I'll put this on my wish list right next to Jade Empire 2
Modifié par Lord Aesir, 05 février 2012 - 09:17 .
Next Dragon Age, Armor and Weapon class Restrictions...
Débuté par
Madcat 124
, févr. 02 2012 12:13
#26
Posté 05 février 2012 - 09:16
Heimdall
-
- Members
- 13 225 messages
I think as long as rogues and mages (Should Arcane Warrior or a similar class appear) can wield swords again, warriors can use bows and duel wield axes and swords again, and fist fighting becomes available (Provided it isn't too effective) I'll be happy provided the skills for such weapon styles remains segregated to maintain differentiation between classes.
I'll put this on my wish list right next to Jade Empire 2
I'll put this on my wish list right next to Jade Empire 2
Retour en haut
#27
Posté 05 février 2012 - 09:25
Huntress
-
- Members
- 2 464 messages
I want my warriors in Dragon age to Dual Wield again and I don't care if it looks similar to a rogue when standing still, oh and bring back finishing moves also. If anyone do not wish to make a DW warrior then thats their choice, I want to play one but I can't because of the stupid and ununique* builds in DA2 for warriors.
*English
[edit] Etymology
un- + unique
[edit] Adjective
ununique (not comparable)
(rare) Not unique.
*English
[edit] Etymology
un- + unique
[edit] Adjective
ununique (not comparable)
(rare) Not unique.
#28
Posté 05 février 2012 - 10:06
Heimdall
-
- Members
- 13 225 messages
The reason they did it was because rogues and warriors bled together altogether too much in DA:O. I'm actually glad they tried to correct that, but they overcorrected.
#29
Posté 06 février 2012 - 02:02
philippe willaume
-
- Members
- 1 465 messages
Weapons limitation based on class is an artificial way to bring class differentiation.
Personally I preferred the way DA:0 was, I find DA:2 way to restrictive and really has an artificial fell to it.
The main issue is that rogue and warriors cover a very similar function in the game and DA:2 has even blurred those function game play wise even more so. So the differentiation uniqueness really comes from equipments and talents restriction.
Since armour is a passive differentiator (i.e. no talents related) there is only weapon to make the difference.
That being said the issue is really what makes the difference between a rogue and warrior fighting without armour with a two handed sword, sword and buckler, sword and dagger or sword and axe.
If it is based on weapons you can’t unless you have a set of talents per class per weapons.
Based on RL, taking on a guy in full plate with a two handed sword, or and husscarl or hoplite in full kit when you are in T-shirt and two sword is going to be a hell of a task. In fact taking a guy in T-shirt with a THS with two swords is just as a hell of a task.
It is not that unrealistic to differentiate the rogue and the warrior fighting styles based on light armour and using sub-optimal weapons that require very precise aiming for the rogue (does not mean taking a sniper shot each time)
As opposed to warrior use of highly effective weapons that does not really require a very specific target. (Does not equate to flailing like a Muppet)
We could push the difference further by add that the warrior tend to control the enemy movement via fencing and the rogue tend to be more get-in get out type of style.
(if we which we could even restrict it to weapon that can slice or any one handed weapons)
Stealth should be a separate skill not related to any class.
Then the weapons they use does not mater than much. And if it is still a bother we could affect different critical per weapon according to the class but movement penalties per typo of weapon and weapons speed should be enough.
Now a rogue with a Two handed axe pr sword, I would put that more in the warrior turned robber. IE a warrior with stealth but the option should be possible.
That being said pretty please bring at least back two weapon specialisations
Personally I preferred the way DA:0 was, I find DA:2 way to restrictive and really has an artificial fell to it.
The main issue is that rogue and warriors cover a very similar function in the game and DA:2 has even blurred those function game play wise even more so. So the differentiation uniqueness really comes from equipments and talents restriction.
Since armour is a passive differentiator (i.e. no talents related) there is only weapon to make the difference.
