220 réponses à ce sujet

[ChickenDownUnder]

Almost I am tempted to suggest that people play Oblivion, so that they can see for themselves that it very well is possible, where the emphasis is more about how high an actual skill is then a name of a class picked at level 1, to actually work. Sans the retarded enemy leveling.



But then people would want to pummel me with tomatoes.

[FedericoV]

ChickenDownUnder wrote...

Almost I am tempted to suggest that people play Oblivion, so that they can see for themselves that it very well is possible, where the emphasis is more about how high an actual skill is then a name of a class picked at level 1, to actually work. Sans the retarded enemy leveling.

But then people would want to pummel me with tomatoes.

I do not play Oblivion since I do not like a lot sanbox games. I prefer story driven games. But having said that, I prefer a clasless system like Oblivion than (say) D&D 3rd rigid class system. Even D&D is trying to move on and the 4th edition put more emphasis on roles than classes. Mind, in terms of lore, for DA is necessary to have a difference between magic users and man at arms.

So, no tomatoes pummeling from me.

Modifié par FedericoV, 07 décembre 2009 - 01:05 .

[MarloMarlo]

[quote]Jisai wrote...
Again, the basis and ideology of Divine Magic (Faith based magic) is a D&D concept and was again used (healing spells) and expanded upon with Spirit Magic, and Creation Magic, as I aforementioned with the expandability of magic. No, the actual phrase 'Divine Magic' was not used, it was molded to suit the new game and its potential development.[/quote]
DnD's Divine Magic is based on gods granting power to their faithful -- literally, in case that needs to be pointed out. It's nothing like DA's magic. And what makes you think that you can speak authoritatively about the creative development of DA's magic system?


[quote]Jisai wrote...
Blood Magic is new in regard to this game as the way it is facilitated.[/quote]
So, you think blood magic's reliance on blood is new, despite the fact that it's called "blood magic" and that the wording and idea have existed long before DA? That's hilarious.


[quote]Kaosgirl wrote...
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.[/quote]
Yes, how very shiny it must be to have a class designed and balanced around picking locks and disarming the occasional trap. Martial prowess and out of combat utility are not mutually exclusive or even so different that one shouldn't exist with the other for any reason, game balance included. In fact, they don't exist apart in any game I can think of that involves rogues. Dragon Age, for example.


[quote]Kaosgirl wrote...
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.[/quote]
Well, if he didn't explain why the two archetypes should be the same, you certainly did. Like you said, it's a combat heavy game and we can't have the utility monkey sitting around useless for most of it. Good job.


[quote]Kaosgirl wrote...
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.[/quote]
Well, then it's a good thing all mages don't automatically know all spells and all rogues and warriors don't know all of their abilities from the get go, or that all classes don't have maxed out stats, and that they end having to decide what their focus is going to be, right? Would that change if warriors and rogues were combined into one class?


[quote]Kaosgirl wrote...
And technically, the lore does make (circle) Mages a hybrid of the classic Cleric.  Their magic comes from channeling the power of a Divine Realm (the Fade, which in the lore was once where the home of the Maker resided,)  much like the third-edition D&D ethos-based clerics did.  Magic is also defined as a "gift from the Maker," when it's not being referred to as a curse.[/quote]
Well, "technically," the Fade isn't a divine realm in the same sense that DnD had divine realms. "Technically," there's no evidence of the Maker's existance, unlike the verifiable and recognizable presence of the gods in DnD; nor would it matter since the Maker isn't even granting mages the power to cast spells. The fact that religion exists in DA doesn't suggest that it's anything like religion in DnD, an obviously ridiculous assumption to make.


[quote]Jassper wrote...
No, their not.[/quote]
Oh really? Rogues and warriors both don't use melee or ranged weapons to hit people till they die?


[quote]Jassper wrote...
Again you are missing the point, Rogues are mostly loners...[/quote]
Ha. According to what. The fact that you get to group up with rogues?


