470 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryllen Laerth Kriel]

My deffinition of a "warrior" is very open ended. To me it's an idea and an occupation, not a set of skills. I would rather it not be shoved into a class container because when this occurs, the jar either is crammed with too many things or ends up as far too empty when compared to other packages/classes.



But if I HAD to make a "Warrior" class, I would hope it would have alot of flexibility with options to either make an agile fighter or a slow moving, damage absorbing brute. Images of armored fighters come to mind so use of all weapons and armors and fighting styles associated with them also would be good (dual wielding). Not all warriors are muscled thugs so benefits should be given to smart warriors too, giving them secondary skills for alchemy, mastery of advanced techniques and the sciences of war (weapon and armor crafting).



Of course people will complain about warriors getting too much now compared to rogues but...I don't think rogues should be a class either but a concept. In a way it would be nice if Warrior, Rogue and Mage were Origins, giving bonuses in certain areas while not limiting the future of possible skills for a character. But skills can be approached in different ways. Say...Trapmaking is an example. Warriors could make basic traps but rogues could make far more advanced traps, if we had to have classes. The same goes for Herbalism or Poison Making, the stength and type of the poltice/potion would be determined on generic estimates of what an occupation would have.



Crazy ideas, I know. Oh-my-god, I'm covered in bees, bees, get them off me, ahhh!

[Aermas]

bsbcaer wrote...

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?

Don't be pedantic. The way rogues are now they do more damage than the fighter. Why not lower it so that they do about the same, but fighters can still hit more enemies. In single combat they are roughly equal, but when surrounded the fighter prevails, & the rogue has the mobility to backflip away.

[Piecake]

Has anyone read The Way of Kings by Brandon Sanderson?

I think the 3 major/special combat specialties could be made in a pretty interesting class system.  think you could balance it fairly easily and it would get you out of that wizard shoots fireball/lightning, warrior swings a big sword, and rogue pokes you with a dagger.

Well, they would essentially be balanced pretty much the same, but they would have different/interesting abilities than what we usually see

Modifié par Piecake, 22 décembre 2010 - 07:47 .

[Leonia]

Make up your mind, Aermas, earlier you were saying rogues were equal to Warriors in-combat.

[Piecake]

Aermas wrote...

Don't be pedantic. The way rogues are now they do more damage than the fighter. Why not lower it so that they do about the same, but fighters can still hit more enemies. In single combat they are roughly equal, but when surrounded the fighter prevails, & the rogue has the mobility to backflip away.

Huh?  Rogues do more damage against single targets, but warriors do more damage against multiple targets.  And if there are a lot of targets, the warrior will do a lot more damage than the rogue over the course of the battle

Modifié par Piecake, 22 décembre 2010 - 07:44 .

[Sharn01]

Piecake wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Don't be pedantic. The way rogues are now they do more damage than the fighter. Why not lower it so that they do about the same, but fighters can still hit more enemies. In single combat they are roughly equal, but when surrounded the fighter prevails, & the rogue has the mobility to backflip away.

Huh?  Rogues do more damage against single targets, but warriors do more damage against multiple targets.  And if there are a lot of targets, the warrior will do a lot more damage than the rogue over the course of the battle

You are also ascribing no inherent value to survivablity or the ability to tank.  Will you increase rogue survivability in the form of health and/or avoidance to make up for the loss of damage?  I still think you worry way to much about class titles rather then what the classes can do, if you completely ingored the names of the classes, skilss and specializations would there be a character in DA2 that you would like to play?

[AlanC9]

Isn't it a little premature to say that warriors do this and rogues do that when talking about DA2. What Bio wants the combat to do and what it actually will do aren't necessarily the same thing.

[Aermas]

leonia42 wrote...

Make up your mind, Aermas, earlier you were saying rogues were equal to Warriors in-combat.

I will speak as plainly as I can.

AS IT STANDS NOW> Rogues are equal to Warriors & Mages in combat abilities, & they have the added advantage of being the only Lockpickers in the game. That makes them overpowered.

