220 réponses à ce sujet

[Sarethus]

BelgarathMTH wrote...

@Seifz,

My contention is that a qualitative division of accessing Magic/the Weave/the Source/the Force is a universal archetype in fantasy that is not well-served by DAO's lumping together of all "magic" and losing said qualitative division.

On Jordan's take, what you say about males and females weaving the same elemental essences may be true, but then why draw a distintion at all between Saidar and Saidin? I would argue that Saidar and Saidin are supposed to be two qualitatively different and mutually exclusive means of accessing the Source.

The same archetypal division in fantasy is seen in Darkside/Goodside use of the Force, and in D&D arcane/divine use of Magic. Though there are differences in particulars from fantasy system to fantasy system, this basic Taoist Yin/Yang division in the Source is a universal archetype in all well-written fantasy systems.

Thus I had put forth my original thesis that DAO's system of thought on Magic/the Source/the Weave/the Force is made less/diminished/impoverished by not carrying through with the archetypal Dialectic of the Hegelian Universe.

I'll answer the part about WoT. The main divisions between Saidar and Saidin is that one is 'female' & the other 'male' and of techniques. While both can be use fire/water/etc 'spells' for the same effect, How they use these spells is fundementally different. Females have to submit to Saidar to access it, Males have to struggle to bend Saidin to their will. There was an instance in the third book where a male took heat away from an object using a certain technique and the female character explained that while a female could get the same result, if a female used the same technique the female would burst into flame.    

[Kaosgirl]

BelgarathMTH wrote...

On Jordan's take, what you say about males and females weaving the same elemental essences may be true, but then why draw a distintion at all between Saidar and Saidin?

To highlight and reinforce differences between males and females, more than anything.  Females "submit" to Saidin in order to channel it, Males must fight to 'dominate' Saidar.  (Apologies if I've got the names backwards there.) 
Also as a plot device, to throw the problem of the Taint at the male channelers without inflicting it on the female ones at the same time.

BelgarathMTH wrote...
Iwould argue that Saidar and Saidin are supposed to be two qualitatively different and mutually exclusive means of accessing the Source.

Access is different, but the effects are the same.

BelgarathMTH wrote...
 Though there are differences in particulars from fantasy system to fantasy system, this basic Taoist Yin/Yang division in the Source is a universal archetype in all well-written fantasy systems.

It's... nowhere close to universal.  Common, perhaps, but:
It doesn't exist in Palladium (which I'll admit is not a well-written fantasy system)
Doesn't exist in GURPS
Doesn't exist in Shadowrun (which isn't explicitly fantasy, but whatever.)
Doesn't exist in TES series.
Doesn't exist in World of Darkness.
And very much doesn't exist in the Belgariad, from whence you took your name.

BelgarathMTH wrote...
Thus I had put forth my original thesis that DAO's system of thought on Magic/the Source/the Weave/the Force is made less/diminished/impoverished by not carrying through with the archetypal Dialectic of the Hegelian Universe.

It's an intriguing thesis, but I don't think it holds up.

[Darpaek]

Alright, forget D&D. There's other genres of fantasy - most make a division between "healer" types and "damager" types of magic-users. Think Final Fantasy - White Wizards and Black Wizards, etc.



I like the OP's suggestion for possible sequels. Just have two classes: Wizards and Non-Wizards. At least, it would allow you some party diversity by not perma-slotting Leliana just so you can open locks.

[Jassper]

Darpaek wrote...

I like the OP's suggestion for possible sequels. Just have two classes: Wizards and Non-Wizards. At least, it would allow you some party diversity by not perma-slotting Leliana just so you can open locks.

Their is nothing plot specific that you need pick locks for aside from a few Rogue specific side quest so that argument is mot. No reason to destroy the Rogue class just so a fighter can pick a lock. What you should be asking for is Bash.

I would rather see the Mage/Cleric separate than see them combine Warrior and Rogue.

Modifié par Jassper, 06 décembre 2009 - 03:40 .

[DaeFaron]

Jassper wrote...

Darpaek wrote...

I like the OP's suggestion for possible sequels. Just have two classes: Wizards and Non-Wizards. At least, it would allow you some party diversity by not perma-slotting Leliana just so you can open locks.

Their is nothing plot specific that you need pick locks for aside from a few Rogue specific side quest so that argument is mot. No reason to destroy the Rogue class just so a fighter can pick a lock. What you should be asking for is Bash.

