470 réponses à ce sujet

[Leonia]

filaminstrel wrote...

I don't think the Final Fantasy games I've played had much of a "trinity"-- at least, there's not much of a concept of tank, considering there's no aggro. And there are other concepts like "summoner."

That's a good point, actually. But FF is also turn-based, isn't it? I've never thought of the FF "jobs" as "classes" except in the MMOs FF XI and FFXIV. I suspect in the MMOs where combat is more active that the trinity still exists.

[Ziggeh]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Honestly, you need to actually think about what you write, not just write it because it sounds good. Nobody in this thread has the slightest clue as to what you are trying to say. 

Pretty sure he's just trolling at this point (hard to say, obtuse is his default mode). He made a whole thread about how rogues having lockpicking as part of their balance was daft, a complete reversal of his position here.

[Piecake]

Aermas wrote...

Why does trading skills for combat effectiveness make them useless?

Because they are only useful for certain, specific instances, and if its anything like DAO, all you would lose out on is a few bits of gold/items.  Warriors would be useful in a lot more situations since fighting is infinitely more important/useful than picking locks.  Plus, who would want to play a rogue as their main character if he was the weakest fighter, couldnt do magic, and the only thing he can do is pick the occasional lock, and possibly disarm a trap or two to make the occasional fight a bit easier? 

[Dave of Canada]

Aermas wrote...

No a rouge would retain it's dirty fighting moves & sneak attack

That's not enough to justify having one in your party if it's totally useless in combat.

[Aermas]

The ability to drop aggro in not a foreign concept. & the ability to move around the battlefield has already been shown in the preview of the rogue class.

[Piecake]

leonia42 wrote...

filaminstrel wrote...

I don't think the Final Fantasy games I've played had much of a "trinity"-- at least, there's not much of a concept of tank, considering there's no aggro. And there are other concepts like "summoner."

That's a good point, actually. But FF is also turn-based, isn't it? I've never thought of the FF "jobs" as "classes" except in the MMOs FF XI and FFXIV. I suspect in the MMOs where combat is more active that the trinity still exists.

FF Tactics had classes - a whole lot of them too.  Of course, the games class system wasnt very balanced since Orlandu pretty much pwned everyone

[AlanC9]

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 useful than the Warrior so the Warrior looks good.

Modifié par AlanC9, 22 décembre 2010 - 06:11 .

[Leonia]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Honestly, you need to actually think about what you write, not just write it because it sounds good. Nobody in this thread has the slightest clue as to what you are trying to say. 

Pretty sure he's just trolling at this point (hard to say, obtuse is his default mode). He made a whole thread about how rogues having lockpicking as part of their balance was daft, a complete reversal of his position here.

Heh, do you remember that time he tried to argue with John Epler about the meaning of hack&slash and combo attacks? Good times, good times.

[Aermas]

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

[Leonia]

filaminstrel wrote...

He's saying some character concepts are left out by restricting the classes as narrowly as they are in DA2. If I want a character who wields a 2-handed sword and a bow with proficiency like Aragorn, that's impossible in DA2.

In the context of the gaming rules/mechanics as outlined in Origins.. they aren't "left out". If you want to compare DA classes to D&D or some other established system of RPG combat, then yeah there are lots of things being left out. But DA is its own system and we have to work within that with the game. 

Yes, things are changing a bit beteween Origins and DA 2, in terms of how unique each class is, but we're still working within the 3-class system as it was originally devised. Future games may change things a little bit but I doubt they'll ever get rid of the 3-class system or allow multi-classing or no-classing because they'd have to scrap their entire rule set and invent Dragon Age 2.0 Edition.

[Leonia]

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

So why do you want a rogue with you for combat again?

[Ziggeh]

leonia42 wrote...

Heh, do you remember that time he tried to argue with John Epler about the meaning of hack&slash and combo attacks? Good times, good times.

I think I took one look at that one and backed away. Similar but inverted langauge problem to his original question here though. The gaming usage is not the same as the dictionary definition.

[Aermas]

leonia42 wrote...

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

So why do you want a rogue with you for combat again?

I'm not saying Rogues should be useless in combat, I'm saying that the Warrior should be better than them in combat, & because of this they get to have more skills & important Rogue only skills

[Leonia]

I think the point of the three class system is that each class is equal to the other two. They all have strengths and weaknesses. If you want your warrior to be a super-bad ass you should play the game without a party. There are games out there, come to think of it, that aren't team-based CRPGs that you may actually enjoy.

[bsbcaer]

Aermas wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

I wouldn't call describe the classes as "ridged unimaginative". Maybe that's the problem. You're just really not content with the existence of classes in the first place?

