99 réponses à ce sujet

[Coous]

 While backstabing is the iconic major differance between the two,and frankly in DA:O that was the only differance and in the grand scheme of things that was pretty minor. If you're going to give 2 classes the same weapon style, then you damn well sure make them feel differant and unique from each other. I would like to see the rogue maintain its bursty play style with the dual wield tree, and have a nice sustain damage feel with the bow. Then give the warrior two-handed tree a very bursty style feel with its talents, but then have the dual wield warrior be a very sustain constant damage with their talents.  That way you can interchange the 2 classes to do 2 roles, but in a different manner, like a boss encouter that has lt. ranked adds that need to be killed fast. You now have 2 classes that can do both burst and sustain, but in two different unique ways, and allows for some party strategy and gives some much wanted freedom.

[Yrkoon]

Coous wrote...

 While backstabing is the iconic major differance between the two,and frankly in DA:O that was the only differance

  The only difference?   Really?    So your warrior could Stealth in DA:O?    No he couldn't.  So  we  really have 2 major differences, don't we.  And that's not counting  the stuff we've been discussing since page one.  (warriors got their 2-h and Sword  & shield Trees.  Rogues don't) There's also  the Specializations.  But  we'll discuss those below.

and in the grand scheme of things that was pretty minor. If you're going to give 2 classes the same weapon style, then you damn well sure make them feel differant and unique from each other.

Why?      Give me a reason.    Otherwise you're simply  advocating  the  restriction of player's freedom  "just because" . 


Enough of this worthless drivel.  The two classes have multiple specializations  *already* to distinguish them from one another, even IF Stealth and Backstabbing isn't enough  (which it certainly is)  They also have their base class tree, which *alone* makes them  just as different from each other as  a comparison between mages and warriors.

The only thing DA2 did was eliminate  player agency.   it *forced*   players  to either dualwield 2 daggers, or use a bow, otherwise they couldn't be rogues.  And it tightened the grip even *more* with Companions, as  the player had no choice whatsoever with them.  They could only  have ONE weapon style, despite the fact that their classes allowed them to have 2.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 11 février 2012 - 01:55 .

[Huntress]

Yrkoon wrote...

Coous wrote...

 While backstabing is the iconic major differance between the two,and frankly in DA:O that was the only differance

  The only difference?   Really?    So your warrior could Stealth in DA:O?    No he couldn't.  So  we  really have 2 major differences, don't we.  And that's not counting  the stuff we've been discussing since page one.  (warriors got their 2-h and Sword  & shield Trees.  Rogues don't) There's also  the Specializations.  But  we'll discuss those below.

and in the grand scheme of things that was pretty minor. If you're going to give 2 classes the same weapon style, then you damn well sure make them feel differant and unique from each other.

Why?      Give me a reason.    Otherwise you're simply  advocating  the  restriction of player's freedom  "just because" . 


Enough of this worthless drivel.  The two classes have multiple specializations  *already* to distinguish them from one another, even IF Stealth and Backstabbing isn't enough  (which it certainly is)  They also have their base class tree, which *alone* makes them  just as different from each other as  a comparison between mages and warriors.

The only thing DA2 did was eliminate  player agency.   it *forced*   players  to either dualwield 2 daggers, or use a bow, otherwise they couldn't be rogues.  And it tightened the grip even *more* with Companions, as  the player had no choice whatsoever with them.  They could only  have ONE weapon style, despite the fact that their classes allowed them to have 2.

Bolded part I totally agree with you. I don't like forced builds in da2 look what happen to warriors and anyone plaease tell me where was the uniqueness of the hawke warrior? unique was Isabela/Fenris.
I like my rogues with swords don't care if she looks like the white divine thats how I like it.

Modifié par Huntress, 11 février 2012 - 03:10 .

[Yrkoon]

Daedric Swords make everything look better.