That being said the issue is really what makes the difference between a rogue and warrior fighting without armour with a two handed sword, sword and buckler, sword and dagger or sword and axe.
If it is based on weapons you can’t unless you have a set of talents per class per weapons.
Based on RL, taking on a guy in full plate with a two handed sword, or and husscarl or hoplite in full kit when you are in T-shirt and two sword is going to be a hell of a task. In fact taking a guy in T-shirt with a THS with two swords is just as a hell of a task.
It is not that unrealistic to differentiate the rogue and the warrior fighting styles based on light armour and using sub-optimal weapons that require very precise aiming for the rogue (does not mean taking a sniper shot each time)
As opposed to warrior use of highly effective weapons that does not really require a very specific target. (Does not equate to flailing like a Muppet)
We could push the difference further by add that the warrior tend to control the enemy movement via fencing and the rogue tend to be more get-in get out type of style.
(if we which we could even restrict it to weapon that can slice or any one handed weapons)
Stealth should be a separate skill not related to any class.
Then the weapons they use does not mater than much. And if it is still a bother we could affect different critical per weapon according to the class but movement penalties per typo of weapon and weapons speed should be enough.
Now a rogue with a Two handed axe pr sword, I would put that more in the warrior turned robber. IE a warrior with stealth but the option should be possible.
That being said pretty please bring at least back two weapon specialisations
#30
Posté 06 février 2012 - 05:07
Huntress
-
- Members
- 2 464 messages
"Based on RL, taking on a guy in full plate with a two handed sword, or and husscarl or hoplite in full kit when you are in T-shirt and two sword is going to be a hell of a task."
Based in RL German full plate armor in the sixteenth century represented the height of personal body armor in all of human history. This armor was called Maximilian armor and it was nearly impenetrable by all hand-powered weapons at the time. Even arrows and crossbow bolts were known to bounce off of such armor harmlessly. Furthermore, Maximilian armor distributed weight evenly throughout the body allowing freedom of movement and jogging
You have to realize that it took tremendous amounts of training and endurance for a medieval knight to effectively wear heavy armor and use weapons in combat, such that modern men cannot perceive how medieval arms could ever have been used effectively.
Though heavy armor was exclusively used among the wealthy, some rulers were wealthy enough to amass fairly large armies of heavy calvary.
The main trend that I noticed among all of my sources was that older books tended to argue that armor was very slow and ineffective, whereas modern sources tended to claim that armor was crafted well enough that it was fairly light, easy to maneuver in, and highly effective. I believe that it was more of the latter, or else plate armor would never have evolved into the glorious heavy suits that we all know from legend.
Other thing many of this warriors/knights used Chain mail armor, this was the main type of armor used during the Crusades because iron production had advanced to the point where excellent iron products could be mass-produced. As proof that mass production of iron goods existed in the Middle Ages, Chain mail was ideal for the travelling foot soldier because it was effective in combat but yet relatively light and very flexible.
Now what about the magic armor? wouldn't sometype of magical ingot/bar/ore be lighter and yet 3 times stronger that RL steal metal? is a magical world i think real life is out of it.
Based in RL German full plate armor in the sixteenth century represented the height of personal body armor in all of human history. This armor was called Maximilian armor and it was nearly impenetrable by all hand-powered weapons at the time. Even arrows and crossbow bolts were known to bounce off of such armor harmlessly. Furthermore, Maximilian armor distributed weight evenly throughout the body allowing freedom of movement and jogging
You have to realize that it took tremendous amounts of training and endurance for a medieval knight to effectively wear heavy armor and use weapons in combat, such that modern men cannot perceive how medieval arms could ever have been used effectively.
Though heavy armor was exclusively used among the wealthy, some rulers were wealthy enough to amass fairly large armies of heavy calvary.
The main trend that I noticed among all of my sources was that older books tended to argue that armor was very slow and ineffective, whereas modern sources tended to claim that armor was crafted well enough that it was fairly light, easy to maneuver in, and highly effective. I believe that it was more of the latter, or else plate armor would never have evolved into the glorious heavy suits that we all know from legend.
