roles for people to explore.

Yet the Rogue forces me to be a smoke bomb dropping dirty fighter, & the warrior forces me to be a tank. There is no support for a Strong/Fast fighter

[Hawksblud]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Hawksblud wrote...

I think we're operating within the assumption that warrior = knight, and rogue = swashbuckler, scout, etc.

I'm personally operating on the assumption that the game uses class definitions based purely on game constructs rather than ones found in a dictionary.

Well, yes, that too. xD But that's my frame of reference, anyway. 

[What is this]

Aermas wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Aermas wrote...

I don't yet where people get it into their head that warriors are slow & stupid.

It's a good thing no one said that.

If you want to be a warrior, you need to be strong and have high endurance. That's the primary attribute for warriors. A warrior can be smart or dumb, slow or fast, but if they're a 90 pound weakling who collapses after jogging a mile, then they're not fantasy warrior material.

It's the same with the rogue archetype. A character might be built like a linebacker or wasting away from black lung - it doesn't matter. What matters is that they're dexterous and cunning. This is because their weaponry usually rewards precision while they tend to have non-combat skills.

Mages? What matters is that they're intelligent because 1) magic is usually considered a mental discipline, and 2) mages tends to have a wide range of functions, so if you want to be a good mage, you need to be able to utilize the swiss army knife of spells correctly.

These are class archetypes. They're not meant to reflect reality. classes are based on thematic elements and a desire to create different roles for people to explore.

Yet the Rogue forces me to be a smoke bomb dropping dirty fighter, & the warrior forces me to be a tank. There is no support for a Strong/Fast fighter

Can rogues still wear heavy armor?

[Hawksblud]

Aermas wrote...

Yet the Rogue forces me to be a smoke bomb dropping dirty fighter, & the warrior forces me to be a tank. There is no support for a Strong/Fast fighter

I strongly disagree with this assertion. Due to the substantial overlap, there is a lot of leeway with both classes. You can play a dexterous warrior or a strong rogue; the gameplay definitely allows for it. 

[Dave of Canada]

Nobody is "forcing" you to do anything, if you want to avoid poisons and being a dirty fighter then don't specialize in those talents. Same thing with Warrior, just avoid the tanking talents.

[HTTP 404]

A barbarian would be cool but I dont think DA2 will be indepth with what types of Rogues, mages, warriors, mixes of the three in the game. going to be basic warrior, basic rogue, basic mage.



No warlocks, no assasins, no rangers, no barbarians, no sorcerers, no necromancers, no Iron Chefs...etc.



basic distinct classes, that is all and probably all thats needed btw. (a four skill tree under "assassins" dont count as in depth class.)

[Maria Caliban]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

I don't know how to respond, either I start by explaining base principles or I just type "Patton was clearly a mage".

Hybrid.

[Piecake]

Aermas wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

These are class archetypes. They're not meant to reflect reality. classes are based on thematic elements and a desire to create different roles for people to explore.

Yet the Rogue forces me to be a smoke bomb dropping dirty fighter, & the warrior forces me to be a tank. There is no support for a Strong/Fast fighter

Two-hand warriors still exist - so there is possibility that a specialization fits your requirements.  Anyways, classes are meant to have limitations to create distinctiveness and class balance.  If you don't like that then you should advocate a no class system (which I wouldnt have a problem with). 

[Aermas]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Nobody is "forcing" you to do anything, if you want to avoid poisons and being a dirty fighter then don't specialize in those talents. Same thing with Warrior, just avoid the tanking talents.

Look at the Specializations, Assassin, Shadow, & Ranger. Out of the three, ranger is a maybe. The other two are a flat out no.

[blothulfur]

Me no likey archetypes.

This is Gor the barbarian he strong but slow, this elissa the amazon she weak but fast.

Lets have some new ones, this is Dagda the druid filled with the strength of the earth and amazingly strong in body and elemental magic but with a slow deep mind and a weakness against steel and fire.

[Ziggeh]

HTTP 404 wrote...

A barbarian would be cool but I dont think DA2 will be indepth with what types of Rogues, mages, warriors, mixes of the three in the game.

In DA:O I'd gear dps warriors in mostly leather and run about with the zerker spec. While it's not naming it as such, pretty much fits the definition.

Well, unless we require them to be uncivil.

[Hawksblud]

Aermas wrote...

Look at the Specializations, Assassin, Shadow, & Ranger. Out of the three, ranger is a maybe. The other two are a flat out no.

I considered my Duelist/Ranger/Legionnaire Scout to be a pretty warrior-like rogue.

[Herr Uhl]

Aermas wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Nobody is "forcing" you to do anything, if you want to avoid poisons and being a dirty fighter then don't specialize in those talents. Same thing with Warrior, just avoid the tanking talents.

Look at the Specializations, Assassin, Shadow, & Ranger. Out of the three, ranger is a maybe. The other two are a flat out no.

You're not forced to specialize. And you have duelist, which seems to be what you want.

[Ziggeh]

Maria Caliban wrote...

ziggehunderslash wrote...

I don't know how to respond, either I start by explaining base principles or I just type "Patton was clearly a mage".

Hybrid.

Stood at the back, marshalling forces to strike at range.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 22 décembre 2010 - 02:37 .

[Aermas]

Hawksblud wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Look at the Specializations, Assassin, Shadow, & Ranger. Out of the three, ranger is a maybe. The other two are a flat out no.

I considered my Duelist/Ranger/Legionnaire Scout to be a pretty warrior-like rogue.

The Legionnaire Scout was the best spec for rogue besides bard. But they got rid of it now.

[Hawksblud]

Herr Uhl wrote...

You're not forced to specialize. And you have duelist, which seems to be what you want.

In the words of the lady herself: "I assume you saw that little drama? None of these poor brutes has ever proven a match for me. They are too clumsy and predictable. I fight with quickness and wit, rather than with brute force and strength." ―Isabela 

[Adhin]

Its Assassin, Shadow, and 'Duelist'. Not Ranger, Ranger isn't in DA2 anymore.

[Aermas]

Adhin wrote...

Its Assassin, Shadow, and 'Duelist'. Not Ranger, Ranger isn't in DA2 anymore.

Sorry, my bad, now it looks like there are no specialization to match.

[Hawksblud]

Aermas wrote...

Hawksblud wrote...

I considered my Duelist/Ranger/Legionnaire Scout to be a pretty warrior-like rogue.

The Legionnaire Scout was the best spec for rogue besides bard. But they got rid of it now.

OT: I hated Bard. :x Always have, I think I'm the only one who does.
Back on topic, though, Legionnaire Scout was boss, and so was Sigrun. But we don't actually know how they're structuring the new/refurbished specializations, so any argument on that point is difficult. 

[Herr Uhl]

Hawksblud wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

You're not forced to specialize. And you have duelist, which seems to be what you want.

In the words of the lady herself: "I assume you saw that little drama? None of these poor brutes has ever proven a match for me. They are too clumsy and predictable. I fight with quickness and wit, rather than with brute force and strength." ―Isabela 

I'm talking about in effect. You can still make use of the defensive boosts of the duelist spec with a strength/dex-build. And I don't think evading blows is making cheap-shots or low-blows. Sub-optimal? Yes, but still workable.