220 réponses à ce sujet

[Inarai]

Staylost wrote...

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).

Except that there are different per-level bonuses to both classes.  It's not JUST talent points and skill points.

Similarily, in 3.5e, at least, a 9th level character might have be Fighter 5/Rogue 4.  He has the rogue stuff that a Rogue has at level 4, and the fighter stuff that a Fighter has at level 5.  With respect to feats etc., he's level 9, unless it keys off of class level, in which case he can only apply the levels in the relevant class.  His attack bonus is that of a level 5 fighter, and a level 4 rogue(These bonus do not progress equally in DnD OR DA:O, and actually form a big part of how a class functions).  Each time he levels, he takes a level in either class, and his gains from leveling up are based on his class level there - it's not entirely open, and shouldn't be.  This represents putting differing skillsets together, after all.  So, for example, he'll have less health than a level 9 pure Fighter, and worse reflexes than a level 9 pure Rogue.  On the other hand, he's got better health than a level 9 pure Rogue, and better reflexes than a level 9 pure fighter.

classes have assymetric progression.  You can't just toss the abilities together and call it a day.

Modifié par Inarai, 07 décembre 2009 - 05:23 .

[Kaosgirl]

[quote]MarloMarlo wrote...

[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. [/quote]

Someone either didn't pay attention to the fine-print in third edition or is pretending that edition wasn't D&D for some reason...

[quote]MarloMarlo wrote...
[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. [/quote]

And climbing walls, and bartering with crooked merchants, and conning the naive nobility, and interrogating captured prisoners...

Though I guess for a mindless hack&slasher none of that's relevant.  Hence the bone of backstabbing and dirty-fighting.

[quote]MarloMarlo wrote...
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. [/quote]

Time spent progressing in one field of study is time not spent progressing in another.  Logically, someone who focuses on out-of-combat utility should be increasing his martial prowess at a much slower rate than someone who focuses on martial prowess...
(At least until one hits the point of diminishing returns, but that's a whole other argument entirely.)

[quote]MarloMarlo wrote...
[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. [/quote]

Or we could make it less combat-heavy and give the skill-monkey something to do that fits who he is instead of just cramming him into the role of glass-jaw DPS fighter...

It always irked me that the Fighter class often devolved into the Ablative Meat Shield class - aka Tank - while classes ostensibly about a noncombat archetype were doing the real damage.  It can work balance-wise, but it just made no sense that a guy who's 'concept' is about being sneaky is better at killing things than a guy who's concept is about killing things.

[quote]MarloMarlo wrote...
[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[/quote]

Hey, way to miss the point.

[quote]MarloMarlo wrote...
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]

It depends on how it's done, really.  

class-based systems lump "related" skills together, and you naturally improve in all class-related skills as you level.  If you try to convert the system to classless (or even just conflate two classes designed to emulate different roles) without taking that feature out, then the character *doesn't* have to decide what their focus is going to be.  They can just do both anyway.

[quote]MarloMarlo wrote...
[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.[/quote]

Proof plox?

[quote]MarloMarlo wrote...
"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. [/quote]

3E D&D clerics weren't necessarily getting their powers from any gods either - though people who were still stuck in habits from the previous versions often missed that little detail.  Even in 2e, the Dark Sun setting more or less dispensed with the gods and had Clerics being powered by the Elemental planes.  

Real, verifiable and recognizable Gods aren't essential to the Cleric. The only consistent things that differentiate them from mages are:
Being subject to a religious-based hierarchy.  (Chantry bosses the Circle around:  check.)
Channelling their power from elsewhere.  (DA:O Mages draw power from the Fade: check.)

(Edited to fix quotation attributions.)

Modifié par Kaosgirl, 07 décembre 2009 - 05:59 .

[Skye Kross]

hybrid classes sounds nice, like mass effect but in this game. clerics are like priests so i guess not.

from what i have observed majority of the classes belong to...

circle, apostates = mages

templars, barbarians, soldiers = warriors

highway men, thieves, antivan assassins, CHANTRY = rogues

clerics are DPS now

[Kaosgirl]

Faerell Gustani wrote...