Other thing many of this warriors/knights used Chain mail armor, this was the main type of armor used during the Crusades because iron production had advanced to the point where excellent iron products could be mass-produced. As proof that mass production of iron goods existed in the Middle Ages, Chain mail was ideal for the travelling foot soldier because it was effective in combat but yet relatively light and very flexible.
Now what about the magic armor? wouldn't sometype of magical ingot/bar/ore be lighter and yet 3 times stronger that RL steal metal? is a magical world i think real life is out of it.
#31
Posté 06 février 2012 - 05:58
Uzzy
-
- Members
- 210 messages
Options, not restrictions.
That mantra should be stuck up on the wall of every RPG developer, and the move away from it is one of the worst things to occur in recent RPG's. Every class should be able to use all equipment.
Note that I didn't say use effectively.. that's the big difference. classes should be distinct through the additional options they bring to the player, not through opening up cheap restrictions.
That mantra should be stuck up on the wall of every RPG developer, and the move away from it is one of the worst things to occur in recent RPG's. Every class should be able to use all equipment.
Note that I didn't say use effectively.. that's the big difference. classes should be distinct through the additional options they bring to the player, not through opening up cheap restrictions.
#32
Guest_simfamUP_*
Posté 06 février 2012 - 08:59
Guest_simfamUP_*
Guest_simfamUP_*
-
- Guests
chunkyman wrote...
simfamSP wrote...
I hope they get rid of the class system alltogether.
At a minimum, you would need a mage class and non-mage class. This is because the abiity to use magic is based off genetics, not training. Non-mages should never be able to train their magic abilities, so some sort of class distinction is needed.
Hey! You didn't read the rest of my comment!
#33
Posté 06 février 2012 - 09:15
Davillo
-
- Members
- 301 messages
Its not hard to implement a Dual wielding warrior for gods sake they could have left the stupid 2 hander tee and renamed it, and abilities from that dps tree would work with both 2 handers and when wielding 2 swords or axes or whatever. Mighty blow scythe whirlwind would work just as well with dual wielding and it would be totally different from a rogue.
#34
Posté 06 février 2012 - 10:14
MagmaSaiyan
-
- Members
- 402 messages
you all do realize you can still add robes to warriors and armor to mages, for those that dont have a restriction on classes, it just that your points will go into something you dont necessarily need so thats still there but like all the dlc items which are class restricted.
#35
Posté 07 février 2012 - 11:32
Shevy
-
- Members
- 1 080 messages
Warriors should be able to use: 2 handed weapons, dual wield , weapon + shield, archery , just one 1 handed weapon and fists.
Rogues: dual wield, archery, 1 handed weapon, fists, weapon + shield, twohander
Mages: staves (maybe with some melee options) , wands and one handed weapons.
Armor should be wearable for everyone, if they have the required points spent in the abilities.
That said, you can build a dual wield warrior with leather armor and daggers, but you gimp yourself by investing points in dexterity.
Or a rogue with a twohander and heavy armor.
To prevent something like backstabbing with a twohander, give the classes some basic combat skills, which don't have any restrictions and some specific skills for the typical class weapons.
As a rogue you would have the basic skill tree with things like dodging or normal melee attacks, which fit every weapon type and then an archery tree, dual wield tree, 1 handed weapon tree to gain some specific skills, only usable with that weapon type.
Rogues: dual wield, archery, 1 handed weapon, fists, weapon + shield, twohander
Mages: staves (maybe with some melee options) , wands and one handed weapons.
Armor should be wearable for everyone, if they have the required points spent in the abilities.
That said, you can build a dual wield warrior with leather armor and daggers, but you gimp yourself by investing points in dexterity.
Or a rogue with a twohander and heavy armor.
To prevent something like backstabbing with a twohander, give the classes some basic combat skills, which don't have any restrictions and some specific skills for the typical class weapons.