[quote]Jassper wrote...
they don't wear heavy armor, they don't use two-handed weapons, they don't "tank" and seldom use Shields.[/quote]
My DA rogue wears the Warden Commander set, which is heavy. Alistar doesn't use two-handed weapons; is he not a warrior? I don't have Sten tanking or using a shield. Not a warrior?


[quote]Jassper wrote...
That's just it, Rogues DON'T fight conventionally.[/quote]
Mine does. Same with Leliana and Zevran. They're both capable of conventional fighting and display that capability all the time. In fact, they're incapable of waging war against the Blight in any other way. Are all your arguments going to be based on your wishlist of baseless assumptions?


[quote]Jassper wrote...
I sugest you do some study on Rogues before you try to post anything rational between the 2,
Robin Hood, Zoro, Dick Turpin (a Highwayman), Legolas, Aragorn (Ranger), Jack Sparrow, Smugglers, Bards, Monks are all examples of a Rogue type character.[/quote]
This is hilarious. Study on rogues? Does the UN have some sort of official standard on the definition of the rogue archetype in fiction?

What standard are you using when you say that Legolas and Aragorn are rogues rather than not rogues? Not yours, obviously. Neither was a loner. Both engaged in conventional warfare. Aragorn used a two handed weapon. How can you expect eveyone to conform to and argue around the basis of what Jassper personally thinks rogues are or should be when not even you will do that?


[quote]Jassper wrote...
Kings often used Rogues in combat but never as a front line, but to flank troops and take out the commanders - they were usually "expendable" and never were there services retained afterwords, but if you lived the reward was great.[/quote]
Alexander the Great didn't, based on your definition of rogues. Are you under the wrong impression that flanking and taking out commanders arent part of conventional warfare?


[quote]Jassper wrote...
It was also their specialty to infiltrate and assassinate, I'd like to see your clunky heavy armored rogue sneak, or try to blend with the crowd - This is one of the reason rogues don't ware heavy armor.[/quote]
This is pathetic. What exactly is the argument you're trying to make here? That if you wear heavy armor, you can't take it off for when you want to do other things?


[quote]ChickenDownUnder wrote...
But then people would want to pummel me with tomatoes. [/quote]
That isn't always a sign of disapproval. In Spain they have a festival that involves a huge tomato food fight.

Modifié par MarloMarlo, 07 décembre 2009 - 01:09 .

[Jassper]

[quote]MarloMarlo wrote...
[quote]Jassper wrote...
No, their not.
[/quote]
Oh really? Rogues and warriors both don't use melee or ranged weapons to hit people till they die?
[/quote]

Narrow thinking here, you are looking only at one aspect of each class.

[quote]MarloMarlo wrote...
[quote]Jassper wrote...
Again you are missing the point, Rogues are mostly loners...
[/quote]
Ha. According to what. The fact that you get to group up with rogues?
[/quote]

According to just about every definition of the word. I said "mostly" they are looners, They do band together for common causes, or employed by those needing someone of such skills or simply the promise of a prize.

[quote]MarloMarlo wrote...
[quote]Jassper wrote...
they don't wear heavy armor, they don't use two-handed weapons, they don't "tank" and seldom use Shields.
[/quote]
My DA rogue wears the Warden Commander set, which is heavy. Alistar doesn't use two-handed weapons is he not a warrior? I don't have Sten tanking or using a shield. Not a warrior?
[/quote]

This is taken WAY out of context. What does Alistar and Sten have to do with anything? Never said a warrior had to use two-handers, nor did I ever say Sten had to tank. This remark is just compleatly invalid.

[quote]MarloMarlo wrote...
[quote]Jassper wrote...
That's just it, Rogues DON'T fight conventionally.
[/quote]
Mine does. Same with Leliana and Zevran. They're both capable of conventional fighting and display that capability all the time. In fact, they're incapable of waging war against the Blight in any other way. Are all your arguments going to be based on your wishlist of baseless assumptions?
[/quote]

Then why are you even playing a Rogue? So we should change the rules because you play a Rogue in this manner? And what are you talking about "wishlist of baseless assumption"? That don't even make sense, or are you useing big words again? I'm talking about what it is to be a Rogue - No how YOU play the game specificly - get a clue.

