99 réponses à ce sujet

[bleetman]

I got the impression rogues were meant to be more of a utility class, with stealth, lockpicking and faster skill gains to supplement their combat abilities, whilst warriors were all about bashing things with other, smaller things. Not that I'd say it really worked out that well in DAO, since none of the above were really all that useful to the point of being a requirement.

As for the actual topic, yes. Yes please. I desperately prefer being able to fashion together my own particular style of fighting rather than just going with whatever predetermined method the game has rigidly restricted me too.

Modifié par bleetman, 10 février 2012 - 10:21 .

[philippe willaume]

Plaintiff wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...

How did rouges get shortchanged? They could wield regular swords with shields, and giant swords in DA:O as well.

Yeah, and got none of the related abilities. Rogues got one unique skill tree, Warriors got three and mages got four. That blows.

DA2, by comparison, gives each class gets at least six skill trees, and none overlap. How is that not better?

it is not better stricto sensus, some find it better some do not.
What you said about Sword and shield about DA:0 is the same argument in reverse for warrior and dual wielding/archery in DA:2.
The concept of what is a warrior and what is a rogue will differs wildly for people, from their real life martial and literature/film game experience.
 
Me the first before I  started to study Medieval fencing, I though that armour was heavy, sword were 5kilos, two weapons where better than a Two handed one and mobility could replace armour.
 
10 years of fencing have thought me that the above paragraph is utter gonads. But really my point is that given your references and it can be purely game or literature based and have nothing to do with real life, your view of what a warrior and a rogue is will vary drastically.
 
Ie a rogue can be (and it is not an exhaustive  list)
A knight living in the forest.
A barbarian wandering the not so civilised world
A street urchin living by his wits
A professional cut-purse
A spy
A courtesan
An assassin.
 
In more way than one it is not really about the mechanics but about what each person want to play.
The more the weapons talent tree and the weapons are class based (i.e. restricted) the more painfull it it is going to be.

Modifié par philippe willaume, 10 février 2012 - 11:44 .

[Coous]

 I personally care little of restrictions what I can and cannot equip as chosen class, but some of these posts saying remove classes entirely needs to understand this game is built around a party, and the real customization should come from party make up and their talents. So I say sure let these people equip whatever they want on their party and their character, but at the same time some serious work should be done to party member's talents and the class themselves.

A warrior should be able to have some nice specialization on the weapon he uses( although I say leave out any archery talents, just not the ability to use a bow). Warriors should be the ones that actually should be able to tank reliably and for a long time. They should also be competivly viable damage dealers, but should really be restricted to melee type specializations.

A mage should not only be able specialize in just dps or healing, but what should be included is numerous ways for him how to do such things, like a support mage that can heal not so well,but can allow a damage mitigation to make up for it, or you can make a healing mage be about strong power heals that can be useful. I think the mage trees were heading mostly in the right direction of this regard most of all, although the specific 2 of 3 special class trees you can unlock as a mage is where a lot of the work is needed. 

The rogue is probably the hardest one to make, because you don't want it to blend too much with the warrior when it's a melee dps, but still be a very viable class to bring to a party on any fight. The archery tree needs a lot of help here, because I know the player's charecter if a rogue archer was pretty subpar to the other 2 archers becuase the actual talents suck and didn't really spec into much of it if really at all. 

So not only do the classes need a pretty a lot of work and their talents need to be a lot better designed for classes overall(some more than others). I also think Bioware should also allow more variaty and party members special trees and restricted to one way of play. Like Varric being archer rogue only( although they did design and had the character written to be an archer only) I think should lean off of restricting a party members story wise and mechanically to one thing to do well in their respective class. Becuase the idea is to be able to have a party that can be viable in many ways and make as many things as optimal as possible when it comes to make up of those individual classes. Now, there will always be a more optimal way how to do said 'encounter', but there should be encounters that are well enough designed to be not just challanging, but to also encourage interesting strategies and party make up based on how I would like classes to be above. 