As a rogue you would have the basic skill tree with things like dodging or normal melee attacks, which fit every weapon type and then an archery tree, dual wield tree, 1 handed weapon tree to gain some specific skills, only usable with that weapon type.
#36
Posté 07 février 2012 - 01:14
Yrkoon
-
- Members
- 4 764 messages
They don't even need to do that.Davillo wrote...
Its not hard to implement a Dual wielding warrior for gods sake they could have left the stupid 2 hander tee and renamed it, and abilities from that dps tree would work with both 2 handers and when wielding 2 swords or axes or whatever. Mighty blow scythe whirlwind would work just as well with dual wielding and it would be totally different from a rogue.
The system is already in place. All they need to do is make all the weapon-style trees (dual-wield. archery, sword&shield, 2-handed) class Neutral. Then, for 'distinction' purposes give warriors their own, seperate class and specializations trees, and Rogues their own class and specializations trees. That's how they did it in DA:O and it was glorious.
Modifié par Yrkoon, 07 février 2012 - 01:21 .
#37
Posté 07 février 2012 - 02:17
Malanu
-
- Members
- 145 messages
2 weapon warrior is a good idea. Make the restriction for dual sword wielding be higher strength. After all you need a bit more muscle to swing 2 swords safely than you do 2 daggers.
#38
Posté 07 février 2012 - 11:35
Huntress
-
- Members
- 2 464 messages
Malanu wrote...
2 weapon warrior is a good idea. Make the restriction for dual sword wielding be higher strength. After all you need a bit more muscle to swing 2 swords safely than you do 2 daggers.
I don't think I want to waste 3 more points to str so my warrior can dual wield.. my warrior could use a chain mail that way the str need it for the armor and weapons is lower? or what about using leather+ chainmail armor? to a warrior in it will feel like feathers or walking totally naked.. What if my warrior want to dress up like a pirate? with cloth+ Leather..? or do you think pirates were head to toes in full plate armor in the caribean?
Modifié par Huntress, 07 février 2012 - 11:37 .
#39
Posté 08 février 2012 - 04:56
KennethAFTopp
-
- Members
- 1 480 messages
I think having more Static Attributes, or numbers closer to each other would make more sense.
Meaning that there's a bigger difference between someone with 12 in Dex and 20 in Dex.
Yes More like D&D I know. But the discrepancy between 10 and 60 at the end of the game for me feels weird.
Also making all attributes matter to all classes would come a long way. Otherwise they might as well remove them, and I don't want that.
Meaning that there's a bigger difference between someone with 12 in Dex and 20 in Dex.
Yes More like D&D I know. But the discrepancy between 10 and 60 at the end of the game for me feels weird.
Also making all attributes matter to all classes would come a long way. Otherwise they might as well remove them, and I don't want that.
Modifié par KennethAFTopp, 08 février 2012 - 04:57 .
#40
Posté 08 février 2012 - 07:15
Uccio
-
- Members
- 4 696 messages
Origins had it well enough. I hate it when good things need to be changed in the name if "improvement" which sadly in fact means dumbing down.
#41
Posté 08 février 2012 - 07:24
philippe willaume
-
- Members
- 1 465 messages
Huntress wrote...
"Based on RL, taking on a guy in full plate with a two handed sword, or and husscarl or hoplite in full kit when you are in T-shirt and two sword is going to be a hell of a task."
Based in RL German full plate armor in the sixteenth century represented the height of personal body armor in all of human history. This armor was called Maximilian armor and it was nearly impenetrable by all hand-powered weapons at the time. Even arrows and crossbow bolts were known to bounce off of such armor harmlessly. Furthermore, Maximilian armor distributed weight evenly throughout the body allowing freedom of movement and jogging
You have to realize that it took tremendous amounts of training and endurance for a medieval knight to effectively wear heavy armor and use weapons in combat, such that modern men cannot perceive how medieval arms could ever have been used effectively.
Though heavy armor was exclusively used among the wealthy, some rulers were wealthy enough to amass fairly large armies of heavy calvary.