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.

Curiously, that's exactly how people house-rule the Cleric/Mage to ungimp him.  Though some just do it more 'by the book' by requiring entry into an official prestige class who's main feature is to do that combining.

It's considered almost balanced, but still a little weak.

Faerell Gustani wrote...
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.

Would it?  Most of the "Mages are OP" issues I've seen don't even mention healing spells, and I'm not sure the few support spells used would suffer more than a trivial nerfing from being split off that way.

[Darpaek]

Inarai wrote...

Except that there are different per-level bonuses to both classes.  It's not JUST talent points and skill points.

This argument is mostly semantic.  The status quo class/level-based inate bonuses (backstab, etc.) could be tied instead to talents as passives.  Stealth could increase backstab, etc. 

[Inarai]

Darpaek wrote...

Inarai wrote...

Except that there are different per-level bonuses to both classes.  It's not JUST talent points and skill points.

This argument is mostly semantic.  The status quo class/level-based inate bonuses (backstab, etc.) could be tied instead to talents as passives.  Stealth could increase backstab, etc. 

Not so much talking about those as things like attack bonuses - you know, all the little things that effect everything anyone does.

[Darpaek]

Im sorry - what bonuses are you talking about then?

[Inarai]

Darpaek wrote...

Im sorry - what bonuses are you talking about then?

It is my understanding that a warrior gets a higher per-level attack bonus than a rogue does, to bring up one example.

[Lughsan35]

Rainen89 wrote...

How to cleric 3 easy steps

Creation line, Mace shield Arcane Warrior / Spirit healer. Now go out there and spread religion!

ZOMG You had to think for like .5 seconds to come up with that too!! I bet the OP hates thinking....

[Darpaek]

Attack bonuses could be tied to weapon talents. If the non-mage character learns more utility skills, they'll have a lower attack bonus than the non-mage character that focuses only on weapon and "warrior" talents (ie - the threaten and striking rows)

[Inarai]

Darpaek wrote...

Attack bonuses could be tied to weapon talents. If the non-mage character learns more utility skills, they'll have a lower attack bonus than the non-mage character that focuses only on weapon and "warrior" talents (ie - the threaten and striking rows)

Except that this doesn't reflect what this is meant to.  The warrior is the character whose career is devoted to combat training.  They get that higher bonus no to reflect experience since training, but to reflect the impact their previous education has on it.  Same reason a rogue gets more skill points.

[Darpaek]

Okay...



Well in our non-mage world, level-based bonuses tied to talents would reflect new learning from experience on the campaign trail instead of abstract training that may or may not have happened and is never described during the campaign.

[Inarai]

Darpaek wrote...

Okay...

Well in our non-mage world, level-based bonuses tied to talents would reflect new learning from experience on the campaign trail instead of abstract training that may or may not have happened and is never described during the campaign.

As stands, the warrior's martial training IS mentioned.

Also, I should think you'd need to present a case for why this should be done, not merely answer challenges for why it shouldn't.  Just because it adds more freedom doesn't guaruntee it's status as a positive - part of that issue is the more robust skill/talent system classless or class-lite systems require.

[Faerell Gustani]

Kaosgirl wrote...

Faerell Gustani wrote...
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.

Curiously, that's exactly how people house-rule the Cleric/Mage to ungimp him.  Though some just do it more 'by the book' by requiring entry into an official prestige class who's main feature is to do that combining.

It's considered almost balanced, but still a little weak.

Mystic Theurge is weak?  Interms of raw power, yeah.  The higher level spells are more effective so having access to a single lev 7 spell can be better than 5 rank 5s, however, there is a degree of versatility that you gain from doing a multi wizard/cleric and that's what makes it worthwhile.

Faerell Gustani wrote...
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.