[Amfortas]

I would personally eliminate all class restrictions, make all talents available to every character, and allow attributes to be the ones that truly define the character. Restrict the skills based on the attributes, not the class.
For this to work, the attributes system should be changed as well, 3 points each level is too much. I like the system kotor used, with one point every three or four levels.
Every companion would be different if they have a different set of attributes, but nothing would prevent you from using them in a non optimal way, or making someone who knows a bit of everything.

[Plaintiff]

Yrkoon wrote...

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.

Oh my god, I totally never noticed that Rogues benefit from statistics differently! Thank you so much for opening my eyes!

Are you ****ing kidding me with this? I know about all of that crap, and it isn't good enough. I don't care about Stealth or Backstabbing. That is the least Bioware could do, I expect similar mechanics for Rogues in any class-based game. I'm supposed to jump for joy because Rogues get Dual Wield and Archery as well? Because I'm not going to. This stuff is common sense, I expect it. I'm not going to praise Origins for doing something that it should be doing anyway.

I don't need a lesson on how Dexterity works and I definitely don't need one about how the currently existing Skill Trees in Origins work. I know all of that already and it has nothing to do with anything that I said.

I'll say it really slowly for you:

Rogues. In. Origins. Need. More. Abilities. To. Compensate. For. The. Lack. Of. Unique. Weapon. Talent. Trees.

I don't care if they are more effective with Dual Wield and Archery. I don't care if the Rogue tree offers awesome defense bonuses. I don't care if their current abilities are super-duper awesome. My issue is choices. There aren't enough of them. When I play a  Rogue in Origins, my options are severely limited compared to the other two classes. That is a problem.

DA2 offers more customisation than DA:O ever did because each class has more options for character-building over all than Origins provided, even with the (totally crap) one-way crossover of weapon talents.
 
Oh, but since it doesn't fit in with your personal, made-up definition of "customisation", I guess it doesn't count, right?

Modifié par Plaintiff, 12 février 2012 - 05:07 .

[Yrkoon]

Plaintiff wrote...

I don't care if they are more effective with Dual Wield and Archery. I don't care if the Rogue tree offers awesome defense bonuses. I don't care if their current abilities are super-duper awesome. My issue is choices. There aren't enough of them. When I play a  Rogue in Origins, my options are severely limited compared to the other two classes. That is a problem.

So let me see if I understand your argument about rogues  in DA:O.     You're saying that Despite the fact that they're overpowered, you still think they need more  unique skills?  So, in your opinion, they should be even more overpowered?

Well ok.     But you should probably edit your "short changed"  comment and clarify that by "Rogues got short changed" what you really mean is that they weren't overpowered enough to  completely break the game.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 12 février 2012 - 05:37 .

[Plaintiff]

Yrkoon wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I don't care if they are more effective with Dual Wield and Archery. I don't care if the Rogue tree offers awesome defense bonuses. I don't care if their current abilities are super-duper awesome. My issue is choices. There aren't enough of them. When I play a  Rogue in Origins, my options are severely limited compared to the other two classes. That is a problem.

So let me see if I understand your argument about rogues  in DA:O.     You're saying that Despite the fact that they're overpowered, you still think they need more  unique skills?  So, in your opinion, they should be even more overpowered?

Well ok.     But you should probably edit your "short changed"  comment and clarify that by "Rogues got short changed" what you really mean is that they weren't overpowered enough to break the game.

Okay, seriously? I don't know how you can continue to misinterpret what I'm saying.

If Rogues in Origins are overpowered, then that is a separate issue. It is entirely irrelevant the fact that their options are absurdly limited in comparison to the other classes.

Do you understand how incredibly hypocritical you're being? "How dare Bioware restrict player freedom! We should be allowed to build any kind of character we want, with no regard whatsoever for the established class-based system of the series! Unless you pick a class that I deem to be overpowered, in which case **** you and take what you're given!"

[goofyomnivore]

When I play a Rogue in Origins, my options are severely limited compared to the other two classes. That is a problem.