I would rather see the Mage/Cleric separate than see them combine Warrior and Rogue.

Leliana is quite useful in combat as an archer.

Still, I must make the statement that a cleric in NWN, which is based on D&D, doesn't have to be a healer. They can focus in so many different types of spells.

[Darpaek]

Why? See - your suggestion doesn't make any sense within the context of the game world. Magic all comes from one place. There's no reason to split it up outside of supposed "game balance" reasons.



Whereas, there's also no reason for the non-magical class divide. Just because you don't loot chests doesn't mean you're not the odd ball. The device skill is also pretty handy for traps (and would be a lot more appreciated if traps were more deadly). I'd argue that I would be more getting rid of the warrior class and that most non-magical characters would be getting far more rogue-like.



There's no reason Alistair couldn't learn how to kick someone in the balls (obviously, someone would have to explain to him where they are...). A Duelist/Beserker would be a little wonky (as wonky as SS/BM?), but an Assassin/Reaver isn't going to break anything.



And we could finally put aside the "was Duncan a rogue/warrior?" argument! =D

[robertthebard]

The more I read this the more I see "I don't want to play a rogue, but I want rogue talents". That's not for balance, that's for accomodating somebody's weak play style. Why weak? Because they fear that having a squishier warrior, Lelianna or Zevran, will adversely affect their party. So, instead of learning to tactic with a rogue, they want three plate mail wearing warriors to clean up the mage in the party's left overs.



ZOMG, look at me in 145 lbs of plate mail, sneaking up successfully on that ogre...Yeah, whatever mates. The fact is, there are sneaky types for a reason, and the reason is that all those brash heavy armor wearing fighters can't sneak up on a blind guy. Oh, wait, I got it, you can switch armor on the fly to make it more "believable"...

.

[Itkovian]

Warriors and Rogues are not underpowered compared to Mages simply because the Mages are the merging of the DnD concepts of Wizards and Clerics.



Mages are overpowered because that's how they were meant to be. It was a design decision, I believe. This is balanced by the fact that mages are much rarer than warriors and Rogues.



Itkovian

[AndarianTD]

TheNecroFiend wrote...

This is not D&D. There are no gods granting divine powers to mortals. Healing spells are just another form of magic. You can certainly use the gamedesign to recreate a D&D class. But I wouldn't go as far to say they are combined. Since there is no pantheon granting favor. You might aswell be saying Warriors and Rogues are combined since they share the same weapon skills.

I agree, and I think the OP's question does (as someone else observed) demonstrate D&D-centric thinking. I think this was the reason for having different forms of magic under one class. Clerics in D&D wielded Divine power granted from a deity, while mages wielded Arcane power that had a different source. In a universe lacking that polytheistic premise, separate divine and arcane schools of magic don't make much sense.

On the other hand, separate Rogue and Warrior classes do make sense, since the "real-world" reasons for that division still exist. I suspect that anyone thinking of them as mergable may not actually be role-playing a rogue at all, but rather thinking of them as a fighter with different skills. But that's not what a rogue is really supposed to be.
 
So far from what I've seen DA's design is primarily as a Dramatic Hack & Slash game. So unless I'm missing some things, there isn't a lot in the OC besides opening locked chests and disarming traps that strongly illustrates the unique role-playing opportunities of the rogue. But that doesn't mean that can't be done, and the separate infrastructure for both types of characters lends itself to that. So yes, I think it was a good choice.

Modifié par AndarianTD, 06 décembre 2009 - 04:44 .

[JaegerBane]

To be honest, I think the OP's point is nonsense because he's effectively trying to pass off his own preference as an objective reason for change. If anything, the difference between Mage and Cleric was introduced by DnD and is purely a product of that franchise. The actual Archetypical roles remain at fighter/Mage/rogue.

I don't mind people having expressing a desire for change, but I draw the line when they try to show that their opinion is somehow objectively proven. Ultimately, the guy wants to play a more combat-heavy rogue. What the mages do is of no relevance.

[BelgarathMTH]

This has been an intriguing discussion, and I appreciate all the feedback, including that which calls out weaknesses in my arguments.



I guess my final word on the OP's subject is that we already have mage and cleric combined into one class, and if DAO were to combine rogue and warrior into one, that would leave us with a paltry two base classes.



My preference is for more choices of base class, not fewer. So I would rather see them leave their existing base classes alone and add new ones in future expansions and sequels.

[Darpaek]

robertthebard wrote...