Would it?  Most of the "Mages are OP" issues I've seen don't even mention healing spells, and I'm not sure the few support spells used would suffer more than a trivial nerfing from being split off that way.

There are many problems with mages in terms of OP.  This is a key design principle which I felt was flawed, and the opening poster correctly points out.  I might even go one step futher and suggest that CC based spells be attributed to a different stat as well.
The raw numbers thing in terms of AW/BM is primarily a problem with a bug that doesn't shut of buffs after your mana hits 0.
Potion chugging is something that affects both mage and non-mage, so it's not really something we can deal with on a basic design level.  Potions are an auxilliary game mechanic.

[Seifz]

Kaosgirl wrote...

MarloMarlo wrote...
"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.

3E D&D clerics weren't necessarily getting their powers from any gods either - though people who were still stuck in habits from the previous versions often missed that little detail.  Even in 2e, the Dark Sun setting more or less dispensed with the gods and had Clerics being powered by the Elemental planes.  

Real, verifiable and recognizable Gods aren't essential to the Cleric. The only consistent things that differentiate them from mages are:
Being subject to a religious-based hierarchy.  (Chantry bosses the Circle around:  check.)
Channelling their power from elsewhere.  (DA:O Mages draw power from the Fade: check.)

(Edited to fix quotation attributions.)

My D&D 3.5e books say that you're incorrect.  Indeed, Clerics must pray for their spells each day and that their power is granted by the god that they champion.  One who angers her god or strays too far from her god's alignment risks losing her powers.  When we say "D&D" here, we're generally talking about Grayhawk or Forgotten Realms.  In both settings, Clerics get their powers from the gods.

If I get a chance tomorrow, I'll find the important quotes.

[MarloMarlo]

[quote]Jassper wrote...
Narrow thinking here, you are looking only at one aspect of each class.[/quote]
Yes, I am, because that's what was being talked about -- one aspect. Specifically, fighting.


[quote]Jassper wrote...
According to just about every definition of the word.[/quote]
Go ahead and fail to provide "just about every definition."


[quote]Jassper wrote...
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]
Saying that it's "mostly" rather than "always" doesn't make it so, especially when, "mostly," they aren't presented that way. This game, for example.


[quote]Jassper wrote...
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]
The context is fine. Alistar and Sten are examples of how your half-baked attempt at defining rogues by what they aren't fails.


[quote]Jassper wrote...
Then why are you even playing a Rogue?[/quote]
Because I already played a warrior and wanted to try out the backstabbing and auto-crits on stunned/paralyzed targets. Why do you care?


[quote]Jassper wrote...
So we should change the rules because you play a Rogue in this manner?[/quote]
Did I say that? No. And what rules? The fact that I my rogue is different from what you merely say they should be is proof enough that the rules as you imagine them don't exist. That was the point of  bringing my rogue up. For someone that likes to mention context, you have a lot of trouble taking things into it.
 

[quote]Jassper wrote...
And what are you talking about "wishlist of baseless assumption"? That don't even make sense, or are you useing big words again?[/quote]
Are the words "baseless" and "assumption" big words to you? A baseless assumption is when you make an assumption that has no basis. It's not rocket surgery. That it's a wishlist just points out that all you're doing is making stuff up and saying that it's true for no other reason than you want it to be true.


[quote]Jassper wrote...
I'm talking about what it is to be a Rogue - No how YOU play the game specificly - get a clue.[/quote]
And I'm telling you that your ideas don't actually apply to anything. Get a clue. And while you're at it, get over yourself. Rogues don't revolve around what you imagine them to be.


[quote]Jassper wrote...
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]
That's a wordy and clumsy way of saying that you still can't define rogues.


[quote]Jassper wrote...
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]
No. Again, in context. Do you even know what context means? Is that another big word for you? According to the way you define rogues, these characters aren't rogues. And yet you say that they are and offer them as examples of rogues for someone to study.

That you now want to say that they merely have certain preferences doesn't take away from the fact that you have nothing to base those preferences on. Even if you did -- which you don't -- the fact that they're merely preferences makes a definition even more meaningless.