Due to lore restrictions it is hard to make very many options. I guess they could add a one-handed fighting style to rogues, but other than that I can't really think of anything else. Other fantasy games let warriors and rogues splash into magic to create a variety of options. That is harder in Dragon Age due to the whole mage situation.

The rogue though is really powerful in Origins. Build wise it has a ton of options and versatility.  It can use a dex build and out perform a warrior in tanking, dw and archery while a warrior has to build its self in a particular way just to compete. Same with a cunning rogue it can out dps, out support and out range a warrior who builds its self in a particular way.

Modifié par strive, 12 février 2012 - 05:50 .

[Yrkoon]

Plaintiff wrote...

Okay, seriously? I don't know how you can continue to misinterpret what I'm saying.

If Rogues in Origins are overpowered, then that is a separate issue. It is entirely irrelevant the fact that their options are absurdly limited in comparison to the other classes.

Do you understand how incredibly hypocritical you're being? "How dare Bioware restrict player freedom! We should be allowed to build any kind of character we want, with no regard whatsoever for the established class-based system of the series! Unless you pick a class that I deem to be overpowered, in which case **** you and take what you're given!"

I wouldn't say it's a seperate issue. if Backstabbing and Defense are enough to make a 2-h sword wielding Rogue overpowered, then why the hell do they also need access to the 2-h tree talents? Answer: they don't.

But yes, overall, I think it'd be cool if Rogues DID have access to the 2h tree (for example). But to claim they were short-changed in DA:O is silly. Especially in light of just how nerfed they were in DA2, where they could no longer even WIELD 2-handed weapons, let alone use them without a tree. 

In DA2 Rogues can no longer even wield swords, axes, maces, or mauls of any type... while warriors still can. And don't give me that NONSENSE about how they were given a bajillion more trees to "compensate". Because Warriors were ALSO given a bajillion more trees..... while maintaining a wider variety of weapon choices than rogues.

I'll take the old system, thanks. More player freedom in it.  Especially for Rogues.  As well as a crap-ton  less illogical restrictions    (like:  Oh no no no.  Warriors aren't good enough in combat  to fight with 2 weapons.  or to use bows)

Modifié par Yrkoon, 12 février 2012 - 06:04 .

[Plaintiff]

Yrkoon wrote...
I wouldn't say it's a seperate issue. if Backstabbing and Defense are enough to make a 2-h sword wielding Rogue overpowered, then why the hell do they also need access to the 2-h tree talents? Answer: they don't.

But yes, overall, I think it'd be cool if Rogues DID have access to the 2h tree (for example). But to claim they were short-changed in DA:O is silly. Especially in light of just how nerfed they were in DA2, where they could no longer even WIELD 2-handed weapons, let alone use them without a tree.

In DA2 Rogues can no longer even wield swords, axes, maces, or mauls of any type... while warriors still can. And don't give me that NONSENSE about how they were given a bajillion more trees to "compensate". Because Warriors were ALSO given a bajillion more trees..... while maintaining a wider variety of weapon choices than rogues.

I'll take the old system, thanks. More player freedom in it.  Especially for Rogues.  As well as a crap-ton  less illogical restrictions    (like:  Oh no no no.  Warriors aren't good enough in combat  to fight with 2 weapons.  or to use bows)

Oh please, are you seriously trying use LOGIC now? Seriously?

In what way is Origins more "logical"? How is it "logical" for Rogues to be able to wield two-handed weapons or shields, and learn none of the associated skills?

You're a hypocrite dude. You don't want more "player freedom", you just want the game to conform to your own personal bias.

[Yrkoon]

Plaintiff wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...
I wouldn't say it's a seperate issue. if Backstabbing and Defense are enough to make a 2-h sword wielding Rogue overpowered, then why the hell do they also need access to the 2-h tree talents? Answer: they don't.

But yes, overall, I think it'd be cool if Rogues DID have access to the 2h tree (for example). But to claim they were short-changed in DA:O is silly. Especially in light of just how nerfed they were in DA2, where they could no longer even WIELD 2-handed weapons, let alone use them without a tree.