HOW IT COULD BE> Rogues doing damage on par with warriors, so that in a straight one on one fight they are balanced, but warriors would keep their larger weapon arcs so they have the advantage when faced with multiple foes. Rogues would retain their mobility & dirty tricks so that they do not become overwhelmed by enemies. They also have access to Lockpick & traps

[bsbcaer]

Aermas wrote...

bsbcaer wrote...

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?

Don't be pedantic. The way rogues are now they do more damage than the fighter. Why not lower it so that they do about the same, but fighters can still hit more enemies. In single combat they are roughly equal, but when surrounded the fighter prevails, & the rogue has the mobility to backflip away.

Ok, this is something completely different than what you were suggesting earlier ("getting rid or nerf any ability that allowed them to do more damage than a warrior).  From what we know so far, it seems as if what you're suggesting is already happening or close to happening with a sword and shield fighter probably close to (but not equal to) fighting an opponent 1-1 and fighters are more effective with crowds. 

[bsbcaer]

Piecake wrote...

Has anyone read The Way of Kings by Brandon Sanderson?

I think the 3 major/special combat specialties could be made in a pretty interesting class system.  think you could balance it fairly easily and it would get you out of that wizard shoots fireball/lightning, warrior swings a big sword, and rogue pokes you with a dagger.

Well, they would essentially be balanced pretty much the same, but they would have different/interesting abilities than what we usually see

completely unaware of the book...what are the major/special combat specialties in the Way of Kings?

[Aermas]

bsbcaer wrote...

Aermas wrote...

bsbcaer wrote...

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?

Don't be pedantic. The way rogues are now they do more damage than the fighter. Why not lower it so that they do about the same, but fighters can still hit more enemies. In single combat they are roughly equal, but when surrounded the fighter prevails, & the rogue has the mobility to backflip away.

Ok, this is something completely different than what you were suggesting earlier ("getting rid or nerf any ability that allowed them to do more damage than a warrior).  From what we know so far, it seems as if what you're suggesting is already happening or close to happening with a sword and shield fighter probably close to (but not equal to) fighting an opponent 1-1 and fighters are more effective with crowds. 

As I understand it Rogue do massive damage to one target, I am suggesting they do damage closer to a warrior.

[AlanC9]

Aermas wrote...

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

That just makes rogues more useful to have in the party;  it is not an incentive to play one yourself. You'd have to contrive reasons to have the PC be the only one who could handle the task

[Aermas]

AlanC9 wrote...

Aermas wrote...

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

That just makes rogues more useful to have in the party;  it is not an incentive to play one yourself. You'd have to contrive reasons to have the PC be the only one who could handle the task

Restrict the Pickpocket skill to PC only.

[bsbcaer]

Aermas wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

Make up your mind, Aermas, earlier you were saying rogues were equal to Warriors in-combat.

I will speak as plainly as I can.

AS IT STANDS NOW> Rogues are equal to Warriors & Mages in combat abilities, & they have the added advantage of being the only Lockpickers in the game. That makes them overpowered.

HOW IT COULD BE> Rogues doing damage on par with warriors, so that in a straight one on one fight they are balanced, but warriors would keep their larger weapon arcs so they have the advantage when faced with multiple foes. Rogues would retain their mobility & dirty tricks so that they do not become overwhelmed by enemies. They also have access to Lockpick & traps

This is how I see things as it stands now (based on what we know):

Fighters --  Good at 1-1 fights, great with multiple opponents, great survivability (least squishy of three)
Rogues -- Great at 1-1 fights, good with multiple opponents, medium survivability (not as squishy as mage, not as solid as fighters, some abilities useful for running away from danger -- that would be under the category of "dirty fighting" for you)
Mages (basing this on DAO as I know least about mages in the sequel) -- good at 1-1 fights at distance (freezing people and shattering them for eg), ok/good at 1-1- fights w/melee (staffs w/melee attacks based on magic score), good with multiple opponents at distance (fireball for eg), ok/bad with multiple opponents at melee (could use cone of cold to freeze guys and then run away), ok/good survivability (squishyist of the three, but only one who doesn't need potions to heal himself or others).