Now none of this will be easy, this is a big task and very hard one at that will require time and good thought and work, but time should also repersent the quality and this kind of quality will require some time and good combat and class mechanics should represent the inovation to prove the game's quality. The way things were done in parts of DA2 seem to me like simple, and fast solutions of what they want to achieved with the time they were given and I think  if just given more time and with the lessons they learned for DA2 on what worked and didn't work they can make a real good decent game in combat, and story( but I won't go int othat because this thread is about weapon and restrictions, and kinda for me that goes hand in hand with classes and they way should be specialized with little weapon restrictions just becuase they are a certain class doesn't mean they can't or should be able to use it just, not very well at all). I am sorry for this really giant post, and I tried to keep it short as I could while elaborating on what I envisioned and make my points clear and understanding. 

TL;DR: classes need talent reworks and need to be well defined with restriction on roles, but yes they should not be completly restricted out of what gear they can use, but the most customization should be how to build your party and make as many comps of a party makeup as viable as can be while maintaining little class blending.Thus weapon restrictions are dumb and SHOULD NOT be implemented, just effectivness of a class to use those weapons.As well bosses should be well designed and challanging while encouraging interesting stratagies to be use to defeat these encounters. 




 

[philippe willaume]

I think DA:0 had it right conceptually.
It is not that hard to do.

By default
I think warrior class should do more damage with normal mêlée blows and to take on/lockup several opponents (ideally by reducing their movement)

And the rogue class should have reducing factor against the armour or the defence of the opponents and use lock picking/pick pocketing.
IE the class talents should be based on that

As well you could have something like a critical for a warrior causes an effect like stager or make fall and the critical for rogue cause extra damage.
Then talent could to cause other effects instead of on top of.
So the warrior could have a killing blow (extra damage on critical) and rogue could have a staggering blow talents

And all weapons should be open to them (and the heavier more stealth speed penalties (for exemple)

So you could have a rogue using a sword and shield or buckler and a warrior using the same equipment and still have classes differences.

For example a shield bash could be performed by the rogue and the warrior.
The damage done will be different but the effect will be the same.

[Malanu]

philippe willaume wrote...
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.
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

Ah... There's the diference I don't have the oldie but great swords of the past. I have a machine folded and a damascus steel Katana and several long swords and a two handed for good measure, which feel heavier than the Katanas. So I guess I'd have to judge my 2 weapon skills with the original. Fair enough.

Modifié par Malanu, 10 février 2012 - 01:24 .

[Malanu]

deleted for dbl posting

Modifié par Malanu, 10 février 2012 - 01:23 .

[Yrkoon]

Plaintiff wrote...

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.

  Not sure what you're talking about.  Rogues got  complete access to both the  Dual wield and Archery trees in Origins.  In fact, those two trees worked better  for rogues than for warriors, since  most of the  talents in those trees carried a  DEXTERITY requirement, which is a rogue's primary stat.


And someone help me out here.  What's wrong with overlap in an RPG?  It allows for Customization choice.  You know,  Like when  you want to make a Warrior who's good with a Bow, you can do it, since with an overlap,  the Archery Tree   wouldn't be  limited to   Rogues  Only  (for example).  If anything, DA:O didn't go far enough with the Overlap.    They threw us a Bone with the Arcane Warrior specialization.   But they should have done something like that for every class, not just mages.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 10 février 2012 - 02:07 .

[TEWR]

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.

And now Warriors get shortchanged. Warriors can't use bows or dual wield now.

Yea, nothing's changed.

[goofyomnivore]

I'd just have there be two classes. Non-Mage(Citizen?) and Mage. Let the player create his own class.

[FieryDove]

I want choices, my choices. If I want to make a DW warrior or archer warrior I will do it...or I will take my sand and go home to my own sandbox. So...there.

[TEWR]

And someone help me out here. What's wrong with overlap in an RPG? It allows for Customization choice. You know, Like when you want to make a Warrior who's good with a Bow, you can do it, since with an overlap, the Archery Tree wouldn't be limited to Rogues Only (for example). If anything, DA:O didn't go far enough with the Overlap. They threw us a Bone with the Arcane Warrior specialization. But they should have done something like that for every class, not just mages.