And good job using a bad example.


[quote]Jassper wrote...
I'm not the one grasping at straws here.[/quote]
Everything you've said about rogues comes from your imagination. If not, then you haven't given anyone any reason to believe otherwise. That's pretty much what grasping at straws is.


[quote]Jassper wrote...
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]
Your examples contradict your definition, which, again, only exists in your head. That it only exists in your head is bad enough. That it also contradicts your examples doesn't make that more wrong, since you can't be more wrong than wrong, but it's still hilarious and sad to see. When you contradict yourself, no, you're on the same track. When you don't have a basis for your arguments other than your imagination, no, they're not sound.


[quote]Jassper wrote...
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]
Alexander the Great was a king that didn't use rogues, by your definition, in combat. One guy, but if I was going to list them all, I'd probably have to list all the kings recorded in history. Still, worth mentioning as a subtle reminder that you can't list one example to support your bizzare assumption. And I'm not going to do all that work just to more thoroughly disprove an unproven statement, when it's your responsibility to prove it.

And look who's talking about focusing on a tiny aspect of the whole picture. Nothing to say about conventional warfare? Well, of course you don't. Who likes to have to say that they're wrong.


[quote]Jassper wrote...
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.[/quote]

What isn't a separate issue is the fact that if you want to fight on the front lines during the battle of Farlandia, you can be heavily armored for it. And afterwards, at the festival celebrating the victory at the Battle of Farlandia, you can have your armor already off for sneaking around and whatnot. So the ability to wear heavy armor and its detrimental effect on doing roguish things is irrelevant to being a rogue. In other words, your argument is irrelevant.


[quote]Jassper wrote...
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.[/quote]
If they were valid arguments, I wouldn't belittle them. And you'd be able to defend your ideas with more than just assumptions. Obviously, you haven't.


[quote]Jassper wrote...
You offer no valid reasons to combine the two classes, just comments with no reasoning behind them.[/quote]
Do I need to argue that they should be combined as a prerequisite to pointing out arguments that are bad? No. What if I think they should be kept as separate classes, after all. That wouldn't make your arguments all of a sudden good.


[quote]Jassper wrote...
Your posting is nothing more than trolling.[/quote]
Now who's the one taking things out of context. You should be thanking me for making you aware of the flaws in your arguments so that you don't repeat the same mistakes later on.

[GHL_Soul_Reaver]

Inarai wrote...

Staylost wrote...

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).

Except that there are different per-level bonuses to both classes.  It's not JUST talent points and skill points.

Similarily, in 3.5e, at least, a 9th level character might have be Fighter 5/Rogue 4.  He has the rogue stuff that a Rogue has at level 4, and the fighter stuff that a Fighter has at level 5.  With respect to feats etc., he's level 9, unless it keys off of class level, in which case he can only apply the levels in the relevant class.  His attack bonus is that of a level 5 fighter, and a level 4 rogue(These bonus do not progress equally in DnD OR DA:O, and actually form a big part of how a class functions).  Each time he levels, he takes a level in either class, and his gains from leveling up are based on his class level there - it's not entirely open, and shouldn't be.  This represents putting differing skillsets together, after all.  So, for example, he'll have less health than a level 9 pure Fighter, and worse reflexes than a level 9 pure Rogue.  On the other hand, he's got better health than a level 9 pure Rogue, and better reflexes than a level 9 pure fighter.

classes have assymetric progression.  You can't just toss the abilities together and call it a day.

Hmm it seem like I am not ringing any bells here, if you have been practising D&D in any form you would also be able to recognise some of the benefits you actually get from it, for an instance not being able to be caught flatfooted, and other dextorious skills, consider it as a dex fighter with a small weapon on dual wield... sneak/backstabs attacks with serious damage done with two weapons.. yes they are small and the like, but fast and vicious for then considering the awesome armor class due to being good at actually dodging attacks which ups the armor class by alot.

