470 réponses à ce sujet

[bsbcaer]

Aermas wrote...

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

They're not saying that picking locks are worthless, they're saying that the skill itself (plus however many other amorphous "skills" that you give a rogue) would not make up for their inability in combat.  Mages aren't good in melee combat, but they make up for it with the ability to have hands appear to tear their opponent in half.  Where, in your schema, is the combat balance for the rogue if the warrior can do everything combat wise the rogue can and do it better?

[Piecake]

Aermas wrote...

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)

So then argue for what you want - a two class system - instead of arguing to make a system you dont even like less balanced and therefore rather pointless

[Maria Caliban]

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.

Of course it is. The entire point of a class system is to be restrictive. classless systems are designed to give your character a wide range of possibly unrelated skills.

There are some class systems with lots of different classes, but that usually leads to an expansion of mechanics. The 4e Druid, for example, is basically a shapechanger specialization fleshed out into its down class.

[Aermas]

bsbcaer wrote...

Aermas wrote...

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

They're not saying that picking locks are worthless, they're saying that the skill itself (plus however many other amorphous "skills" that you give a rogue) would not make up for their inability in combat.  Mages aren't good in melee combat, but they make up for it with the ability to have hands appear to tear their opponent in half.  Where, in your schema, is the combat balance for the rogue if the warrior can do everything combat wise the rogue can and do it better?

The way a rogue is now they are better out of combat & they are equal in combat to the other classes. They are overpowered.
The way I would change it is to make the rogue slightly worse in combat, & keep them as is outside of combat. Maybe throwing a few more skills their way

[AlanC9]

Piecake wrote...
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

Well, it could work in some other game where combat is situational too. You'd need a lot less combat relative to other things, and no central PC character. Hawke has to be the "face" character in DA2, so  NPC rogues would be irretrievably gimped because they can't use social skills.

[Leonia]

"They are equal to the other classes but they are overpowered."



Come again?

[Aermas]

leonia42 wrote...

"They are equal to the other classes but they are overpowered."

Come again?

Rogues are equal in combat & superior out of combat. They are overpowered.

[Aermas]

leonia42 wrote...

"They are equal to the other classes but they are overpowered."

Come again?

DP:pinched:

Modifié par Aermas, 22 décembre 2010 - 06:52 .

[bsbcaer]

Aermas wrote...

bsbcaer wrote...

Aermas wrote...

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

They're not saying that picking locks are worthless, they're saying that the skill itself (plus however many other amorphous "skills" that you give a rogue) would not make up for their inability in combat.  Mages aren't good in melee combat, but they make up for it with the ability to have hands appear to tear their opponent in half.  Where, in your schema, is the combat balance for the rogue if the warrior can do everything combat wise the rogue can and do it better?

The way a rogue is now they are better out of combat & they are equal in combat to the other classes. They are overpowered.
The way I would change it is to make the rogue slightly worse in combat, & keep them as is outside of combat. Maybe throwing a few more skills their way

How are they equal in combat to the other classes (in this case, we'll just focus on Warriors)?  As set up in DA2, Rogues are better in a single combat situation and at range (with Archery), while Warriors are better in group combat.  This is not to say that a warrior cannot engage in a single combat scenario, or a rogue could not engage multiple targets, but that each class is geared towards different situations.  Doesn't seem overpowered to me (but hey, that's just my opinion). 

You mentioned that you would make the rogue "slightly worse in combat."  How would you go about doing that?  If you make them slightly (not significantly) worse, why would anybody play a warrior then as their PC?

[Aermas]

bsbcaer wrote...

Aermas wrote...

bsbcaer wrote...

Aermas wrote...

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

They're not saying that picking locks are worthless, they're saying that the skill itself (plus however many other amorphous "skills" that you give a rogue) would not make up for their inability in combat.  Mages aren't good in melee combat, but they make up for it with the ability to have hands appear to tear their opponent in half.  Where, in your schema, is the combat balance for the rogue if the warrior can do everything combat wise the rogue can and do it better?

The way a rogue is now they are better out of combat & they are equal in combat to the other classes. They are overpowered.
The way I would change it is to make the rogue slightly worse in combat, & keep them as is outside of combat. Maybe throwing a few more skills their way

How are they equal in combat to the other classes (in this case, we'll just focus on Warriors)?  As set up in DA2, Rogues are better in a single combat situation and at range (with Archery), while Warriors are better in group combat.  This is not to say that a warrior cannot engage in a single combat scenario, or a rogue could not engage multiple targets, but that each class is geared towards different situations.  Doesn't seem overpowered to me (but hey, that's just my opinion). 

You mentioned that you would make the rogue "slightly worse in combat."  How would you go about doing that?  If you make them slightly (not significantly) worse, why would anybody play a warrior then as their PC?

They would be worse in combat to the point where you felt the difference but not so much that they were useless.

[Maria Caliban]

filaminstrel wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

There are some class systems with lots of different classes, but that usually leads to an expansion of mechanics. The 4e Druid, for example, is basically a shapechanger specialization fleshed out into its down class.

Is that necessarily a bad thing?

You'll need to specify what 'it' you're speaking of here.

Aermas wrote...

Rogues are equal in combat & superior out of combat. They are overpowered.

I thought only warriors did melee AOE damage. Also, rogues are much, much more squishy. Have you seen the combat videos and screenshots?

Aveline = fine with health
Rogue Hawke = almost dead

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 22 décembre 2010 - 06:59 .

[AlanC9]

Nobody wants to be the character who's good out of combat if being good out of combat means doing the sort of stuff you get to do in DAO. It might work if you get to do the social engineering, but like I said a minute ago, those abilities can't be rogue class abilities since Hawke owns them in DA2.

Modifié par AlanC9, 22 décembre 2010 - 07:03 .