I agree sort of.

I'd be fine with Mages being only able to equip staves -- or alternatively staves and the other weapons -- and not having any of the weapon skill trees to go with them. The Arcane Warrior tree provided the mages with their own style of Warrior-like fighting. And as you said, that was a bone thrown to us.

If it ever comes back, I'd like it to have talents that allow for the Mage to be Warrior and Rogue. To explain a bit better, the talents in the Arcane Warrior in DAO are more Warrior-oriented talents for mages. A mage could wear heavy armor by using his magic as a substitute for strength.

If it ever comes back, I'd like to see a few talents that are kinda Rogue-oriented talents for mages in the Arcane Warrior tree. What they would be, I don't know. But this way the Mages could have enough overlap for the player. Obviously, they'd use the same animations depending on the weapon they're using. But they wouldn't have any of the abilities that say Aveline or Fenris has in their respective weapon trees.

Plaintiff does have a point in that Rogues can't have a S&S tree or a 2H tree in Origins. But DAII didn't solve this problem. It just tried to mask it and it did a poor job of it.

Were it up to me, all non-mage classes would have access to each of the respective weapon trees (Archery, 2H, etc.). 

The animations are already there, so it would just be a matter of making the non-mage characters use them. Then we could overlap non-mage classes to our heart's desire.

Because I do enjoy overlap and so do other people I'm sure. It allows for more customizing depending on how I want to play.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 10 février 2012 - 05:56 .

[philippe willaume]

Malanu wrote...

philippe willaume wrote...
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.
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

Ah... There's the diference I don't have the oldie but great swords of the past. I have a machine folded and a damascus steel Katana and several long swords and a two handed for good measure, which feel heavier than the Katanas. So I guess I'd have to judge my 2 weapon skills with the original. Fair enough.

Hello
Well I have type XVIIIe that is just shy of 4lbs but it the blade is 1.20 m... based on a sword in the Lodosse museum in sweden.
So that will be heavier than you average tashi, I use it one handed on horse back but it not practical on foot. (Not that it does can be done,  it is just too big for tiny little me and i look like rapier fencer)
Generally speaking the balance point is much more forward on katana than in European longsword (hence the proportionally longer handle for the katana).
there is so much research to do, that is almost not worth the efforrt
It is an epic battle to find originals not buggered up by victortians.
as well long-sword is anything from a 70 cm with a 7 inch handle to 130 cm balde an 12 in handle. not to mention the panzerstecher. And it is the same with tashi/katana so..
 
if you are interested

http://www.myarmoury...oakeshott2.html
http://www.hyoho.com/Nkage2.html
http://www.albion-sw...ords-museum.htm

For Japanese’s you can look at the dimension of actual blades and look for modern replica of the same length and blade thickness to get an idea of the weight.  (ie about 2.6 lbs)
Phil

[philippe willaume]

Yrkoon wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

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.

  Not sure what you're talking about.  Rogues got  complete access to both the  Dual wield and Archery trees in Origins.  In fact, those two trees worked better  for rogues than for warriors, since  most of the  talents in those trees carried a  DEXTERITY requirement, which is a rogue's primary stat.


And someone help me out here.  What's wrong with overlap in an RPG?  It allows for Customization choice.  You know,  Like when  you want to make a Warrior who's good with a Bow, you can do it, since with an overlap,  the Archery Tree   wouldn't be  limited to   Rogues  Only  (for example).  If anything, DA:O didn't go far enough with the Overlap.    They threw us a Bone with the Arcane Warrior specialization.   But they should have done something like that for every class, not just mages.

he is saying that a rogue can't use any sword and shield talents in DA:0 which is true just as it is true the a warrior can dual wield at all or use any bow related talents.
 
that being said i agree (as per on of my previous post) it is better if we have more talen tree avaliable for a given class.
phil

[Coous]

Yrkoon wrote...


