313 réponses à ce sujet

[Zaknaberrnon]

VANGUARRRRDDD YEEEEEHAAWWW

[Rylor Tormtor]

KennethAFTopp wrote...

A thought occured to me that there's a viable build for merely using a single weapon in one hand, after all there are many different tress not dependent on a specific fighting style.

Someone said in a different thread that as warrior, if you equip a one-handed weapon, the game automatically populates a shield in your off hand (same for rogues that use one dagger, a second will be automatically generated).

[Dark Knight X]

KennethAFTopp wrote...

A thought occured to me that there's a viable build for merely using a single weapon in one hand, after all there are many different tress not dependent on a specific fighting style.

I don't think that's possible.  They said if you equip a non-2h weapon without a shield, they will automatically equip you with a generic shield.

[nightcobra]

 for the basic trees we have:

a s/s tree

a 2h tree

an offensive tree

a defensive tree  (maybe equal to guardian?)

a supporter tree (equal to champion)

a "taunt" tree

[Tleining]

Dark Knight X wrote...

KennethAFTopp wrote...

A thought occured to me that there's a viable build for merely using a single weapon in one hand, after all there are many different tress not dependent on a specific fighting style.

I don't think that's possible.  They said if you equip a non-2h weapon without a shield, they will automatically equip you with a generic shield.

you have a link to that?

[nightcobra]

Tleining wrote...

Dark Knight X wrote...

KennethAFTopp wrote...

A thought occured to me that there's a viable build for merely using a single weapon in one hand, after all there are many different tress not dependent on a specific fighting style.

I don't think that's possible.  They said if you equip a non-2h weapon without a shield, they will automatically equip you with a generic shield.

you have a link to that?

it's in peter thomas thread, i'll go look.

[nightcobra]

 thar she blows!

http://social.biowar.../4715441/1&lf=8


on page 3:

"There is no single weapon tree. It kind of didn't fit since there were no talents for it, really. There is also no unarmed style.

If a Warrior has just a shield equipped, he'll have an unselectable default weapon in his other hand. Similarly if a Rogue is wielding only a single melee weapon."

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 10 février 2011 - 09:20 .

[nuclearpengu1nn]

No Champion spec?

whatever happen to "Champion of Kinkywall"?



Reaver/Berserker for me though, but still

[nightcobra]

GreyWarden36 wrote...

No Champion spec?
whatever happen to "Champion of Kinkywall"?

Reaver/Berserker for me though, but still

again, look at the battlemaster basic tree.

most of champion's spec abilities are there like warcry and rally.

it just has a different name and is now a basic skill tree accessable from the start

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 10 février 2011 - 09:24 .

[KennethAFTopp]

Dark Knight X wrote...

KennethAFTopp wrote...

A thought occured to me that there's a viable build for merely using a single weapon in one hand, after all there are many different tress not dependent on a specific fighting style.

I don't think that's possible.  They said if you equip a non-2h weapon without a shield, they will automatically equip you with a generic shield.

that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard since watching an episode of the Jersey Shore.

[Morroian]

KennethAFTopp wrote...

that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard since watching an episode of the Jersey Shore.

They equipped archers with generic arrows in DAO if they didn't have any. 

Also in DA2 rogues will also be equipped with generic dual wield weapons if they equip only 1 specific dual wield weapon.

[Rylor Tormtor]

Morroian wrote...

KennethAFTopp wrote...

that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard since watching an episode of the Jersey Shore.

They equipped archers with generic arrows in DAO if they didn't have any. 

Also in DA2 rogues will also be equipped with generic dual wield weapons if they equip only 1 specific dual wield weapon.

That is a false comparison, and a bit of a stretch. There was NO regular ammo, hence the game did populate a slot with regular ammo. Instead, ranged weapons did default damage unless a SPECIAL ammo type was used.

[TheJediSaint]

Looking at the Vanguard, I get the feeling that's a specialization that should require shouting LEEROY JENKINGS! when running into battle.

[TMZuk]

Shiro_the_Gambler wrote...

TMZuk wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

Gah.... first you kill my Dual Wield warrior and now you kill the Champion spec. In a game where you're supposed to be the Champion of Kirkwall.

*sigh*

Very true.

Where I hoped to se more options, I see less. Where I hope to see more versatile characters, I see more specialized. It's a huge dissapointment, and, IMO, a giant leap backwards to the Bad Old Days of early D&D.

Could you explain a little more.  Purely from a numerical stand point, we seem to be given the same number of options.  In DA:O we had four grids with sixteen abilities in each class.  Each class had four specializations with four abilities each.  Combined total equals eighty abilities.  With the new screenshots, it is shown that each ability tree has about ten choices where to allocate your points.   That's sixty choices without spcializations.  If specializations follow a similar pattern, then that's eighty.  Admittedly, there is only thirty-two base abilities, but with the addition of upgrades your choices are increased.

Now, thirty-two of those abilities were shared between rogues and warriors in DA:O.  Three of those specializations are returning, possibly with an expanded ability choice.  As other's have said it's possible that the Champion specialization has been folded into one or more of the ability trees; namely Battlemaster and probably Warmonger.  Personally, taking out dual wield warriors was a bit of a surprise, but it does make warriors more distinctive.  Which is a good thing, in my opinion.

The ending of your post says it all, and that is where we disagree.

