26 réponses à ce sujet

[Phoenix_Loftian]

Realizing that the Arishok is a duel-wielding warrior.

Arguably, they probably call him by another title with his style of fighting due to cultural differences. But the man clearly isn't a rogue and definitely not a mage. He has two axes for gods sake...

Ah well...

Maybe in Dragon Age 3 they'll have a spear-class similar to the style of fighting of some of the Qunari.

[Plaintiff]

Personally, I thought it was fail that warriors had dual-wielding and archery in Origins. classes need to be more distinct and I'm glad they are now.

I wouldn't say no to more weapon options, though. An "Unarmed Combat" skill tree would make me very happy indeed.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 05 juin 2011 - 10:45 .

[Porenferser]

I missed the Dual wiedling warrior as well.
The archer-warrior not, though.
They could have made it difference:
Let the Rogue still jump around with his knifes and the warrior should be able to carry twi heavy blades, which are clearly slower.

[Tranex]

I fondly remember my dual-wield warrior playthrough in origins as one of the best.
Really missed it in DA2!

[Wulfram]

I miss warriors using bows more than dual wielding. Loss of ranged ability really hurts tactical flexibility.

[Cutlass Jack]

Phoenix_Loftian wrote...

Realizing that the Arishok is a duel-wielding warrior.

He was dual wielding two handed weapons. I'm pretty sure we're not getting that option.

[Huntress]

I like DW warriors I miss it alot, not fun of 2hand-sword and shield. I have made many warriors they get deleted or stuck at lvl 7 rofl.
Archer warriors, never used them but some players probably miss the option.

A warrior uses all type of weapons lets not ignore that.

[Maladismal]

Wulfram wrote...

I miss warriors using bows more than dual wielding. Loss of ranged ability really hurts tactical flexibility.

Tactics in DA2? Perish the thought.

[Fast Jimmy]

Phoenix_Loftian wrote...

Realizing that the Arishok is a duel-wielding warrior.

Actually, in the system of how the Arishok is configured, he's actually a rogue and his two massive swords are dagger class.

Just an FYI...

[Chugster]

i do miss my DW warrior...maybe they could add it in a patch/dlc/expansion...kinda like a slower, heavier rogue...without the flips and jumps

[Beerfish]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Phoenix_Loftian wrote...

Realizing that the Arishok is a duel-wielding warrior.

He was dual wielding two handed weapons. I'm pretty sure we're not getting that option.

I could do that in NWN2, such a rip off that I can't dual wield scythes like I did with 'monkey grip' in NWN2.  Yet more roleplay options removed due to consoles/BioWare/EA!!!  

[thedistortedchild]

I would just like to fight with a single scythe!

[Icy Magebane]

I like some of these ideas for warrior weapons, like bows, spears, unarmed, and scythes. A warrior really should be able to master several weapon styles to account for all the situations they can get into. But on the other hand, you would need a hell of a lot more ability points to spend, and then every other class would need more points... it might not work very well given the limitations they placed on every class and forcing every character to be a specialist.

As for Dual Wield? Yeah, I'll take that. Just give warriors a different type of animation than rogues... never really got into that whole rogue-ninja thing they've got going in DA2. Felt kind of ridiculous playing that kind of character.

Since they will probably never make another Jade Empire game, they really should consider unarmed for warriors, or an unarmed class... more options mean more reaplay value!

[electricfish]

In DA's universe, unarmed combat would be pretty fail. Have you ever tried to punch through plate mail with your fist? Even with the option to put offensive runes on gauntlets, you'd still have a much lower damage output than someone with a sword.
It's not like D&D where you can have quasi-magical abilities (monk). Without somehow attaching a fireball spell to your fist, there's no way for even mages to learn unarmed combat without serious disabilities. Mages in DA work like wizards in D&D - there are specific hand gestures required to "summon" a spell.

[Satyricon331]

Plaintiff wrote...
Personally, I thought it was fail that warriors had dual-wielding and archery in Origins. classes need to be more distinct and I'm glad they are now.

I haven't really understood why people keep saying there needs to be greater class distinction.  If someone wants to mix up their party members' roles the way a certain character - from a certain recent game that ppl mention too often - could mix up classes, I just don't see why so many people find it objectionable. 

