29 réponses à ce sujet

[Tyrax Lightning]

telephasic wrote...

FWIW, it's pretty clear now that the weapon strength requirements are out that rogues, practically speaking, will never wear anything but leather armor/never wield anything but daggers in melee combat.

By the endgame, the best leather armors require 20 strength. Medium armor, in contrast, requires 34. Wielding the best longswords or axes requires 31 strength, and the best maces 32 strength.

Putting those extra 11-14 attribute points into strength just isn't worth it, when you could focus on dex (higher defense, better damage with piercing weapons), willpower (more talents), con (more HP) or cunning (better armor piercing, higher damage once you have lethality).

You shouldn't expect a rogue to be a better warrior than a warrior - why else have a warrior?  

Did ya happen to catch if that was for 1h axes, or 2h axes? Because i'm goin off the deep end & attempting a dual wield axe rogue on one of my playthroughs, if I can find a way.

<----- Is a fan of axes!

Edit: Almost forgot, Dual Weapon Mastery should be viable for rogues in addition to warriors. If there is no viable way to dual wield full sized weapons on a rogue & still get the dex & cunning high enough for 4th tier rogue skills, then Dual Weapon Mastery is a gimp skill. (& yes, I know about Lethality, but daggers should not be a rogue's only viable choice, or once again, Dual Weapon Mastery is a gimp skill.)

Modifié par Tyrax Lightning, 01 novembre 2009 - 12:50 .

[telephasic]

Tyrax Lightning wrote...

Did ya happen to catch if that was for 1h axes, or 2h axes? Because i'm goin off the deep end & attempting a dual wield axe rogue on one of my playthroughs, if I can find a way.

<----- Is a fan of axes!

Edit: Almost forgot, Dual Weapon Mastery should be viable for rogues in addition to warriors. If there is no viable way to dual wield full sized weapons on a rogue & still get the dex & cunning high enough for 4th tier rogue skills, then Dual Weapon Mastery is a gimp skill. (& yes, I know about Lethality, but daggers should not be a rogue's only viable choice, or once again, Dual Weapon Mastery is a gimp skill.)

Two-handed weapons have even higher strength requirements - 38 IIRC. 

You can dual wield single-handed axes/swords/maces as a rogue.  But if you do, you will be left with few free points.  You won't be able to improve magic at all (meaning potions will stay very weak) and your constitution and willpower will stay in the very low 20s.  

I honestly think it's a poor tradeoff.  Yes, you'll do a bit more damage when you hit, but you'll sacrifice stamina and HP doing it.  Not lethally - but it probably will have inferior performance to daggers alone.  

Modifié par telephasic, 01 novembre 2009 - 05:16 .

[boiga]

The highest tier longswords and axes have a Str req of 31. Maces 32.

Chris Priestly's dagger wielding level 22 Rogue has a Str of 24+4. So, it'd only have meant taking 4 more points of Str for his rogue be dual wielding tier 7 medium sized weapons. So, that's certainly a viable option. . Remember, all rogues will want at least 20 Str anyway to equip tier 7 light armor. 12 more points is just 3 levels worth of attribute points. Go for it if that's what you want.

However, we don't know what the trade offs would be in regards to stamina, speed, and attack for going that route.

Modifié par boiga, 01 novembre 2009 - 06:13 .

[telephasic]

boiga wrote...

The highest tier longswords and axes have a Str req of 31. Maces 32.

Chris Priestly's dagger wielding level 22 Rogue has a Str of 24+4. So, it'd only have meant taking 4 more points of Str for his rogue be dual wielding tier 7 medium sized weapons.

I think you're misinterpreting what the +x means. 

Look at the character creater.  The + number changes as you add more points to something.  You'll see the numbers next to your base stats increase as you add the free attribute points. 

Like other recent Bioware games, I think this symbolizes the bonus those stat numbers give you.  But +4 for a 24 str seems low - I'm guessing as we level what is considered "base" strength becomes higher.  

[Cuthlan]

AviramG wrote...

ByblosHex wrote...

AviramG wrote...

but the warrior is good at surviving and fighting multiple enemies.

If a duelist whos sole purpose is to win 1v1 fights cant beat a warrior, then tactically there is no sense in ever using a duelist

Unless it's a party based game... oh wait, it is.

If you think about it a bit, you'll see that what you say makes no sense.
If a warrior beats a duelist 1v1, then the fighter defeats any opponent the duelist defeats 1v1. also, it can defeat multiple enemies.
ergo the duelist serves no purpose.

"oh wait, it is... oh how witty i am, guffaw guffaw"

That's nonsense. By that reasoning if a mage can beat a warrior 1 on 1, there's no reason to have anything in your party but mages.

He's right, this is a party-based game. Even if a warrior can defeat a duelist, that doesn't mean the warrior puts out more damage than a duelist. Put a duelist and a warrior in a fight side by side with the warrior tanking while the duelist lays out superior damage. That's the intent of party-based combat... one character is built to absorb damage efficiently (tank), while others are built to keep that tank alive by healing him and incapacitating crowds of enemies (healer/support/CC) and the rest deal large amounts of damage (dps).

And that's what a duelist is. DPS. In a party situation, they are a light-armored fighter built to deal large amounts of damage while someone else takes attacks from the monsters.