Not really, not when there are only three. If they had about six or seven, I wouldn't be complaining.

What is more ridged or unimaginative than Warrior Thief & Wizard?

Im going to try to avoid the "its a game" argument, but Im not sure how well Im going to be able to do it.  They chose in the last game to focus on 3 main classes -- Warrior, Thief, and Mage.  In the sequel, they decided to provide more restrictions on the classes (with respect to weapons) while making them deeper with skills.  That's the world that they have chosen to create.  If you want to play more than those three broad categories, this isn't the universe for you.  Based on what I've been reading, you may be better served playing back in games based on the D & D Universe or in a class-less universe.  At the very least, I would suggest waiting to see what other skills and abilities are available to each class before making sweeping generalizations and, if you choose to play in the universe as designed, look and see what sort of builds you can make from the options available (believe it or not, you can play a rogue as something other than "sneaky and underhanded")

[Dave of Canada]

If a Warrior is better than a Rogue at combat in every single way, they are useless. If you have the choice between both, why bring the Rogue? We'd suffer the same dilemma as in Origins, where rogues are brought along if only because of their lockpicking abilities.

You won't intentionally weaken yourself for **** and giggles, you need diversity otherwise the strongest party would be Warrior + Mages. Rogues being optional if you care about loot.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 22 décembre 2010 - 06:25 .

[Piecake]

Aermas wrote...
 I'm not saying Rogues should be useless in combat, I'm saying that the Warrior should be better than them in combat, & because of this they get to have more skills & important Rogue only skills

Well, im glad you're not in charge of classses because that is a horrible idea. 

I'd be perfectly fine with having a Mage+Fighter class system where you can customize your fighter anyway you want, but no matter how many 'rogue skills' you give rogues, that will not make up the difference in usefullness between rogue and warrior if the warrior is better at combat in every single area.  Why?  because rogue skills are marginal and situational.  Combat is not

[Aermas]

If you think Lockpick is sooo worthless then don't you think that warriors should have assess to it?

[bsbcaer]

Aermas 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?

No a rouge would retain it's dirty fighting moves & sneak attack

So, just so Im clear...you want a rogue to be a weak fighter, with lockpicking/sneak attack/dirty fighting?? 

based on that, why would anyone choose a rogue as a player-character?  With companions, you would basically be forced to carry around one of the NPC thieves (oh my god, there goes my choice!) as a swiss army knife and basically limit party effectiveness.

[Dave of Canada]

Lockpicking is for additional stuff, it's optional and rarely gives you anything good (at least in Origins). If I didn't like Leliana or Zevran (I create my team based on characters I like, shoot me), I wouldn't even be worried about using them because I know I'm losing nothing in the process but gaining a slightly more defensible team by using another Warrior or Mage instead.

You apparently believe this out-of-combat utility is worth being useless in combat. You hate the trinity but you'd like to make it Warrior / Mage?

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 22 décembre 2010 - 06:35 .

[Leonia]

Heh, I wouldn't mind more classes if they could be worked in well, I love diversity. I'm just pointing out why things are the way they are and that they are unlikely to change.

Your comparison to the request of bowstrings/horses/cloaks is a good one though. This is just turning into a "wishful thinking" sort of topic.

Modifié par leonia42, 22 décembre 2010 - 06:37 .

[Piecake]

Aermas wrote...

If you think Lockpick is sooo worthless then don't you think that warriors should have assess to it?

I never said it was uselss.  I said it was marginally and situationally useful, and a lot less useful than combat skills because you use combat skills a whole lot more.  Plus, not having lock picking skills means you lose out on a bit of gold.  Lacking combat skills could result in death. 

As for warriors having lock picking, I have a small objection to it sicne lock picking just sounds stereotypical rogue to me.  I wouldnt have an issue if warriors got a skill like lock smash or something that achieves the same result, but has a different name and they do it in a different way

[Aermas]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Lockpicking is for additional stuff, it's optional and rarely gives you anything good (at least in Origins). If I didn't like Leliana or Zevran (I create my team based on characters I like, shoot me), I wouldn't even be worried about using them because I know I'm losing nothing in the process but gaining a slightly more defensible team by using another Warrior or Mage instead.

You apparently believe this out-of-combat utility is worth being useless in combat. You hate the trinity but you'd like to make it Warrior / Mage?

Was that a yes or a no?


I don't support the Tank-DPS-Heal trinity, I think it's worthless, I do support the Holy BoxFigher-Specialist (Skill Monkey)-Mage-Healer (if applicable)