I mean, you can play three mages, so why not two dual-wielders, one of whom taunts and the other lock-picks?

[Ulicus]

Honestly, I'd prefer it if there were only two classes in Dragon Age: "Warrior" and "Mage" with both able to take rogue abilities. Warriors would get access to "hitting stuff with weapons" rogue trees, Mages would get access to "sneaky magic" rogue trees, and both would be able to learn to pick locks and stealth.

So, If you wanted a pure warrior or pure mage, you'd simply not build your character with rogue skills. If you wanted a rogue, you'd concentrate on those skills and it would come down to whether you wanted to be a rogue with magic, or rogue with weapons.

So, basically, you'd have four sub-classes rolled into "Non-Magic User" and "Magic User"... and (I think) a greater opportunity to build exactly the type of character you want.

Modifié par Ulicus, 06 juin 2011 - 10:00 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

Well, technically the Arishok is a rogue, and his weapons are actually listed as daggers in the game's files.

Ulicus wrote...

Honestly, I'd prefer it if there were only two classes in Dragon Age: "Warrior" and "Mage" with both able to take rogue abilities. Warriors would get access to "hitting stuff with weapons" rogue trees, Mages would get access to "sneaky magic" rogue trees, and both would be able to learn to pick locks and stealth.

So, If you wanted a pure warrior or pure mage, you'd simply not build your character with rogue skills. If you wanted a rogue, you'd concentrate on those skills and it would come down to whether you wanted to be a rogue with magic, or rogue with weapons.

So, basically, you'd have four sub-classes rolled into "Non-Magic User" and "Magic User"... and (I think) a greater opportunity to build exactly the type of character you want.

Good suggestion, but sadly too late into the series to abandon/overhaul an entire class like that.

[Icy Magebane]

Zorr Crew wrote...

In DA's universe, unarmed combat would be pretty fail. Have you ever tried to punch through plate mail with your fist? Even with the option to put offensive runes on gauntlets, you'd still have a much lower damage output than someone with a sword.
It's not like D&D where you can have quasi-magical abilities (monk). Without somehow attaching a fireball spell to your fist, there's no way for even mages to learn unarmed combat without serious disabilities. Mages in DA work like wizards in D&D - there are specific hand gestures required to "summon" a spell.

I see.  With all the staff twirling, I guess I missed that part.  Given this well thought out argument, I am now convinced that it's impossible to incorporate martial arts into a game based on magic and elves... no, that wouldn't be realistic at all. 

[Medhia Nox]

"classes" should be removed altogether - or at least the antiquated version of D&D classes (which become the "new" MMO way of doing classes). There are tons of other ways to do "classes" that RPGs have developed over the years.

[RangerSG]

I'm more annoyed about losing ranged combat for warriors than I am dual-wielding large weapons. Realistically, the only weapon above short-sword size that can be fought 2 weapon style isn't in the game (though I wish it was). That being rapiers. The case of rapier style is a documented and taught style that fits the period. But since no one has invented the rapier in Thedas, apparently, it's irrelevant.

There's too many times in DA2 where ranged weapons could/should be equipable however. And the inability to switch weapons from configuration 1 to 2 like in DA:O really struck me as another poor design choice. I shouldn't have to pause and search inventory for the second weapon configuration to fight something fire/cold immune.

That said, I don't understand why warriors lost the ability to fight long sword (or axe)/off weapon style. Two weapons isn't unique to dirty fighters.

A warrior should be about giving and taking damage over a prolonged period. A rogue should be about hit & run tactics in combat, damage spikes that can't be prolonged but can be lethal when timed properly. Not only is that good balance, it's fairly realistic when you consider the average warrior is a front-line soldier, while your average rogue is a scout or street-fighter.

Modifié par RangerSG, 06 juin 2011 - 02:01 .

[Arthur Cousland]

I enjoyed my dual wielding arcane warrior in Origins. Too bad that setup died with Origins. My warden did everything but pick locks.

[Beerfish]

Arthur Cousland wrote...

I enjoyed my dual wielding arcane warrior in Origins. Too bad that setup died with Origins. My warden did everything but pick locks.

Arcane warrior was fun at times for sure but that was the most over powered class I've ever played.