It grants you the posibility to mix your own character with benefits from different classes, as long as you do stuff wise knowing the classes and taking time to investigate them you get a much more fun gameplay out of it as in how I have experienced it, also you get to chose the feats you want to of course some feats requires other feats but it does not render you useless in the beginning of the game as you got a way to specialize from depending on what you want to do and what you would like to become.

You get a slight penalty on attack bonus by chosing fighter/rogue, but you get to get away with alot other stuff because of it.

Now look at it as just being a fighter for then chosing a fighter prestige class when able to, it would certainly increase some of the nasty benefits as of being a warrior, but also in a more precise way of doing stuff, so it is not just like chosing a feat and it is there, you get the feats by advancing in the prestige class  by levels not by choice.

That is the positive way of being able to do it all the D&D way, old fashoined maybe, but the system work damn well.

[MarloMarlo]

Kaosgirl wrote...
And climbing walls, and bartering with crooked merchants, and conning the naive nobility, and interrogating captured prisoners...

Though I guess for a mindless hack&slasher none of that's relevant.  Hence the bone of backstabbing and dirty-fighting.

Hey now, in a video game, bartering and climbing are just as mindless as hacking and slashing. You're still merely making a decision to defer to a spreadsheet to determine success.

Kaosgirl wrote...
Time spent progressing in one field of study is time not spent progressing in another. Logically, someone who focuses on out-of-combat utility should be increasing his martial prowess at a much slower rate than someone who focuses on martial prowess...
(At least until one hits the point of diminishing returns, but that's a whole other argument entirely.)

Progressing in one field of study doesn't bar you from another. Learning how to pick a lock doesn't make you unable to learn how to use a sword, or make it harder for you to learn to use a sword any more than singing makes it harder for you to learn math. This is true in real life and, more importantly, in the game.

Kaosgirl wrote...
Or we could make it less combat-heavy and give the skill-monkey something to do that fits who he is instead of just cramming him into the role of glass-jaw DPS fighter...

We could -- or, BioWare could -- but that's not the game Dragon Age is. And this topic is about combining the two classes in Dragon Age, not combining them in every game with rogues and warriors as separate classes.

Kaosgirl wrote...
Hey, way to miss the point.

No. Even within the options given to rogues, it'll either be specialized as a dual weilder or an archer. Giving them the option to learn shield or 2 handed weapon skills doesn't eliminate the need to specialize because the game still limits progression through a limited number of attribute points, skills, talents/spells learned per level.

Kaosgirl wrote...
It depends on how it's done, really.

Well, I don't think anyone's arguing to combine rogues and warriors and also give them twice as many points to spend.

Kaosgirl wrote...
Proof plox?

The burden of proof was yours first. But I'll give you what you want, anyway, since you earn it later:
 
Nothing about the Fade is divine. Spirits are there. Some are bad, some are good. When you dream, that's where you go. That's the Fade.

Some people say that their talents are "God given" or that they're blessed. That's fine, but it's not the same as proof of the existance of God. People in Dragon Age considering magic to be a gift or curse from the Maker isn't proof of the existance of the Maker, either. No divine being, no actual divinity.

DnD, on the other hand, has actual gods and realms that are actually divine.

Kaosgirl wrote...
3E D&D clerics weren't necessarily getting their powers from any gods either - though people who were still stuck in habits from the previous versions often missed that little detail.  Even in 2e, the Dark Sun setting more or less dispensed with the gods and had Clerics being powered by the Elemental planes.

Fine, according to 3E, clerics don't have to be granted their spells by a god and I missed the fine print or something else that isn't any more excusable.

[Inarai]

GHL_Soul_Reaver wrote...

Inarai wrote...

Staylost wrote...

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).

Except that there are different per-level bonuses to both classes.  It's not JUST talent points and skill points.