And someone help me out here.  What's wrong with overlap in an RPG?  It allows for Customization choice.  You know,  Like when  you want to make a Warrior who's good with a Bow, you can do it, since with an overlap,  the Archery Tree   wouldn't be  limited to   Rogues  Only  (for example).  If anything, DA:O didn't go far enough with the Overlap.    They threw us a Bone with the Arcane Warrior specialization.   But they should have done something like that for every class, not just mages.

IMO my problem with a lot overlapping, and especially when it's the warrior and rogue with very similar  trees is that what's the point of having two classes then? For me a warrior that uses a bow isn't in a sense a "warrior archtype" way to fight, but it's defiantly something that would fit a rogue's archtype. If you're going to go out of your way to make 2 archtypes that overlap a lot then why have 2 in the first place. Why not then just eliminate 1 of the class archtypes and have a grand total of 2 that being a magic user and non magic user. That's why I feel it's important to make as little overlap with the trees themselves, i don't care about weapon restrictions I don't think they should be there,but there should be a restriction on what archtype can specialize fighting in.

I also totally forgot when I wrote up my giant post earlier about Arcane Warriors, I would agree in that I would like to see a serious well done arcane warrior make a return. Now it that seems a little contradictory of what I've said, and it is in a way, although I feel like the arcane warrior is a reasonable exception for lore reasons. Especially since lore wise magic is genetic, and not something one could be taught to be picked up by just anybody.

[HiroVoid]

To be fair, lorewise, mages are supposed to be way more powerful. I never saw why this was such a big problem since we're not doing multiplayer, so one class isn't killing all other classes.

[Yrkoon]

Coous wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...


And someone help me out here.  What's wrong with overlap in an RPG?  It allows for Customization choice.  You know,  Like when  you want to make a Warrior who's good with a Bow, you can do it, since with an overlap,  the Archery Tree   wouldn't be  limited to   Rogues  Only  (for example).  If anything, DA:O didn't go far enough with the Overlap.    They threw us a Bone with the Arcane Warrior specialization.   But they should have done something like that for every class, not just mages.

IMO my problem with a lot overlapping, and especially when it's the warrior and rogue with very similar  trees is that what's the point of having two classes then? For me a warrior that uses a bow isn't in a sense a "warrior archtype" way to fight, but it's defiantly something that would fit a rogue's archtype. If you're going to go out of your way to make 2 archtypes that overlap a lot then why have 2 in the first place. Why not then just eliminate 1 of the class archtypes and have a grand total of 2 that being a magic user and non magic user. That's why I feel it's important to make as little overlap with the trees themselves, i don't care about weapon restrictions I don't think they should be there,but there should be a restriction on what archtype can specialize fighting in.

I also totally forgot when I wrote up my giant post earlier about Arcane Warriors, I would agree in that I would like to see a serious well done arcane warrior make a return. Now it that seems a little contradictory of what I've said, and it is in a way, although I feel like the arcane warrior is a reasonable exception for lore reasons. Especially since lore wise magic is genetic, and not something one could be taught to be picked up by just anybody.

A couple of things.  Overlap  (or at least the way I'm using the term), does not mean "clone".  It means Both classes  happen  to share a few skills/talents.  But in the end, even  those skills would still be governed/enhanced by the classes' unique stuff .  We get this in DA:O.  Rogues and Fighters both had the Dual-wielding tree.  But rogues get to backstab with their weapons, and launch their talents from stealth.  While warriors get Death blow, and berserker rage etc.  Rogues also get a slew of other non-combat  skills  (lockpicking; bard songs etc) that that are unique to them.

Also, to play devil's advocate.  Why should Bows be avaliable to rogues at all?   Bows are martial weapons.  If we want to get technical,   your typical rogue shouldn't  know how to use a martial weapon anyway  (where  would he learn to use it?   While working for the city guard?  or the armed forces?)