[quote]MarloMarlo wrote...
[quote]Jassper wrote...
I sugest you do some study on Rogues before you try to post anything rational between the 2,
Robin Hood, Zoro, Dick Turpin (a Highwayman), Legolas, Aragorn (Ranger), Jack Sparrow, Smugglers, Bards, Monks are all examples of a Rogue type character.
[/quote]
This is hilarious. Study on rogues? Does the UN have some sort of official standard on the definition of the rogue archetype in fiction?
[/quote]

Not in a literal sense no, but there is a base distinction between Rogues and Warriors when any piece of fantasy or fiction is written. Stop taking things out of context.

[quote]MarloMarlo wrote...
What standard are you using when you say that Legolas and Aragorn are rogues rather than not rogues? Not yours, obviously. Neither was a loner. Both engaged in conventional warfare. Aragorn used a two handed weapon.
[/quote]

Again Taken out of context, I don't expect a rogue to "always" and "only" fight unconventional, they prefer not to. Legolas most certainly was a "Rogue Type" and obviously you missed my post that Aragorn was a bad example.

[quote]MarloMarlo wrote...
How can you expect eveyone to conform to and argue around the basis of what Jassper personally thinks rogues are or should be when not even you will do that?
[/quote]

I'm not the one grasping at straws here. all of my arguments are sound and they are on the same track, so how can you say that I am not "conforming" to what I believe a Rogue is?

[quote]MarloMarlo wrote...
[quote]Jassper wrote...
Kings often used Rogues in combat but never as a front line, but to flank troops and take out the commanders - they were usually "expendable" and never were there services retained afterwords, but if you lived the reward was great.
[/quote]
Alexander the Great didn't, based on your definition of rogues. Are you under the wrong impression that flanking and taking out commanders arent part of conventional warfare?
[/quote]

What? Whats Alexander have to do with anything? Again you are focused on one tiny aspect of the whole picture and taking everything out of context.

[quote]MarloMarlo wrote...
[quote]Jassper wrote...
It was also their specialty to infiltrate and assassinate, I'd like to see your clunky heavy armored rogue sneak, or try to blend with the crowd - This is one of the reason rogues don't ware heavy armor.
[/quote]
This is pathetic. What exactly is the argument you're trying to make here? That if you wear heavy armor, you can't take it off for when you want to do other things?
[/quote]

Yep - tell the Dragon to hold on a sec while you change your Armor so you can go stealth and loose his argo. Which shouldn't be aloud in game and I disagree with our characters being able to run around with 10 suits of armor - but thats a seperat issue.

Whats pathetic is that you have done nothing but try to belittle everyone who exspress valid reasons not to combine the 2 with nothing but snide and smartassed remarks.

You offer no valid reasons to combine the two classes, just comments with no reasoning behind them.

Your posting is nothing more than trolling.

[nicethugbert]

Morrigan PWNS Wynne without heal spells. So I fail to see how mages having heal spells is a problem.

[Inarai]

By the way, if we want to talk classic trio, that's Warrior/Mage/Expert.



Let me type that again: EXPERT. That is what this game's rogue is. They are more able to specialize towards a variety of roles than other classes, get more skill points to spend, and when properly specialized in a particular direction, become very damn good at it.



A rogue who specializes in up front combat is not your normal warrior, either. They're light and fast fighters who might use uncommon weapon combination(twin daggers, anyone?) and highly skilled at taking advantage any opening their clumsy opponent provides(Combat Movement, Coup de Grace, Duelist). Often, they'll succeed by being more agile/more clever than their enemy(High Dex, High Cunning, Lethality), allowing them not only to strike at more vulnerable positions(Backstab, Armour Pen. from Cunning), but also to avoid incoming attacks(Dex, Evasion)... I could go on.



The point is, that the warrior and rogue are fundamentally different(including a lot of behind the scenes mechanics, like class attack bonuses and fatigue bonuses), and cannot simply be slapped together into a single class.

[Faerell Gustani]

Itkovian wrote...