Similarily, in 3.5e, at least, a 9th level character might have be Fighter 5/Rogue 4.  He has the rogue stuff that a Rogue has at level 4, and the fighter stuff that a Fighter has at level 5.  With respect to feats etc., he's level 9, unless it keys off of class level, in which case he can only apply the levels in the relevant class.  His attack bonus is that of a level 5 fighter, and a level 4 rogue(These bonus do not progress equally in DnD OR DA:O, and actually form a big part of how a class functions).  Each time he levels, he takes a level in either class, and his gains from leveling up are based on his class level there - it's not entirely open, and shouldn't be.  This represents putting differing skillsets together, after all.  So, for example, he'll have less health than a level 9 pure Fighter, and worse reflexes than a level 9 pure Rogue.  On the other hand, he's got better health than a level 9 pure Rogue, and better reflexes than a level 9 pure fighter.

classes have assymetric progression.  You can't just toss the abilities together and call it a day.

Hmm it seem like I am not ringing any bells here, if you have been practising D&D in any form you would also be able to recognise some of the benefits you actually get from it, for an instance not being able to be caught flatfooted, and other dextorious skills, consider it as a dex fighter with a small weapon on dual wield... sneak/backstabs attacks with serious damage done with two weapons.. yes they are small and the like, but fast and vicious for then considering the awesome armor class due to being good at actually dodging attacks which ups the armor class by alot.

It grants you the posibility to mix your own character with benefits from different classes, as long as you do stuff wise knowing the classes and taking time to investigate them you get a much more fun gameplay out of it as in how I have experienced it, also you get to chose the feats you want to of course some feats requires other feats but it does not render you useless in the beginning of the game as you got a way to specialize from depending on what you want to do and what you would like to become.

You get a slight penalty on attack bonus by chosing fighter/rogue, but you get to get away with alot other stuff because of it.

Now look at it as just being a fighter for then chosing a fighter prestige class when able to, it would certainly increase some of the nasty benefits as of being a warrior, but also in a more precise way of doing stuff, so it is not just like chosing a feat and it is there, you get the feats by advancing in the prestige class  by levels not by choice.

That is the positive way of being able to do it all the D&D way, old fashoined maybe, but the system work damn well.

Of course, it's all about tradeoffs.  Try building a gish character sometime(Arcane caster/melee fighter combination).  I've made Crusader/Knights(Now, this guy was pretty much the best tank there ever was), Duskblade/Swordsages, and others.  Hell, even the Prestige classes require the same balancing act.

But then they killed that in the new edition.  Have you read the new multi-class rules?  Terrible.

All I'm commenting on there is the fact that for such a system to work, it needs a lack of simplicity - and really, more classes.  Personally, I'd LOVE if we had 2-3 base classes for each archetype.  Something like this, maybe:

Warrior(Extra health, damage bonuses):
- Knight(Might this be nobles only?)
> Largely defensive, buff based.
> Gets to be called "ser".
> Usually wears massive armour
- Weapon Master
> Expanded weapons talents
> Usually wears heavy armour
- Battleweaver(Got a better name?  Provide it)
> Offensive talents more universal, IE, not all tied to single weapons.
> More talents for multi-target attacks, fast attacks.  Damage class.
> Usually decked out in medium armour.

Expert(Extra skill points, faster movement and attack speed):
- Scout
> As much an up front fighter as the warriors, also benefits from limited stealth.  Extra skill points means traps, poisons.  Excels at preparing a battlefield, reasonably capable in one to one combat.
> Works best in light armour
- Warsage
> Straight finesse fighter.  Maybe even some extra weapon talents and/or some universals as seen in Battleweaver.
> Light to medium armour, some tradeoffs for medium.
- Rogue
> The classic rogue. 

Mage(Magic!  Not denied any school, but perhaps less access to it.):
- Elementalist
> Stronger focus on the primal school, perhaps a few extra spells.
- Guardian
> Stronger focus in Creation
- Necromancer
> Gee, I wonder what these guys are for?