The more I read this the more I see "I don't want to play a rogue, but I want rogue talents". That's not for balance, that's for accomodating somebody's weak play style. Why weak? Because they fear that having a squishier warrior, Lelianna or Zevran, will adversely affect their party. So, instead of learning to tactic with a rogue, they want three plate mail wearing warriors to clean up the mage in the party's left overs.

ZOMG, look at me in 145 lbs of plate mail, sneaking up successfully on that ogre...Yeah, whatever mates. The fact is, there are sneaky types for a reason, and the reason is that all those brash heavy armor wearing fighters can't sneak up on a blind guy. Oh, wait, I got it, you can switch armor on the fly to make it more "believable"...
.

You're making assertions about me that aren't warranted.  First off, I've completed three playthrus as a rogue.  I have vocally defended the rogue as even more powerful than mages in most in-game combat situations in those stupid "balance" threads.  I've even squeezed my most recent rogue into the Warden Commander armor with a little help from Honleath.  =P

My criticism is based in the lack of in-game lore warranting a class division between non-magical types.  If anything, the division was put there because it was expected from the "generic fantasy audience" and for the ease of the animation department.  Also, this design aspect forces you into permaslotting Leliana.  Absent a respec mod, even Zevran can't compete with Leli in utility until near the endgame - even if you devote all his training into utility because you pick him up so late anyways.

They designed the all-in-one magic system to have a Feist-style feel.  Why not do the same for non-mages?  Every cool sword-swinging knightly character Feist came up with had his start as a thief, anyways!  LOL

[Darpaek]

AndarianTD wrote...

On the other hand, separate Rogue and Warrior classes do make sense, since the "real-world" reasons for that division still exist. I suspect that anyone thinking of them as mergable may not actually be role-playing a rogue at all, but rather thinking of them as a fighter with different skills. But that's not what a rogue is really supposed to be.
 
So far from what I've seen DA's design is primarily as a Dramatic Hack & Slash game. So unless I'm missing some things, there isn't a lot in the OC besides opening locked chests and disarming traps that strongly illustrates the unique role-playing opportunities of the rogue. But that doesn't mean that can't be done, and the separate infrastructure for both types of characters lends itself to that. So yes, I think it was a good choice.

So what are these "real-world" reasons for the class division?  I know Alistair, Oghren, Leli, and Zevran all talk about "years of training... blah blah blah..." for teaching specializations, but seriously - am I supposed to believe that my Human Noble Rogue spent a lot of time bumming around the Highever Alienage to learn his thiefy skills?  No, he recieved "scout training" from his father's Master of Arms.  Obviously, it's a slightly different fighting style than the typical Man-at-Arms - but it wouldn't be the same training that Zevran recieved in the backroom of the ****house.  There's nothing within the game mechanics save for a handful of magical weapons that differentiate between Warriors and Rogues.  My rogues have never had an issue slipping into heavy armor or wielding a particular weapon.

What precisely is "a rogue supposed to be"?  Is a Ranger/Duelist different than an Assassin/Bard?  Is one correct where the other isn't?  From the DnD-centric point of view - the Ranger is traditionally a lightly-armored warrior.  Is Zevran a rogue-like failure because he never learned how to steal or pick locks before he met you?  Does Zevran cease to be a rogue when he beefs up for the Ancient Elven Armor?

[Brunopolis]

I guess my post is nonsense because I have a preference about wanting some degree of balance. It's called good game design. The point of a game is to have fun beyond all else and unfairness(you can also call this balance) hinders this goal.



Every game Bioware makes tends to have huge balance issues and frankly it's tiring. I remember playing Kotor and I wanted to make a gunslinger. Obviously, everybody defended the idea that lighsabers are much times stronger than guns because of the lore but ignored the important question. Was it fun? Finding my character was majorly gimped wasn't fun at all. How was I supposed to know that my character would become a Jedi? I wanted to make a Han Solo type guy. 8P



I remember making a similar mistake in DoA. I tried to do the Red Cliffe quest first without a mage(since I didn't have Wynn and Morrigan didn't have a heal spell) and I got stomped. My team was a low level Dwarf Tank Warrior, Alistair, Dog, and archer Leliane. I promptly ran out of healing items and simply couldn't advance. I even dropped the difficulty to easy and still would occasionally wipe. Now I'm not a particularly good player and I'll admit that but a real newbie would simply get stuck and probably give up(if he brought along the wrong party) and think the game is impossible.