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

Yes, for the lore.  And there's the fact that you're a demon magnet.  Oh wait...but you never suffer drawbacks in the game.
I really just see the "Lore" arguments as "selective lore" arguments.  These sorts of arguments tend to only emphasize the part where "mages are supposed to be powerful" and ignore the part were there's a risk associated with that power.  In other words, people who defend a mage's OPed state with "lore" arguments are hypocrits.

[Inarai]

Faerell Gustani wrote...

Itkovian wrote...

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

Yes, for the lore.  And there's the fact that you're a demon magnet.  Oh wait...but you never suffer drawbacks in the game.
I really just see the "Lore" arguments as "selective lore" arguments.  These sorts of arguments tend to only emphasize the part where "mages are supposed to be powerful" and ignore the part were there's a risk associated with that power.  In other words, people who defend a mage's OPed state with "lore" arguments are hypocrits.

I wonder if they were planning to implement something to represent that and were forced to cut it for time/budget as, let's face it, building something like that, making it fair, and doing QA would take a very, very, very long time.

[AndarianTD]

Jassper wrote...

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... You will have to focus on one aspect or another.

I agree.

[Faerell Gustani]

Inarai wrote...

By the way, if we want to talk classic trio, that's Warrior/Mage/Expert.

Let me type that again: EXPERT. That is what this game's rogue is. They are more able to specialize towards a variety of roles than other classes, get more skill points to spend, and when properly specialized in a particular direction, become very damn good at it.

A rogue who specializes in up front combat is not your normal warrior, either. They're light and fast fighters who might use uncommon weapon combination(twin daggers, anyone?) and highly skilled at taking advantage any opening their clumsy opponent provides(Combat Movement, Coup de Grace, Duelist). Often, they'll succeed by being more agile/more clever than their enemy(High Dex, High Cunning, Lethality), allowing them not only to strike at more vulnerable positions(Backstab, Armour Pen. from Cunning), but also to avoid incoming attacks(Dex, Evasion)... I could go on.

The point is, that the warrior and rogue are fundamentally different(including a lot of behind the scenes mechanics, like class attack bonuses and fatigue bonuses), and cannot simply be slapped together into a single class.

Are you saying that warriors can't be "light  and fast fighters who use uncommon weapon combinations"?  Why not?  Ever been to a martial arts class?  Ever hear about how real fighters train and refine technique?  Yes techniques are merely additional tricks.  Fighters will flank you, hit you on the ground, and hit you in the back.  Fighters will aim for vunlerable positions and try to disarm and otherwise fight dirty.  Fighters are clever.  Stupid fighters are dead fighters.

This is coming from someone who just go out of his Belegarth fighter practice.  This concept of "clumsy stupid meatshield fighter" is the only stupid thing I see.

So my point is that Warrior and Rogue are fundimetally the same, the only distinction is the individual's preference.  Knowing one does not preclude knowing the other.

[Inarai]

Faerell Gustani wrote...

Inarai wrote...

By the way, if we want to talk classic trio, that's Warrior/Mage/Expert.

Let me type that again: EXPERT. That is what this game's rogue is. They are more able to specialize towards a variety of roles than other classes, get more skill points to spend, and when properly specialized in a particular direction, become very damn good at it.

A rogue who specializes in up front combat is not your normal warrior, either. They're light and fast fighters who might use uncommon weapon combination(twin daggers, anyone?) and highly skilled at taking advantage any opening their clumsy opponent provides(Combat Movement, Coup de Grace, Duelist). Often, they'll succeed by being more agile/more clever than their enemy(High Dex, High Cunning, Lethality), allowing them not only to strike at more vulnerable positions(Backstab, Armour Pen. from Cunning), but also to avoid incoming attacks(Dex, Evasion)... I could go on.

The point is, that the warrior and rogue are fundamentally different(including a lot of behind the scenes mechanics, like class attack bonuses and fatigue bonuses), and cannot simply be slapped together into a single class.