The main trend that I noticed among all of my sources was that older books tended to argue that armor was very slow and ineffective, whereas modern sources tended to claim that armor was crafted well enough that it was fairly light, easy to maneuver in, and highly effective. I believe that it was more of the latter, or else plate armor would never have evolved into the glorious heavy suits that we all know from legend.
Other thing many of this warriors/knights used Chain mail armor, this was the main type of armor used during the Crusades because iron production had advanced to the point where excellent iron products could be mass-produced. As proof that mass production of iron goods existed in the Middle Ages, Chain mail was ideal for the travelling foot soldier because it was effective in combat but yet relatively light and very flexible.
Now what about the magic armor? wouldn't sometype of magical ingot/bar/ore be lighter and yet 3 times stronger that RL steal metal? is a magical world i think real life is out of it.
hello we are kind of saying the same you know and as it happens I do have first hand experience.
that's me
so yes I have a good idea on how armour works and how effective it is. As well teach medieval fencing in foot on horse, with and without armour.
By the early 14th carburised iron was being replaced by quenched steel and then in Germany about 1475 by tempered steel.
Mail is heavier that plate and you really need a belt to distribute the weight conveniently.
25-30 kilo for a mail shirt (according the length and if there is arms or not)
a late 15th cent German harness (complete with helmet is about 25 kg and an Italian harness is about 30 kg).
A jack 35 layers of line + eventually raw hide lighter and just as efficient as mail afters that brigandine (riveted plate) is propbably the more used friendly form of body armour.
the armour in the video is 35 kg I am 95-100kg myself. it is not a bother to fight all day or to joust 3 times a day. (and that the same weigh as the “avant” armour in re Glasgow museum)
You just need to be moderately fit and know what you are doing but it is do not require special skills.
(Fencing against an armoured opponent does, but it is the fencing bit)
phil
#42
Posté 08 février 2012 - 07:29
Malanu
-
- Members
- 145 messages
Ah but a warrior doesn't need to "waste" points as they already pump point into Str. Isabella doesn't even wear pants much less armor! So IF you want to wield two long swords effectively you need to have the muscle to do it. I know. It's not easy to do in real life! Now an exception could be Elven made long swords as a Katana:ph34r: is quite a light (almost) long sword.Huntress wrote...
Malanu wrote...
2 weapon warrior is a good idea. Make the restriction for dual sword wielding be higher strength. After all you need a bit more muscle to swing 2 swords safely than you do 2 daggers.
I don't think I want to waste 3 more points to str so my warrior can dual wield.. my warrior could use a chain mail that way the str need it for the armor and weapons is lower? or what about using leather+ chainmail armor? to a warrior in it will feel like feathers or walking totally naked.. What if my warrior want to dress up like a pirate? with cloth+ Leather..? or do you think pirates were head to toes in full plate armor in the caribean?
#43
Posté 08 février 2012 - 07:37
philippe willaume
-
- Members
- 1 465 messages
Huntress wrote...
Malanu wrote...
2 weapon warrior is a good idea. Make the restriction for dual sword wielding be higher strength. After all you need a bit more muscle to swing 2 swords safely than you do 2 daggers.
I don't think I want to waste 3 more points to str so my warrior can dual wield.. my warrior could use a chain mail that way the str need it for the armor and weapons is lower? or what about using leather+ chainmail armor? to a warrior in it will feel like feathers or walking totally naked.. What if my warrior want to dress up like a pirate? with cloth+ Leather..? or do you think pirates were head to toes in full plate armor in the caribean?
yes totally agree in fact 2 sword are lighter than sword and shield... for example in some saga, a hero advocated using two weapons instead of a sword and a shield.
You have the crucible of the debate. There are really no difference between a "warrior" and “rogue” when the fence without armour (the naked fencing the 15th cent manuals).
Basically finding a distinction between fighting class based on weapon or amours can not be satisfying.