From my perspective (admittedly different from yours), it doesn't seem overpowered at all.  In fact, the two non-mage classes seem rather balanced.  Im not sure how much value you put into lockpicking and other non-combat abilities, but having certain non-combat abilities (such as lockpicking) as rogue only doesn't make the class overpowered from a combat perspective.

[bsbcaer]

Aermas wrote...

As I understand it Rogue do massive damage to one target, I am suggesting they do damage closer to a warrior.

Where did you hear that Rogues do "massive damage to one target?"  From what I understand from the forums and from what I've gathered from the previews, Rogues are better in a 1-1 situation, but don't automatically do "massive damage" to a single target.  I think that damage is going to be based more on how you allocate points, weapons, enemy armour etc than class.  This is not to say that Rogues won't have a better chance to do a critical attack on a single target (I think they said it's based on Cunning rather than Dexterity?), but I think that you're over-exaggerating things a bit

[Piecake]

Aermas wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

Make up your mind, Aermas, earlier you were saying rogues were equal to Warriors in-combat.

I will speak as plainly as I can.

AS IT STANDS NOW> Rogues are equal to Warriors & Mages in combat abilities, & they have the added advantage of being the only Lockpickers in the game. That makes them overpowered.

HOW IT COULD BE> Rogues doing damage on par with warriors, so that in a straight one on one fight they are balanced, but warriors would keep their larger weapon arcs so they have the advantage when faced with multiple foes. Rogues would retain their mobility & dirty tricks so that they do not become overwhelmed by enemies. They also have access to Lockpick & traps

Well, I completely disagree that they would be overpowered in that scenario.  I think overpowered in terms of combat capabilitiy, and that is what a class system should be balanced around - combat capability.  It should not take into consideration some slight added out of combat benefit that one class gives you.

Just think of it this way, when you are forming a party, are you going to bring along multiple rogues because of their out-of-combat skills?  No, of course not.  You only need one.  Meaning they are not overpowered, since you stuff your party with the overpowered class if you want the optimal party. 

You'll bring along the rogue for the single target dps, the warrior for the tank and multiple foes dps, and the mage for, well, everything.  The party needs a tank and usually needs a mage, the party doesnt need a rogue- the rogues out of combat abilities just give the player a bit more incentive to actually use them.  If you don't like rogues, you simply miss out on the bits of gold.  If you dont like warriors, you miss out on a tank.  If you dislike mages, you miss out on CC, Healing, AoE, DMG, what have you. 

If you make rogues weaker at everything, then many players are simply not going to bring a rogue along because the few bits of gold that the rogue can net you doesnt make up for the reduced combat capabilities

[Maria Caliban]

As I understand it, warriors get:

High armor
High HP
Threat generation
Basic attack does AOE melee damage
Abilities that become more powerful the more enemies are around them
Shield bash/charge for single targets and Tremor for an area around them.

If you want to focus on tanking, pick up a sword and shield, and load up on the defense and armor. If you want to focus on offense, pick up a two-hander and load up on the strength and stamina.

In contrast, rogues have lower HP and armor. They can only do single target damage in melee, but can operate at range as well. They have abilities to help them stun and disorient groups.

That is, they're made to focus on one opponent and have panic buttons if they find themselves surrounded.

Piecake wrote...

Has anyone read The Way of Kings by Brandon Sanderson?

I think the 3 major/special combat specialties could be made in a pretty interesting class system.  think you could balance it fairly easily and it would get you out of that wizard shoots fireball/lightning, warrior swings a big sword, and rogue pokes you with a dagger.

Well, they would essentially be balanced pretty much the same, but they would have different/interesting abilities than what we usually see

Yes. Brandon has said previously that he likes to write out his magical 'rules' in game format and sometimes has people test them. He's apparently big into Magic: The Gathering.

[AlanC9]

Aermas wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Aermas wrote...

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

That just makes rogues more useful to have in the party;  it is not an incentive to play one yourself. You'd have to contrive reasons to have the PC be the only one who could handle the task

Restrict the Pickpocket skill to PC only.

That's what you've got? Seriously?

[Piecake]

bsbcaer wrote...

Piecake wrote...

Has anyone read The Way of Kings by Brandon Sanderson?