  But really.  I think people are getting a little carried away  in their zeal for concrete "archtypes".    I understand the "logic" behind  keeping the classes rigidly distinctive from one another,  But I've yet to  see a single person on this thread give a  good reason why.   I'd like to hear one.  Just one good  reason why  Warriors and Rogues can't both dualwield.  And when I say  "good reason", I mean a  good reason.  One that trumps the  player freedom argument.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 10 février 2012 - 09:57 .

[Gotholhorakh]

Yrkoon wrote...
  But really.  I think people are getting a little carried away  in their zeal for concrete "archtypes".    I understand the "logic" behind  keeping the classes rigidly distinctive from one another,  But I've yet to  see a single person on this thread give a  good reason why.   I'd like to hear one.  Just one good  reason why  Warriors and Rogues can't both dualwield.  And when I say  "good reason", I mean a  good reason.  One that trumps the  player freedom argument.

I can't give you a good reason - in fact, I completely agree with you, but I will say this - I've had occasion to use swords (and other weapons, including shields) and armour quite a bit with a historical society doing historical combat/knight's tournaments, with plenty of fencing and hitting and getting slightly hurt involved (although admittedly no fatalities ) and I've got to say that using two swords/weapons in real life is largely pointless and stupid and certain get you hurt or killed for most people. I would say that even in a fantasy world where it wasn't mostly ludicrous, I think you would have to have.. wait for it... an unbelievable nay legendary level of dexterity, agility and co-ordination to have any possibility of surviving and not chopping bits off yourself in a fight, let alone killing anyone.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 10 février 2012 - 10:41 .

[Yrkoon]

I'm the same way with magic. For the last 2 years I've been attempting to cast a simple Winter's Grasp. Can't do it. It's literally impossible.

[philippe willaume]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...
  But really.  I think people are getting a little carried away  in their zeal for concrete "archtypes".    I understand the "logic" behind  keeping the classes rigidly distinctive from one another,  But I've yet to  see a single person on this thread give a  good reason why.   I'd like to hear one.  Just one good  reason why  Warriors and Rogues can't both dualwield.  And when I say  "good reason", I mean a  good reason.  One that trumps the  player freedom argument.

I can't give you a good reason - in fact, I completely agree with you, but I will say this - I've had occasion to use swords (and other weapons, including shields) and armour quite a bit with a historical society doing historical combat/knight's tournaments, with plenty of fencing and hitting and getting slightly hurt involved (although admittedly no fatalities ) and I've got to say that using two swords/weapons in real life is largely pointless and stupid and certain get you hurt or killed for most people. I would say that even in a fantasy world where it wasn't mostly ludicrous, I think you would have to have.. wait for it... an unbelievable nay legendary level of dexterity, agility and co-ordination to have any possibility of surviving and not chopping bits off yourself in a fight, let alone killing anyone.

In RL it does make sens to use two weapons when you are using a weapon that is lacking cuting or thrusting power. (ie rapier and daguer or stike and knife) as well if you have good armour you could drop the shield for two weapons (but a longer weapon is really more advantgeous in that case) and we have a famous japanesse school where two swords are the norm.
but as you said, like a buckler alone, any one handed weapon is too easy to decieve.

one reason could be the paying space occupied by the role so each class is easier to user. but  as Yrkoon pointed out, and i do totally agree, the class uniqueness and ease of used can be defined outside the scope of weapon restrictions
philippe

[Plaintiff]

Yrkoon wrote...
  Not sure what you're talking about.  Rogues got  complete access to both the  Dual wield and Archery trees in Origins.  In fact, those two trees worked better  for rogues than for warriors, since  most of the  talents in those trees carried a  DEXTERITY requirement, which is a rogue's primary stat.

They didn't get access to sword & shield, or two-handed weapon skills. I don't care if Archery and Dual Wield worked better, I care that Rogues only got three skill trees and that only one was unique to them. Compare this to Warriors, who get five skill trees, with three that are unique, and mages, who get four, all of which are unique. Customisation for Rogues was extremely lacking. Stealth and Lockpicking do not make up for that. Being able to equip a sword and shield means jack squat if I can't learn the skills that will allow me to be any good with them.