Finally, remember that when I refer to clerics I'm not talking about the divine magic lore character. I'm talking about a class that casts healing and buff spells. The basis of his power could be from anywhere as that isn't what I'm really talking about. Why not make mages draw power from fade demons and draws power from fade spirits. However, I didn't suggest this because people hate nerfs so I offered instead combining warriors/rogues into a non-magic user class so that at least they could compare to mages in versatility. So mages would get Dps/CC/Buffs/Heals and non-mages would get Dps/Tank/Stealth/Utility. Sounds a little more fair in my book. And at the end of the day. That's really all I'm looking for....fairness.

[Dargor Icarus]

I'm a huge fan of the DnD universe even tho i ahvent played none of the PnP games for it but with Draon Age I don't think clerics make much sense since the Chantry is very similar to the Christian Church. In real life priests can't heal your wounds but will tell you that if you pray to god he'll do it for u. Same thing with the Chantry: The Maker is amazing he can do everything! However he doesn't wanna help you cuz he is a douche. I think it makes more sense to give mages the power to heal than a bunch of lying hypocrite bastaridos.

[Darpaek]

Dargor Icarus wrote...

Same thing with the Chantry: The Maker is amazing he can do everything! However he doesn't wanna help you cuz he is a douche.

Best. Argument. For. Atheism. Ever!

[kingthrall]

i dont understand what is the point of this thread anyway? even if they have rolled the mage/cleric into one class, only the 1st tier healing spell actually is effective, and potions are much more efficent.



Also Arcane warrior is not a cleric, just by the title it is different regarless of both wearing armor.



The warriors have the templars anyway which work for the chantry, they are pretty much your fantasy clerics for this game anyway.



if they made an expansion for this game, then i would suggest having a chantry priest as a actual class, this is the solution to your pointless bickering.

[Faerell Gustani]

Kaosgirl wrote...

Faerell Gustani wrote...

Jassper wrote...
[EDIT]
and Rogues are not warriors, compleatly different persona. Might as well throgh all the talents into a barrel and simply pick and choose as you go. now you are back to the "Jack of all trades, Master of none" class.

Maybe in terms of mentality, yes.  However, when it comes down to fighting, rogues and warriors are pretty much the same.

I find that problematic itself.  

As I see it:  Warriors are supposed to be martial specialists.  The guys who shine in combat, whether melee or ranged.  Rogues are supposed to be the utility skillmonkeys; the ones who shine outside of combat.  

Backstab, I believe, was a bone thrown to the utility-character for a game-model that's combat heavy.  Giving him situational combat power so he won't be a third wheel when the fighting inevitably starts.  You give a good argument for why that wasn't the best idea later, but don't really explain why the two archetypes should be the same.

Faerell Gustani wrote...
It's funny how people think that there's something super-special about backstabbing someone.  Here's the great secret...when their back is turned or when they're not paying attention, you hit them...HARD.  BAM!  Backstab!
Ever read Sun-Tzu?  All warfare is based on deception.  Any warrior should be able to fight dirty.

As for rogues? Knowing how to backstab and fight dirty doesn't mean that you don't know how to fight conventionally as well.

As I said above, there's a good explanation for why "backstab" and dirty-fighting may not have been the right bone to throw.  But it doesn't really do a good job of explaining why the Skillmonkey and Combat-Specialist should be the same thing.

What you're arguing for is, essentially, a step towards a classless design system.  And that's not a bad thing IMO, but it balances in a different way.  The skill-monkey still isn't the combat specialist, because specializing in one means less proficiency in the other.

That's my point exactly.  By merging the classical functions of a healer and an arcane atillery functions into the mage class they've taken a step towards "classless" with the mage.  However, they neglected to do that with the warrior and rogues, thus resulting in a weaker warrior and rogue classes when compared to a mage.  They are weaker in terms of versatility and only a dual wielding rogue while backstabbing can out damage a mage.  A mage can assume the roles of either warior or rogue and surpass them.  This is because of the combined roles that a mage has.

[Staylost]

I agree with the OP.



Not for any lore or other reason.



I just think it would improve gameplay.

[Darpaek]

Staylost wrote...

I agree with the OP.

Not for any lore or other reason.

I just think it would improve gameplay.

Hrmmm... and apparently I agree with Staylost.  This is... uncomfortable... 