Are you saying that warriors can't be "light  and fast fighters who use uncommon weapon combinations"?  Why not?  Ever been to a martial arts class?  Ever hear about how real fighters train and refine technique?  Yes techniques are merely additional tricks.  Fighters will flank you, hit you on the ground, and hit you in the back.  Fighters will aim for vunlerable positions and try to disarm and otherwise fight dirty.  Fighters are clever.  Stupid fighters are dead fighters.

This is coming from someone who just go out of his Belegarth fighter practice.  This concept of "clumsy stupid meatshield fighter" is the only stupid thing I see.

So my point is that Warrior and Rogue are fundimetally the same, the only distinction is the individual's preference.  Knowing one does not preclude knowing the other.

I've been training in martial arts for about 9 or 10 years now.  So yes, I certainly have been to a class or two.

But that's not who warriors in the paradigm this game follows are.  They're your knights and your burly thugs.

It is an imposed distinction, yes.  But it is a useful one - it distinguishes between to very different individuals.

But, to be clear, I refer specifically to how the game represetnts them.  Since fighter would simply means "one who fights", well, it would not be a wise term for me to be using, would it?

Modifié par Inarai, 07 décembre 2009 - 03:36 .

[Staylost]

AndarianTD wrote...

Jassper wrote...

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... You will have to focus on one aspect or another.

I agree.

And I disagree. 

Here are some reasons.

1) The Origins make no distinction between Rogue & Warrior (as far as I know).

2) It will give a bit more umpf to the non-magic guys, making the party balance easier to achieve.

3) As far as I know, there is no lore reason why they are seperate. Was Duncan a Warrior or a Rogue? What is really the difference? That Duncan couldn't gain threat by taunting, he just sucked at that?

4) Making them a more flexible class will allow for some fun tailoring of the classes.

I'm sure there are many more reasons for & against this change. For me, personally, it would better align with lore & make the game more fun.

I'm sure this class wouldn't be crippled. I could even design some nasty rogue/shield talent builds that can also take care of lockpicking. The fact that I can't invest in the other three weapon styles doesn't bother me at all. 25 talents would be plenty.

Weapon & Shield: 10 talents (not taking overpower or assault).
Warrior: 6 talents (top four and first two bottom ones).
Rogue: 7 talents (top three & all the mechanical expertise).
Everything else (plus any books you might get): Specializations. Maybe Bard & Champion?

Dex build. Cunning @ near 30, Strength @ near 40, Dexterity @ near 50. Tank/stunner&backstabber/buffer.

This is because you are only adding 8 warrior talents to the rogue as is. You can still only get two specializations. So this would literally be rogue + 8 more talents. Not that different, really.

[Brunopolis]

JaegerBane wrote...

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.

Ummm..Dragon Age is considered to be the "spiritual successor" of Baldur's Gate which is a D & D game.  The developers say it right there.  So you could say I was partially right.  Seriously, a company that has made countless RPG's based on the D&D system say they are going to make a spiritual successor to an RPG that is set in the D&D universe.  So I said they are purely basing the game off of D&D.  Maybe my use of "purely" was a bit too strong but it's evident where they got most of their inspirations from. If it barks like a dog and walks like a dog then what is it?

http://www.1up.com/d...age?cId=3172010

By the way, balance is an issue in single player games.  One key balancing issue with single player games is making sure it stays a challenge.  Due to the imbalance with caster/non-caster classes the game has trouble maintaining a proper challenge. 

If there's one thing that I can agree with is that maybe the idea of combining warriors and rogues itself is a bad idea and won't resolve any sort of balance issue regarding class variety.    However, as the game is right now, mages are the "everything" class and vary considerably from the rogue/warrior classes which are quite similar and share half their skills.

[DaeFaron]

In the cutscenes everybody was 'DPS'. They followed a realistic for fantasy viewpoint that a warrior could take on two people in combat without being overwhelmed or beaten by flanking. You never see somebody taunting the darkspawn into attacking him so somebody else could crowd control.

[GHL_Soul_Reaver]

Game would be better if it was under D&D rules, as well as it would add a hell of alot of more diversity class/profession wise.

[Inarai]

GHL_Soul_Reaver wrote...

Game would be better if it was under D&D rules, as well as it would add a hell of alot of more diversity class/profession wise.