With some additional training, characters may cross classes.  The big questions would be: Can they cross archetypes?  If so, how do you deal with becoming a mage(Perhaps something to do with a side trip into the fade)?  Is class crossing available by default?  Archetype crossing?

Ideally, the specializations as they stand should still exist, but perhaps you can only take them off your root archetype?

[Dargor Icarus]

Darpaek wrote...

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!

Thank you! They should add an atheist organization In DA:O.

Someone mentioned that mages are Overpowered. Well I d'm not so sure about that. Rogues seem to do a really good job agains mages. I almost took out a certain cartel of mages with just sneaking around with Zhevran backstabbing, dual sweeping my way to fortune. I guess its like a balance thing mages>warriors, warriors>rogues, rogues>mages. Or thats the impression I got.

[Jonfon_ire]

Thank you! They should add an atheist organization In DA:O.

They have. They're called "Dwarves" 

Someone mentioned that mages are Overpowered. Well I d'm not so sure about that. Rogues seem to do a really good job agains mages. I almost took out a certain cartel of mages with just sneaking around with Zhevran backstabbing, dual sweeping my way to fortune. I guess its like a balance thing mages>warriors, warriors>rogues, rogues>mages. Or thats the impression I got.

Yep, Z does horrible things to Mages, especially if he gets behind them (ahem...)

[BlueEyes_Austin]

First off, lore based arguments are ridiculous. That's all just fluff used to pretty up the ruleset, not the reverse.



Second, having a class that heals/protects/buffs is a game design consideration, nothing more. These skills provide a buffer for encounter design as well as enable the development of more difficult and challenging encounters more generally.



Third, no one--no one--should talk about D&D and "balance" in the same breath. The traditional "balance" in D&D is that while your magic user was a limited action magic item that could throw darts at lower levels they would eventually become more powerful than fighters/thieves.



Fourth, combining healing/buffing/protection/damage in a single class does not overpower that class given the limited number of spells available and itemization issues. What it allows you to do is run a party with a single cleric/magic user character and accept that all of the functions will be gimped instead of using two character slots for both roles.

[Darpaek]

Inarai wrote...

As stands, the warrior's martial training IS mentioned.

But not described.  And I guarantee Alistair's training was different from Oghren - particularly the discipline focus.

Also, I should think you'd need to present a case for why this should be done, not merely answer challenges for why it shouldn't.  Just because it adds more freedom doesn't guaruntee it's status as a positive - part of that issue is the more robust skill/talent system classless or class-lite systems require.

I believe earlier posts in this thread - many from people other than myself - have more than made a satisfactory prima facie case for merging the non-mage classes.  We're at the rebuttal phase of the debate now.

Brief summary:  Reciprocity for mage uberness, flexibility in party build, realism, achieving desired character builds (I personally love fighters that pick locks)

[Suron]

Brunopolis wrote...

I'm obviously refering to the classical D&D idea of cleric.

well this isn't DnD (sadly....personally I'd ****** if this game used 3rd ed rules) so the rest of your points/rant/whatever is irrelevant.

[Jassper]

Well,.. I guess I am just an old fashioned role playing gamer then.



All I see is fighters that want rogue abilities, which is common for the "I want it all" power gamer.

Sure - It "Can" be done, but nothing I see here convinces me that it "Should" be done.



I personally feel that it just destroys the fantasy role play aspect of gaming. Once you have it whittled down to just 2 base class types it won't be long until someone wants to combine them as well, enacting the same arguments - "why can't a warrior learn to cast spells?"



I never allowed "multi-class" characters in my PnP D&D game either - and I had several gamers thank me for it, they too were sick of the Fighter/Cleric/Thief "do it all" types that felt the rest of the group was "expendable". I enjoy building my party with the proper balance for given scenarios.



And I still stand behind the fact that there is a huge distinction between Warriors and Rogues, regardless of someone trying to make it sound and if I don't know what I am talking about. Even in modern comic's, Superman = Warrior, Batman = Rogue. Look at the legends and Lore that is out there, big difference imo.



So flame away.