And someone help me out here.  What's wrong with overlap in an RPG?

In a solo game? Nothing. When I'm being given a class-based system that features multiple party members, I want them to be genuinely varied and distinct from each other. Overlap just creates redundancy, which is boring. Giving Warriors extra weapon skills when they won't be as good at them anyway is stupid. Failing to give Rogues anything extra to make up the difference is even worse.

It allows for Customization choice.You know,  Like when  you want to make a Warrior who's good with a Bow, you can do it, since with an overlap,  the Archery Tree   wouldn't be  limited to   Rogues  Only  (for example).  If anything, DA:O didn't go far enough with the Overlap.    They threw us a Bone with the Arcane Warrior specialization.   But they should have done something like that for every class, not just mages.

An extra specialisation per class wouldn't have made Rogues any less lame by comparison. They'd still have less than everyone else.

There is plenty of customisation choice in DA2. More than Origins ever had, in fact. Each individual class has more options than they had in DA:O, while still maintaining distinct roles and avoiding redundancy. Losing weapon overlap is a miniscule sacrifice and one that I was happy to make since I never liked it in the first place. In conjuction with the fact that you get more Warrior party members than any other kind of class, weapon redundancy was the precise reason that I never played a Warrior in Origins.

[Yrkoon]

Plaintiff wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...
  Not sure what you're talking about.  Rogues got  complete access to both the  Dual wield and Archery trees in Origins.  In fact, those two trees worked better  for rogues than for warriors, since  most of the  talents in those trees carried a  DEXTERITY requirement, which is a rogue's primary stat.

They didn't get access to sword & shield, or two-handed weapon skills.

While warriors didn't get access to Stealth, and  Backstabbing.... two huge, all-purpose combat skills that  a rogue can use  at will.  And this is in addition to having full access to the Archery and Dualwielding Trees, as well as the Rogue Tree itself, which bestows  massive bonusses to  defense,  critical chance and critical damage in combat.    So...  where does "shortchanged rogues" come into the picture again?

Also, something not mentioned on this thread at all yet.  Dexterity, a Rogue's primary stat,  itself is overpowered.  in Origins, you can make a dex-based rogue, and by the time you're halfway through the game, you can no longer be hit  in combat.  Literally.  You can go toe to do with any enemy and they... will be unable to hit you.  Sure, warriors can do the same thing, but it requires that they completely forego practically every talent in the 2-h   and Sword and shield tree,  (because those  have a high strength requirement) thus rendering them completely impotent in offense.  Not the case with rogues, who only become  more powerful, damage-dealing wise, with a high dexterity.

Plaintiff wrote...

And someone help me out here.  What's wrong with overlap in an RPG?

In a solo game? Nothing. When I'm being given a class-based system that features multiple party members, I want them to be genuinely varied and distinct from each other..

Because that was a  criticial  problem in DA:O, don't you know.    I mean,   Oghren and Lelianna were practically carbon copies of one another in combat.... Right?

Modifié par Yrkoon, 11 février 2012 - 09:52 .

[Coous]

Yrkoon wrote...

Coous wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...


And someone help me out here.  What's wrong with overlap in an RPG?  It allows for Customization choice.  You know,  Like when  you want to make a Warrior who's good with a Bow, you can do it, since with an overlap,  the Archery Tree   wouldn't be  limited to   Rogues  Only  (for example).  If anything, DA:O didn't go far enough with the Overlap.    They threw us a Bone with the Arcane Warrior specialization.   But they should have done something like that for every class, not just mages.

IMO my problem with a lot overlapping, and especially when it's the warrior and rogue with very similar  trees is that what's the point of having two classes then? For me a warrior that uses a bow isn't in a sense a "warrior archtype" way to fight, but it's defiantly something that would fit a rogue's archtype. If you're going to go out of your way to make 2 archtypes that overlap a lot then why have 2 in the first place. Why not then just eliminate 1 of the class archtypes and have a grand total of 2 that being a magic user and non magic user. That's why I feel it's important to make as little overlap with the trees themselves, i don't care about weapon restrictions I don't think they should be there,but there should be a restriction on what archtype can specialize fighting in.