I think the 3 major/special combat specialties could be made in a pretty interesting class system.  think you could balance it fairly easily and it would get you out of that wizard shoots fireball/lightning, warrior swings a big sword, and rogue pokes you with a dagger.

Well, they would essentially be balanced pretty much the same, but they would have different/interesting abilities than what we usually see

completely unaware of the book...what are the major/special combat specialties in the Way of Kings?

Well, its pretty hard to explain.  Essentially it would be:

Alchemists - your 'magic users' - but different

Whatever the Truthless of Shinovar is(forgot the name) - Your speed character, but also has cool/unique abilities

Shardplate+shardblade user - Your warrior - still fast as all get up because the plate increases all of your phyisical capabilities by a ton(they WTF pwn normal dudes), they just arent as fast as Truthless and dont have access to his cool abilities(they get an almost indestructable plate instead) 

I guess you'd have to tone down the complete ownage these guys do to normal dudes to make this remotely viable(or just introduce really strong enemies)  You can 'improve' all 3 classes combat capabilities in the book

I do recommend the book though.  I'd say its one of the best recently published fantasy books I've read not written by George R.R. Martin

[AlanC9]

Piecake wrote...
Well, I completely disagree that they would be overpowered in that scenario.  I think overpowered in terms of combat capabilitiy, and that is what a class system should be balanced around - combat capability.  It should not take into consideration some slight added out of combat benefit that one class gives you.

Just think of it this way, when you are forming a party, are you going to bring along multiple rogues because of their out-of-combat skills?  No, of course not.  You only need one.  Meaning they are not overpowered, since you stuff your party with the overpowered class if you want the optimal party.  

Yeah, that's pretty much how I see it. I'm guessing that Aermas has a completely different way to evaluate "overpowered."

[Piecake]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Yes. Brandon has said previously that he likes to write out his magical 'rules' in game format and sometimes has people test them. He's apparently big into Magic: The Gathering.

Interesting.  I guess thats why i can see Mistborn's magic system working in a game as well.  Mistborn's magic system was also quite interestng, though I cant say I was a fan of the book (only managed to get through 2/3s of the way through the first book). 

[bsbcaer]

Going back to the original question (or a modified version of it) for a second...



For me, a Fighter/Warrior/whatever you want to call him is someone that is at the front line of a party, taking the fight to the enemy. When I think of a fighter, I think of someone like Boromir (going to the LOTR movies for a second) or Minsc (going back to Bioware games). A fighter should be able to deal out a lot of damage at close range and be able to take a lot of damage.



to the second part of the question, I think that Bioware is doing a good job. Personally, I have never really been a fan of just anyone being able to dual-wield weapons (or dual-wielding at all) and it just doesn't fit what or how I think a fighter should fight (I would not be averse to them removing it completely). However, if we use the four weapon styles in Dragon Age, I think that fighters should have initial access to all four styles (Sword and Shield, 2 handed, dual, and Archery), but that access should be restricted once the player started (spent an initial point in) 2 of the four styles. I don't see how a person (real or fictional) would become highly skilled in more than 2 of the styles, particularly by the time we start our story. I would also like to see an armour requirement for Archery; I don't think that anyone wearing anything more than Dragon Age medium armour should be able to use Archery skills.

[Maria Caliban]

The story does take place over 10 years though.



I wouldn't mind if warriors were weapon masters who could invest in all four styles, but they'd need to give rogues something beefy in return.

[Piecake]

Maria Caliban wrote...

The story does take place over 10 years though.

I wouldn't mind if warriors were weapon masters who could invest in all four styles, but they'd need to give rogues something beefy in return.

How about you are extra tasty to your enemies?  Get it? Beefy 

I'm so funny

[Vaeliorin]

Maria Caliban wrote...
Yes. Brandon has said previously that he likes to write out his magical 'rules' in game format and sometimes has people test them. He's apparently big into Magic: The Gathering.

That seems very bizarre to me.  Most books I've read that had a pre-existing game/rules system felt off to me because I can almost watch the turns taking place, and the various attacks/skills used.  It's almost more like reading a description of a game session than something akin to real combat.

But hey, if it works for him, more power to him.

Anyway...as to the topic at hand...

*runs around waving giant skill-based flag*