So as Yrkoon said making weapons class neutral as in DA:0 is a good way around it. you can still have the iconic move/talent for each class and they may be restricted to a certain weapon type.
phil
#44
Posté 08 février 2012 - 07:44
philippe willaume
-
- Members
- 1 465 messages
nope not really, if you exclude iato, most of the katana tashy in the tokyo sword museum are bout 2-3 lbs. the weight of a long-sword.Malanu wrote...
Ah but a warrior doesn't need to "waste" points as they already pump point into Str. Isabella doesn't even wear pants much less armor! So IF you want to wield two long swords effectively you need to have the muscle to do it. I know. It's not easy to do in real life! Now an exception could be Elven made long swords as a Katana:ph34r: is quite a light (almost) long sword.Huntress wrote...
Malanu wrote...
2 weapon warrior is a good idea. Make the restriction for dual sword wielding be higher strength. After all you need a bit more muscle to swing 2 swords safely than you do 2 daggers.
I don't think I want to waste 3 more points to str so my warrior can dual wield.. my warrior could use a chain mail that way the str need it for the armor and weapons is lower? or what about using leather+ chainmail armor? to a warrior in it will feel like feathers or walking totally naked.. What if my warrior want to dress up like a pirate? with cloth+ Leather..? or do you think pirates were head to toes in full plate armor in the caribean?
it is not that hard as such, it is conter productive to have two sword vs using two hand on one (and if you plan to have two hands (with the ocaasional one handed stunt), you migh as well make a long weapon.(ie type XVia, XVIIIbcde and XIIa.
phil
Modifié par philippe willaume, 08 février 2012 - 07:45 .
#45
Posté 08 février 2012 - 09:02
KennethAFTopp
-
- Members
- 1 480 messages
A single-Hand using a longsword like a 1½ sword might be a good way to go at it, Making it available for both Rogues and Warriors.
#46
Posté 10 février 2012 - 04:32
Davillo
-
- Members
- 301 messages
I had no problem with rogues and warriors in DA:0 using the same Dual Wield talent tree in a matter of fact I liked it because, a rogue and warrior specialized differently anyway. I'm all for rogues using swords and axes and maces but lets just stick em with 1 handed weapons.
#47
Posté 10 février 2012 - 04:56
Tommyspa
-
- Members
- 1 397 messages
I'm ok with DA3 and future things keeping the class restriction armors/weapons they are logical...but I would like to see the Dual Wield Warrior return with dual longswords. (ex. Miss Cassandra three swords in the movie)
#48
Posté 10 février 2012 - 05:20
Plaintiff
-
- Members
- 6 998 messages
I like the way DA2's class system works just fine. I thought it was totally **** that warrior's got dual wield and archery and rogues got so incredibly shortchanged.
I think class distinction is important and that, yes, that includes unique weapon talents.
Arguing that such distinctions remove player agency is just nonsense. Players knew what the limitations were when they started playing, and choosing what you wear and wield is extension of role-playing, not a requirement by any means.
I think class distinction is important and that, yes, that includes unique weapon talents.
Arguing that such distinctions remove player agency is just nonsense. Players knew what the limitations were when they started playing, and choosing what you wear and wield is extension of role-playing, not a requirement by any means.
#49
Posté 10 février 2012 - 05:29
HiroVoid
-
- Members
- 3 677 messages
How did rouges get shortchanged? They could wield regular swords with shields, and giant swords in DA:O as well.
Modifié par HiroVoid, 10 février 2012 - 05:30 .
#50
Posté 10 février 2012 - 07:36
Plaintiff
-
- Members
- 6 998 messages
Yeah, and got none of the related abilities. Rogues got one unique skill tree, Warriors got three and mages got four. That blows.HiroVoid wrote...
How did rouges get shortchanged? They could wield regular swords with shields, and giant swords in DA:O as well.
DA2, by comparison, gives each class gets at least six skill trees, and none overlap. How is that not better?
Modifié par Plaintiff, 10 février 2012 - 07:43 .