I also totally forgot when I wrote up my giant post earlier about Arcane Warriors, I would agree in that I would like to see a serious well done arcane warrior make a return. Now it that seems a little contradictory of what I've said, and it is in a way, although I feel like the arcane warrior is a reasonable exception for lore reasons. Especially since lore wise magic is genetic, and not something one could be taught to be picked up by just anybody.

A couple of things.  Overlap  (or at least the way I'm using the term), does not mean "clone".  It means Both classes  happen  to share a few skills/talents.  But in the end, even  those skills would still be governed/enhanced by the classes' unique stuff .  We get this in DA:O.  Rogues and Fighters both had the Dual-wielding tree.  But rogues get to backstab with their weapons, and launch their talents from stealth.  While warriors get Death blow, and berserker rage etc.  Rogues also get a slew of other non-combat  skills  (lockpicking; bard songs etc) that that are unique to them.

Also, to play devil's advocate.  Why should Bows be avaliable to rogues at all?   Bows are martial weapons.  If we want to get technical,   your typical rogue shouldn't  know how to use a martial weapon anyway  (where  would he learn to use it?   While working for the city guard?  or the armed forces?)

  But really.  I think people are getting a little carried away  in their zeal for concrete "archtypes".    I understand the "logic" behind  keeping the classes rigidly distinctive from one another,  But I've yet to  see a single person on this thread give a  good reason why.   I'd like to hear one.  Just one good  reason why  Warriors and Rogues can't both dualwield.  And when I say  "good reason", I mean a  good reason.  One that trumps the  player freedom argument.

While I also understand you wanting a lot more freedom in class choices and in a way share the same goal just a different way achieving it. My main problem with DA:O Rogue and Warrior DW(my first charecter was a DW warrior) is that if you're going to give them both dual wielding, then you should make the skill set of that type a fighting a bit more unique with few as possible shared talents. I wouldn't mind loosening my 'concrete' archtypes if they made the fighting unique enough from eachother.

The difference in DA:O when playing a dw warrior or rogue was just about posistioning, and I found that un-fun and not really that great because that was pretty much the differnce you got in feeling. It personally made feel like not even wanting to finish playing my rouge, and I didn't becuase of the homogenizing of the talents, but to be fair there will be some overlap becuase you're still using the same fighting style. Then what ARE you going to give the warrior in his tree that makes his dwing weapons 'fun' and 'unique' to justify giving him that tree,where it probably cost getting rid of another tree as I'm sure Bioware would probably give the classes the same number of trees,so with that in mind, what would YOU give to make the experience 'feel' different, and 'play' very different from eachother despite having the same kind of fighting tree that revolves around dual wielding weapons.

Also, the bow wasn't only used martially, it was a weapon used to hunt as well, it is a very commoners weapon, but like ANY weapon to be good with it you do need to practice with it,and I don't think it's quite out of reach of a rogue. But if you were wealthy enough to afford armor and fight on foot, then you have no need or little need to learn such weapon.

[Yrkoon]

Er.... I wouldn't dismiss away positioning as something minor. It IS (and always has been) the defining difference between Warriors and Rogues when it comes to discussing the Archtypes.

Warriors are straight forward fighters who engage the front lines and take the battle to the enemy. While rogues are sneaks who take advantage of  blindspots and battlefield chaos to catch the enemy unaware.

And this is all beside the point anyway. By arguing  that Warriors can't dual-wield weapons but rogues can,  Bioware is  basically saying that Rogues are Better than Warriors when it comes to  mastering hand to hand combat. A ridiculous claim that goes against... well, just about everything. Ditto with ranged weapons (bows, crossbows). Since when has the archtype  (or anything) dictated that ranged combat is the domain of Rogues and not Warriors? Oh wait. I know  exactly when: March 2011.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 11 février 2012 - 10:24 .