Not really...  For one reason.

It would have to be 4e. 

[Staylost]

GHL_Soul_Reaver wrote...

Game would be better if it was under D&D rules, as well as it would add a hell of alot of more diversity class/profession wise.

False choices.

A good system allows for a huge selection of specialization from a single starting point. This allows for more flexability in builds creating a more granular diversity.

In DA:O lore, having two starting points is more appropriate.

[Inarai]

Staylost wrote...

GHL_Soul_Reaver wrote...

Game would be better if it was under D&D rules, as well as it would add a hell of alot of more diversity class/profession wise.

False choices.

A good system allows for a huge selection of specialization from a single starting point. This allows for more flexability in builds creating a more granular diversity.

In DA:O lore, having two starting points is more appropriate.

Don't really know about that...

Warrior-types usually have options structured largely around their armaments.  Experts tend to be more about abilities independent of those.

[Staylost]

Inarai wrote...

Staylost wrote...

GHL_Soul_Reaver wrote...

Game would be better if it was under D&D rules, as well as it would add a hell of alot of more diversity class/profession wise.

False choices.

A good system allows for a huge selection of specialization from a single starting point. This allows for more flexability in builds creating a more granular diversity.

In DA:O lore, having two starting points is more appropriate.

Don't really know about that...

Warrior-types usually have options structured largely around their armaments.  Experts tend to be more about abilities independent of those.

Someone can be very good at swinging a sword, balancing in armor, and picking locks. Although there is some equal limit to study based on time available to learn and practice. As for seperate paths of martial study, DA:O already does a good job of representing that with their weapon styles.

I'm sorry if I am not addressing what you meant. Chalk it up to my ignorance if that is the case.

[GHL_Soul_Reaver]

Not really false choices or whatever in a D&D or AD&D system, you get to begin with what you want to be, if you want to be a cleric you are one, you can mix classes.. and prestige classes is an extra build for specialization in which can be cross over skills as well, so eg, lvl10 warrior and lvl10 rogue combo with a lvl10 assassin or Weaponmaster.

D&D or AD&D offers much more diversity, but also tell you in some sort of way in which way you should go when you level up as it is obvious that you cannot be everything in one character but maybe having to paths or just one depending on what you want to become.

Just voicing my opinions.. some of you might be lesser experienced in a sound system, that is ok and all, as long as it does not move over to a WoW or other MMO system I am happy, but DAO is damn close on how some of the MMO systems that is out there as it is.

Edi:

It also creates a lesser linear build up of a character as in having more choices so you in some way got a sandbox in what you want to do and to what goals you want to archieve.

Modifié par GHL_Soul_Reaver, 07 décembre 2009 - 04:20 .

[Kaosgirl]

Faerell Gustani wrote...
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.

Uh... no.  It's not.  Otherwise, a dual-class Mage/Cleric in D&D would be doing the same thing.  And while that may have been true in second edition, by third edition D&D such a character was actually gimped relative to any single-class character (mostly because of spell-level issues.)

So it's not because the class-structure allows for the combination of the roles.  It's a matter of how it's done.

[Staylost]

GHL_Soul_Reaver wrote...

Not really false choices or whatever in a D&D or AD&D system, you get to begin with what you want to be, if you want to be a cleric you are one, you can mix classes.. and prestige classes is an extra build for specialization in which can be cross over skills as well, so eg, lvl10 warrior and lvl10 rogue combo with a lvl10 assassin or Weaponmaster.

D&D or AD&D offers much more diversity, but also tell you in some sort of way in which way you should go when you level up as it is obvious that you cannot be everything in one character but maybe having to paths or just one depending on what you want to become.

Just voicing my opinions.. some of you might be lesser experienced in a sound system, that is ok and all, as long as it does not move over to a WoW or other MMO system I am happy, but DAO is damn close on how some of the MMO systems that is out there as it is.

I'm mostly familier with 2ED&D, so I'm not really sure on beyond that. What you are talking about now sounds like the same thing as what people are suggesting here. One level you take rogue abilities, the next level warrior (although the overlap is already almost complete).