I don't like distinct classes, I like versatile characters. I don't like my character having to do one thing, I like my character to be able to do many things. I like a character that can sneak, speak, and fight. I thought DA:O was overly restrictive, but there I could make a rogue using medium or heavy armour, being a decent fighter, while still having the the needed rogue-skills. In DA2 a rogue is either an archer or a ninja, who can kick bottles without breaking them. A warrior is a jerk who charges in to swing his sword in wild circles, even if you have higher ground, and would be better off pounding the enemies with arrows.

I had hoped that Bioware would move away from th restricted classes by allowing multiclassing, or even better: Abandoning the tired old tank/sneak/healer cliche altogether. IMO it as a left over from the Bad Old Days of early D&D. Instead they made it worse.

I find it ridiculous, silly and contrived that a warrior cannot shoot a bow, or dual-wield, or fight with one weapon
or what have we. That a rogue cannot pick up one dagger without taking out a second dagger as well. That a mage cannot pick up a sword. Immersion goes out the window, and suspension of my disbelief becomes impossible.

All we have seen and heard about making the classes more distinct and making the party work together bores me witless. It's not an RPG, it's an interactive movie with pseudo-tactical combat. I say pseudo-tactical because the differences between the classes are so contrived, with no root in something believable.

[Shiro_the_Gambler]

TMZuk wrote...

Shiro_the_Gambler wrote...

TMZuk wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

Gah.... first you kill my Dual Wield warrior and now you kill the Champion spec. In a game where you're supposed to be the Champion of Kirkwall.

*sigh*

Very true.

Where I hoped to se more options, I see less. Where I hope to see more versatile characters, I see more specialized. It's a huge dissapointment, and, IMO, a giant leap backwards to the Bad Old Days of early D&D.

Could you explain a little more.  Purely from a numerical stand point, we seem to be given the same number of options.  In DA:O we had four grids with sixteen abilities in each class.  Each class had four specializations with four abilities each.  Combined total equals eighty abilities.  With the new screenshots, it is shown that each ability tree has about ten choices where to allocate your points.   That's sixty choices without spcializations.  If specializations follow a similar pattern, then that's eighty.  Admittedly, there is only thirty-two base abilities, but with the addition of upgrades your choices are increased.

Now, thirty-two of those abilities were shared between rogues and warriors in DA:O.  Three of those specializations are returning, possibly with an expanded ability choice.  As other's have said it's possible that the Champion specialization has been folded into one or more of the ability trees; namely Battlemaster and probably Warmonger.  Personally, taking out dual wield warriors was a bit of a surprise, but it does make warriors more distinctive.  Which is a good thing, in my opinion.

The ending of your post says it all, and that is where we disagree.

I don't like distinct classes, I like versatile characters. I don't like my character having to do one thing, I like my character to be able to do many things. I like a character that can sneak, speak, and fight. I thought DA:O was overly restrictive, but there I could make a rogue using medium or heavy armour, being a decent fighter, while still having the the needed rogue-skills. In DA2 a rogue is either an archer or a ninja, who can kick bottles without breaking them. A warrior is a jerk who charges in to swing his sword in wild circles, even if you have higher ground, and would be better off pounding the enemies with arrows.

I had hoped that Bioware would move away from th restricted classes by allowing multiclassing, or even better: Abandoning the tired old tank/sneak/healer cliche altogether. IMO it as a left over from the Bad Old Days of early D&D. Instead they made it worse.

I find it ridiculous, silly and contrived that a warrior cannot shoot a bow, or dual-wield, or fight with one weapon
or what have we. That a rogue cannot pick up one dagger without taking out a second dagger as well. That a mage cannot pick up a sword. Immersion goes out the window, and suspension of my disbelief becomes impossible.

All we have seen and heard about making the classes more distinct and making the party work together bores me witless. It's not an RPG, it's an interactive movie with pseudo-tactical combat. I say pseudo-tactical because the differences between the classes are so contrived, with no root in something believable.

Oddly enough, I do actually agree with you.  I would love a classless system.  The only problem is that there hasn't been  a decent classless system in a video game medium ( This is my opinion ).  Which just means I don't hold out hope for it and just let distinct classes work their magic.

[Phoenixliger]

 For a good rpg you need specializations and classes or it becomes a mess.  Even with that Bioware did a good job crossing classes mage to warrior via Arcane warrior and rouge to dual wield warrior via duelist.  Plus in a game like dragon age a lot of npcs reacted differently to a character based on class such as one of the templars in Lothering to Morrigan or, Wynne to a mage main character.  Would a 2h weapon wielding stealthy mage make since?  

[MasterSamson88]

All I know is I love that warrior armor.

[Dr. rotinaj]

Phoenixliger wrote...

 For a good rpg you need specializations and classes or it becomes a mess.  

This. 
   
   Just try playing any of the Fable games and you will see that by the end of the game your char will be good at everything.  The game gets really boring because you have no weaknesses and no incentive to try a different playstyle. Or try playing any of the Fallout games while trying to be good at everything. You'll end up with a mediocre character. In good rpgs you have to specialize, if you don't you'll get an overpowered monster of a character, or a jack of all trades that won't be able to take on enemies later on.

[Shiro_the_Gambler]

How many of those sixteen abilities did you use? Plus, some of the other abilities may have been folded into another tree.

[MasterSamson88]

Shiro_the_Gambler wrote...

How many of those sixteen abilities did you use? Plus, some of the other abilities may have been folded into another tree.

Yeah I think with my greatsword warrior in DAO I only used like 3 or so special moves, I never bothered using a lot of the sustained over time moves because they wasted my energy. 

I'm just hoping for the moves to look cool, different, and unique. 

You know, unlike DAO where you had several moves and about 3 animations for all of them.