[kingthrall]

but warriors and rogues are not weaker, use crippling shot or arrow of slaying on a mage and they crumble. There are poisons such as magebane and Stealth which you should be using.



warriors just gotta use pummel strike if they get close enough., sheild bash and using healths, the warrior is not the ideal class granted but if the mage is dumb enough you can kill it. That is, if you dont get shattering prison or force sheild on you



just because a class can out damage you, doesnt make them neccicerilly stronger, it helps obvously but the game is single player not multi, you are not exactly in competition to kill a opponent online.

[Jassper]

Brunopolis wrote...

I guess my post is nonsense because I have a preference about wanting some degree of balance. It's called good game design. The point of a game is to have fun beyond all else and unfairness(you can also call this balance) hinders this goal.

Thats just it, it will make the balance even worse. Combining the 2 will not give the same effect as if you Had a fighter and a Rogue in the party - you won't have the same amount of talent points to spend on one class, so instead you end up with a "crippled" class

In other words, at level 10 a Fighter has 10 points to spend on 20 (or so) talents, a 10th level rogue has 10 points to spend on 20 or so talents, for a total of 20 points. If you combine the class then you now have only 10 points to spend on 40 talents.

You will have to focus on one aspect or another.

I am beginning to agree, who ever said it, this is sounding more and more like a "whambalance" post. There is almost 0 credibility on combining warrior and rogue. However there is a lot of credibility on separating Mage and Cleric (Ignoring references to D&D). If you can't succeed with a warrior, then you are doing it wrong.

[Darpaek]

Your situation's only true if you choose to make a "utility warrior". You could still design Sten or Oghren in a world where the two classes' skill trees were merged.

[JaegerBane]

Brunopolis wrote...

I guess my post is nonsense because I have a preference about wanting some degree of balance. It's called good game design. The point of a game is to have fun beyond all else and unfairness(you can also call this balance) hinders this goal.

Why? Why does it hinder the goal if the goal is simply to have fun? Surely balance is only an issue if the classes are supposed to be pitted against each other in a PVP environment?

You post isn't nonsense because you're asking for a degree of balance. It's nonsense because you're asking for two disparate classes to be rolled into one to correct some sort of issue that you're using DnD to come up with in the first place.

And please, don't start lecturing about 'good game design'. Not long back you were lecturing about how this game was supposedly based on DnD, and we all saw how accurate that was.

[FedericoV]

Darpaek wrote...

So what are these "real-world" reasons for the class division?  I know Alistair, Oghren, Leli, and Zevran all talk about "years of training... blah blah blah..." for teaching specializations, but seriously - am I supposed to believe that my Human Noble Rogue spent a lot of time bumming around the Highever Alienage to learn his thiefy skills?  No, he recieved "scout training" from his father's Master of Arms.  Obviously, it's a slightly different fighting style than the typical Man-at-Arms - but it wouldn't be the same training that Zevran recieved in the backroom of the ****house.  There's nothing within the game mechanics save for a handful of magical weapons that differentiate between Warriors and Rogues.  My rogues have never had an issue slipping into heavy armor or wielding a particular weapon.

What precisely is "a rogue supposed to be"?  Is a Ranger/Duelist different than an Assassin/Bard?  Is one correct where the other isn't?  From the DnD-centric point of view - the Ranger is traditionally a lightly-armored warrior.  Is Zevran a rogue-like failure because he never learned how to steal or pick locks before he met you?  Does Zevran cease to be a rogue when he beefs up for the Ancient Elven Armor?

I do agree with Darpaek with all my heart (not only for the singature or because he likes to pop mutant head from Abe's statue ).

One of the better design choices of DA:O  (wich is really a step in the right direction) is the revision of the concept of classes. classes in DA:O are no more a limitation, but just a guideline. They are plastic and they leave you a lot of freedom. There is nothing preventing a STR builded rogue who wears an heavy armour and use two swords (just requirements). I don't see why I should not be able to make a thug warrior able to kick some darkspawn's balls or to backstab a "poor bastard" with a 2h sword.

It's time to move on from D&D cliche, backstabbing rogue with lots of skill being one of them. There is no need of two classes for rogue and warriors. I understand the need for diversity, I understand that the regular rogue player wants to play the stealthy bastard. But those are necessity that you can easily cover with specializations, something that could be improved a lot in next games.

And mind, it's not a problem of party slot. I allways bring Leliana with me because I want an archer and she is amazing when you max her in archery. I would never exchange her with an healer.

Modifié par FedericoV, 07 décembre 2009 - 12:53 .