In DA2 Rogues can no longer even wield swords, axes, maces, or mauls of any type... while warriors still can. And don't give me that NONSENSE about how they were given a bajillion more trees to "compensate". Because Warriors were ALSO given a bajillion more trees..... while maintaining a wider variety of weapon choices than rogues.

I'll take the old system, thanks. More player freedom in it.  Especially for Rogues.  As well as a crap-ton  less illogical restrictions    (like:  Oh no no no.  Warriors aren't good enough in combat  to fight with 2 weapons.  or to use bows)

Oh please, are you seriously trying use LOGIC now? Seriously?

In what way is Origins more "logical"?.

Well lets see..

Warriors,  (term derived from the word 'WAR'.  A warrior is a direct participant in war, which is fought via weapons).  So logic dictates that a warrior would be the master of   martial weapons.    And in Origins, they are  (they can use Bows, and can  benefit from  an archery tree.  They may also dualwield any type of one handed weapon, and likewise benefit from a Dualwield talent tree.  Logical.  They're warriors.  And  Weaponcraft is their domain of expertise.  They should be better than the other classes when it comes to fighting with weapons directly. 

Now compare that with DA2.  Warriors  can no longer use ranged weapons at all.  They can no longer dual wield weapons.  And even Rogues, who CAN dualwield, can only  do so with daggers.  (suddenly, the entire world is  completely void of  people possessing the skill to fight with 2 maces, or 2 war axes, or two swords,   or ANYTHING other than 2 daggers.  That is so silly and Illogical that it's lulzworthy.

Modifié par Yrkoon, 12 février 2012 - 06:50 .

[philippe willaume]

Well, you really both have valid point. I would say that it is kind of the same.
No DA:2 dos not offer more customisation. it is so massively suboptimal to dab in the different trees that each class has in fact a very limited choice for a given play through. (i.e. see optimal build). In DA:O you could have more varied char in each play through. A rogue in DA:0 could be dual wield and missile in DA:2 it is either or.
Yes DA:2 talent trees are better designed

Yes DA:0 did cut the rogue off the shield and one handed weapons and the two handed weapon talent tree and that does not makes sense. The rogue could have picked up sword and shield in the militia or just be using a sword and buckler.
If the long sword is the weapon that can be worn by every one then it makes no sense for the rogue not to have the possibility to have one and use it properly for what he does.

The only weapon limitation that would makes sense between the rogue and the warrior are the large two handed weapons and that is not based on usage that is based on the fact the walking every day in town with a Zweihander or a polearme and not being part of the militia/warrior case will raise suspicion.
We could go around that with a bogus body guard guild. In medieval Germany they had “messer” which mean knife with a 2-3 foot blade. I was called a knife because it was mounted like a knife and a different guard hence it was not a sword….. So we can really get creative before we do better than RL.
So if in RL they came up with “sorry officer this not a sword this is my knife”, surely in DA we could get away with “no officer this is not a pole-axe this is my walking stick just like any mage does with their spiky glowing stuff.”

Yes a warrior can have access to all weapons and really their fighting method can be used for any weapons. I.e I use a katana I would use a Messer or a longsword.
And really most of the medieval fencing manuals are multi weapon & wrestling manual IE a method to fight or if you prefer more of a tactical guide.

It does make sense that someone, who does not have formal fighting, training, is more limited in his usage of weapon. So it is acceptable to for the rogue class not to be able to use axes if they have been trained in longsword but it does not make sense for a rogue not to have the possibility to train in both.

For me the difference between rogue and warrior weapons wise should not be in the weapon they can possibly use but in the how the weapons they can use are selected.

Ie warrior class
Access to all weapon and weapons tree.

Rogue class
Staring weapon
Daguer and a one handed weapon to be choosen from (sword axe masse) and bow or crossbow.
Acces to the relevant talent tree but talent only usable with the chosen weapons.