[bsbcaer]

Aermas wrote...

bsbcaer wrote...

Aermas wrote...

The way a rogue is now they are better out of combat & they are equal in combat to the other classes. They are overpowered.
The way I would change it is to make the rogue slightly worse in combat, & keep them as is outside of combat. Maybe throwing a few more skills their way

How are they equal in combat to the other classes (in this case, we'll just focus on Warriors)?  As set up in DA2, Rogues are better in a single combat situation and at range (with Archery), while Warriors are better in group combat.  This is not to say that a warrior cannot engage in a single combat scenario, or a rogue could not engage multiple targets, but that each class is geared towards different situations.  Doesn't seem overpowered to me (but hey, that's just my opinion). 

You mentioned that you would make the rogue "slightly worse in combat."  How would you go about doing that?  If you make them slightly (not significantly) worse, why would anybody play a warrior then as their PC?

They would be worse in combat to the point where you felt the difference but not so much that they were useless.

Alright, but you're still avoiding my question....HOW would you go about doing that?

[errant_knight]

As long as I can bash things upside the head with my shield, I'm good. Don't much care what the other classes do. Okay, that's not entirely true. I wish the rogues didn't hop around all dizzy-making, and that mages didn't have a flame thrower, but I can live with it. As long as I can bash things.

[Maria Caliban]

filaminstrel wrote...

The expansion of mechanics. Assuming you're not talking about the ones who work on cars.

I don't think it's bad at all. I like World of Warcraft and DnD 4e because they've managed to create a wide range of classes while maintaining distinct roles and 'class feel.'

I do think that it's much harder from a design standpoint and you're likely to get more problematic classes. The larger and more complex the system, the more time and skill you need to put into it to keep it working.

errant_knight wrote...

As long as I can bash things upside the head with my shield, I'm good. Don't much care what the other classes do. Okay, that's not entirely true. I wish the rogues didn't hop around all dizzy-making, and that mages didn't have a flame thrower, but I can live with it. As long as I can bash things.

I like the way you think. Though I'm hoping that will be 'make them burst open like tomatoes hit by a truck with my two-hander.'

Rogues are jumpy because they drink too much caffeine. Also, mages are all about shooting out gusts of fire and ice because they want to be rock stars.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 22 décembre 2010 - 07:10 .

[Aermas]

bsbcaer wrote...

Aermas wrote...

bsbcaer wrote...

Aermas wrote...

The way a rogue is now they are better out of combat & they are equal in combat to the other classes. They are overpowered.
The way I would change it is to make the rogue slightly worse in combat, & keep them as is outside of combat. Maybe throwing a few more skills their way

How are they equal in combat to the other classes (in this case, we'll just focus on Warriors)?  As set up in DA2, Rogues are better in a single combat situation and at range (with Archery), while Warriors are better in group combat.  This is not to say that a warrior cannot engage in a single combat scenario, or a rogue could not engage multiple targets, but that each class is geared towards different situations.  Doesn't seem overpowered to me (but hey, that's just my opinion). 

You mentioned that you would make the rogue "slightly worse in combat."  How would you go about doing that?  If you make them slightly (not significantly) worse, why would anybody play a warrior then as their PC?

They would be worse in combat to the point where you felt the difference but not so much that they were useless.

Alright, but you're still avoiding my question....HOW would you go about doing that?

Get rid or nerf any ability that allowed them to do more damage than a warrior, that way they still have their dirty fighting, they have their mobility but a warrior will ultimately do more because of the warriors increased attack ranges.

[Aermas]

AlanC9 wrote...

Nobody wants to be the character who's good out of combat if being good out of combat means doing the sort of stuff you get to do in DAO. It might work if you get to do the social engineering, but like I said a minute ago, those abilities can't be rogue class abilities since Hawke owns them in DA2.

They could/should step up the usefulness of Mechanical Aptitude, traps & locks doors to different routes that lead to more advantages in combat & the like

[Dave of Canada]

So, let me get this straight:

Warriors should be able to tank with a shield, should have the highest armor in the game, should be the most mobile character in the game, should have use of all weapons in the game at it's maximum capacity, should have the highest health in the game, should be able to use Area of Effect attacks.



Rogues should be able to open doors.

[Leonia]

And let's not even mention the role that mages fill..

[upsettingshorts]

*waves skill-based flag*

[bsbcaer]

Aermas wrote...

Get rid or nerf any ability that allowed them to do more damage than a warrior, that way they still have their dirty fighting, they have their mobility but a warrior will ultimately do more because of the warriors increased attack ranges.

Alright, so Rogues would not have the ability to have any critical attacks; flanking is completely out for them; you would have to place limits on their strength and Dexterity because builds are possible where a rogue could do more damage than a warrior based on allocation of points; oh, take away any weapon bigger than a shortsword for them because that would allow them to have a longer attack range than a warrior (that would include archery); .

Why would someone play a rogue in a game like Dragon Age that has a large amount of combat?

[Sharn01]

All of this stems from a preconcieved notion of what a rogue should be based on D&D and/or other roleplaying systems. This is Dragon Age and the developers of DA get to decide what a rogue and warrior should be.  There where numerous posts from the DA forum already that complained about needing rogues to unlock chests because the players didnt want to use rogues, you are asking for the situation to be compounded by making rogues worse in combat.

Warriors and rogues seem pretty equal so far in damage, at least close enough that the difference isnt large, rogues a bit higher on single target and warriors a bit higher on aoe from what we have seen so far, but warriros have much more survivability in the form of armor and health. Not to mention judging from screenshots rogues have lost the ability to dodge, the screenshot of rogue Hawke with insanely high dex and decent cunnning had a 5% dodge chance.

Modifié par Sharn01, 22 décembre 2010 - 07:32 .