[Inarai]

Staylost wrote...

Inarai wrote...

Staylost wrote...

GHL_Soul_Reaver wrote...

Game would be better if it was under D&D rules, as well as it would add a hell of alot of more diversity class/profession wise.

False choices.

A good system allows for a huge selection of specialization from a single starting point. This allows for more flexability in builds creating a more granular diversity.

In DA:O lore, having two starting points is more appropriate.

Don't really know about that...

Warrior-types usually have options structured largely around their armaments.  Experts tend to be more about abilities independent of those.

Someone can be very good at swinging a sword, balancing in armor, and picking locks. Although there is some equal limit to study based on time available to learn and practice. As for seperate paths of martial study, DA:O already does a good job of representing that with their weapon styles.

I'm sorry if I am not addressing what you meant. Chalk it up to my ignorance if that is the case.

I'm referring to the fact that this is the general delineation seen in your basic experts and warriors.

Also, there's really quite a lot of variance as stands.  Maybe the warrior has less options, until you decide to start changing up the way you equip one, but you have got a lot of options.

And no, I don't so much mean martial abilities with regard to the expert, but more the extent to which they specialize in a role.

[RaiceGeriko]

I actually agree 100% with the OP in what he is saying, and I think it's a great idea!

People don't seem to understand what he is saying though, but why I don't know.  For some reason, there is not enough difference between 2 completely different types of Mages (Clerics and Primals) to warrant 2 seperate classes, yet there is a world of difference between a Warrior and a Rogue.  Bullcrap!

The reason Mages are so powerful in this game is becasue they have more options for the player to hand pick from a plethora of things.  Not only that, but they really don't need a full investment in the different schools in order to be functional.  What I mean is, if I chose the Ice line in Primal, I could stop right there and do something completely different, and be a perfectly viable Mage.

Now look at Warrior - I want to be a 2H Swordsman.  I don't pick just 1 Line and "I'm good..."  No, I have to invest into the whole thing to even remotely be useful as a 2H Swordsman.  Same with Shields and Dual Wielding.  Not to mention, there's really no point in going into anything else anyway.  It's not like picking up 2 different weapon groups is going to be advantageous to your party.

On top of this, you have the Attribute Divide.  The Attribute Divide is basically the fact that a good Warrior really needs to invest a lot into Str, a good bit into Dex, a bit of Will, and a good bit in Con, and maybe some into Cunning so that you can Intimidate guys with Str (which is a game mechanic that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever) in order to function.  A good Rogue needs some Str, a lot of Dex, a good bit of Will, Con is useful, but more importantly Cunning.  What does a Mage need?  Magic and WIllpower - some will argue you don't really even need Willpower because of how Potions work.

The Rogue/Warrior classes need a lot of love, and this is one way to make them really great.  They already share the same Attributes - so it's not like there is a whole lot of difference anyway!  I'd love to see a mod that does this!

If they fixed some of the quirks in how the Attributes work, make a better Codex/Journal system, and then combine Warrior and Rogues.... this might be possibly the greatest game ever!

[Faerell Gustani]

Kaosgirl wrote...

Faerell Gustani wrote...
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.

Uh... no.  It's not.  Otherwise, a dual-class Mage/Cleric in D&D would be doing the same thing.  And while that may have been true in second edition, by third edition D&D such a character was actually gimped relative to any single-class character (mostly because of spell-level issues.)

So it's not because the class-structure allows for the combination of the roles.  It's a matter of how it's done.

Hm..., good point.  I don't think it debunks my point but rather I think your point and mine go hand in hand.
If a dual Mage/Cleric were able to advance their casting stat and spellpower in 1 shot without having to split attributes, then it would be akin to the DA:O version of Mages.
The issue is a combination that potency is not lost on a mage for dual-specing Spirit Healer and something else, and that they can apply this potency to every spell in the game.

If they simply implemented another stat which the support/healing spells keyed off of as opposed to the CC/damage spells, that would also resolve much of the "mages are OP" issues.

Modifié par Faerell Gustani, 07 décembre 2009 - 05:10 .