The other weapons could be chosen like a talent (i.e. you can use your existing talent with that weapon and if the weapon opens new talent they become available).

That of course pre supposes a redign of the talent tree as the rogue and warrior talent need to be based on class abilities and not weapon related as they are now. And we would need weapon based talents.

Philippe.

[Il Divo]

This is why I really like Dark Souls. Your class decides one thing: starting stats and equipment. Everything can be changed as you see fit as you play. That heavy armor tower shield knight I started out with? Well, in a few levels he could become backstab rogue or a pyromancer. Plenty of freedom to change your character around.

[Huntress]

Divo that happen with skyrim aswell you're Hero can be good at everything, I don't mind it at all my characters are "pure" class if i play a rogue her magic is what 100 and stamina 160-200, no points in spells she knows a few but can't cast spells not enough mana maybe magelight? because is like 40 mana... all points goes to sneak, stab and 1hand sword yes i like my character to hit hard and be quick on her feets.

Styles Rogue Kills:



Warrior kills one hand mace:

[Il Divo]

Huntress wrote...

Divo that happen with skyrim aswell you're Hero can be good at everything, I don't mind it at all my characters are "pure" class if i play a rogue her magic is what 100 and stamina 160-200, no points in spells she knows a few but can't cast spells not enough mana maybe magelight? because is like 40 mana... all points goes to sneak, stab and 1hand sword yes i like my character to hit hard and be quick on her feets.

Skyrim did it really well too. At first I was wary about the whole "remove stat system" idea, but they pulled it off. In DnD, my favorite aspect of character customization was always choosing feats/perks. Skyrim made that the main focus of the customization, for which I approve.

"Organic leveling" is what I've started to call it, where everything feels more natural with less arbitrary restrictions on how the player can level.

Modifié par Il Divo, 13 février 2012 - 04:00 .

[philippe willaume]

Hello
To be fair to BW, this is how ME works (and the witcher II as well)

In fact a “classless/organic” game needs to separate attribute (i.e. strength intelligences and so on) from the talent/perks effectiveness.

Now what skyrim does very well is that you can go full warrior, full rogue full mage, or a bit of warrior a bit of rogue a bit of mage and it effective just the same.

The main issue with a system like that is that you can loose the sense of uniqueness of each companion to get a group of similar char.

I.e. to take a daft example
Your char need to climb a wall, you can either use:
‘Ninja’s’ skills (parkour/acrobatic), warrior skills (climbing/athletics) , a spider climb spell or anti gravity belt, same result, different means.
In that case it is easy to have a feel for the “class” is easy to have.

Where it is difficult it is for combat and flavour.
Either you take the predicate that there is no difference between a warrior that is using a Sword and shield and a rogue using sword and shield.
Or you take the predicate that warrior will fight differently than a rogue.

If you are using a main character and an occasional companion, it is not really that important but when you have a team of 4-5 companions. It starts to make a difference and complicate game balancing for the class based/jack of all trade approaches.

Like the exemple before,
The problem is not that hard to keep a flavoured skillet and the damage of weapons and magic can be matched so one is not that obviously better than the other.

If the task is to get rid of a guard on top of a tower, and to do that you need to sneak into a position and then take a shot.
A warrior can use a field craft skill to get either in a position where he can shoot and arrow/quarrel/spear, knife axe whatever.

A rogue can use is ‘ninja’s skills; to sneak in position and shoot with a poisoned quarrel. Blow gun, arrow, shuriken.

A mage can use and invisibility spell and fire and ice bolt or whatever attack spell that is not going to wake up the castle.

The class difference can come from the animation and eventually he time it takes to get the thing done. (ie a warrior in armour will have to take a route that block the line of sight. a rogue can get there by sticking to shadows and roof climbing.


The problem is that the map needs a décor that accommodate all those options, and that you eventually will need synergy in the skills/talents to over come class specific obstacle or maximise the chances of success because the skill/talent needed is too weak for the task.

If the guy in the tower is Minotaur that can see in the dark, smell like a leercher and have a fantastic earring.
A group of jack of all trade will have problem to by pass him.
So you will need some game mechanism that support one or several team member creating a diversion whilst the other is sneaking in.
That put more pressure on the map to accommodate creative strategy and the talents/perks to allow collegial use

Phil

[esper]

PurebredCorn wrote...

I enjoy separate distinct classes but I think they made a mistake when they eliminated dual-wield and ranged attacks as an option for warriors. I would like to see them bring them back in some form in future games (like being able to throw smaller melee weapons like hand axes or daggers as opposed to bows would work for me). I would also prefer a lot more variation in specialization than what was available in DA2 something that provides support to ranger type abilities for the rogue class would be a welcomed addition.

 I like the idea of throwing weapons, but as an alternertive we could also say that warriors uses crossbows and rouges uses normal bows and then have the two weapon have different threes.

[Yrkoon]

^that's a decent idea too, although if Varric should return in DA3, bet your life that no one else in the game will be allowed to wield crossbows.

[philippe willaume]

yeap if I remember well, in another thread someone mentioned using composited bow for warrior and longbow for rogue, I think spears for warrior were mentioned

and may be to make the difference with warriors, we could flavor the rogue with more riposte/counter and stealth type of operation rather than a more direct approach for the warrior

i.e. the warrior got his bonus when fighting normally (as in slug fest) and the rogue would get its bonus when flanking, attacking after a successful defense or attacking from stealth.
like that rogue could be using Two handed weapons and shield if they wished and warrior could dual wield without stepping on anyone toes.
Phil

[Cloaking_Thane]

I think maybe an "or" system could work. Sorry if already brought up, but Say an item is "meant" for a warrior...he can get it at 25 Str and a rogue @ 35 Dexterity so "or". I could flesh it out more but thats a general idea

[Anomaly-]

Plaintiff wrote...
In what way is Origins more "logical"? How is it "logical" for Rogues to be able to wield two-handed weapons or shields, and learn none of the associated skills?

How is it not? By definition, Rogues are not as strong as Warriors, and therefore they cannot aquire the same proficiency with two handed weapons. That's why the class distinction exists. On the other hand, if a Rogue finds themselves in a pinch with only a two handed weapon at hand, they can still use it and make it work somewhat with what skills are available to them. That's perfectly logical. How is not being able to touch it at all because it's kryptonite or something logical?

I'm all for having as much customization options as possible in character development, but I'm having a hard time understanding your stance. I found DA2 much more limiting than DA:O in that regard, and I was already disappointed with DA:O.

[philippe willaume]

Anomaly- wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
In what way is Origins more "logical"? How is it "logical" for Rogues to be able to wield two-handed weapons or shields, and learn none of the associated skills?

How is it not? By definition, Rogues are not as strong as Warriors, and therefore they cannot aquire the same proficiency with two handed weapons. That's why the class distinction exists. On the other hand, if a Rogue finds themselves in a pinch with only a two handed weapon at hand, they can still use it and make it work somewhat with what skills are available to them. That's perfectly logical. How is not being able to touch it at all because it's kryptonite or something logical?

I'm all for having as much customization options as possible in character development, but I'm having a hard time understanding your stance. I found DA2 much more limiting than DA:O in that regard, and I was already disappointed with DA:O.

I don’t think he is saying that DA:2 is better than DA:0 in that respect. I personally agree with you.
He is pointing out that there was weapons limitation on DA:O as well.
 
IE if we accept that  there are no valid reason for warrior not be able to use bows and dual wielding then equally here are really no valid reasons for a rogue not to be able to use shield and sword and spend point in its talents tree.
You do not need to be that strong to use two handed weapons/ sword and shield and to be honest if can use a longbow you are definitely strong enough.


 
phil

[HeroxMatt]

My mage in DA2 is wearing Templar Armour.