220 réponses à ce sujet

[MerinTB]

kusut wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
If your dad was a rock star and a scientist too I'd say he was Buckaroo Banzai.

or en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_may

Are you trying to tell me that Queen rocked across the 8th dimension?

Who wore the cowboy outfit, Freddie?

[royen1]

Yeah, I'm all for a classless systems. I doubt simply merging the current DA:O classes would work. I mean, it would work-work, but the benefits would be marginal compared to if it had been designed as a classless system from the beginning.



As if anyone will ever read through ten pages of roleplayer vs min/maxer misunderstandings to read this post...

[Jassper]

MarloMarlo wrote...

And that person's name was Jassper, who had only his mere insistance to back up his claims of being an authority on rogues.

And you are? and I never claimed to be an authority on rogues.

Once again nothing but snide remarks. Does that somehow make you feel Superior? Maybe you should put the bag of Cheeto's down and get out side more.

[Wholetyouinhere]

Mages assimilated the healing/buffing role in Dragon Age, and the class is blatantly overpowered. That's really all the OP was trying to say. Had nothing to do with lore or D&D or anything other than game balance. Not sure how people misunderstood so fantastically. Seems folks just have axes to grind.

[Jassper]

Wholetyouinhere wrote...

Mages assimilated the healing/buffing role in Dragon Age, and the class is blatantly overpowered. That's really all the OP was trying to say. Had nothing to do with lore or D&D or anything other than game balance. Not sure how people misunderstood so fantastically. Seems folks just have axes to grind.

Mages are overpowerd simply because of the spells alone, like crushing prison, not because the 2 classes are combined. A mage still has to focuse the points in one area or another. The OP thinks that combining the Warrior and Rogue class will somehow balance it when really all it will achive is a gimped warrior that can pick locks.

You are correct that it has nothing to do with D&D, but because this is a fantasy rpg for some reason people insist that it must be base on D&D rules - which it is not. But the reason the mage and cleric are combined is because of the game lore.

[MrHarmaa]

Monk would have made good martial artis / speced priest and some other stuff...

[MarloMarlo]

Jassper wrote...
And you are? and I never claimed to be an authority on rogues.

Do I need to be an authority on rogues? Am I telling other people what rogues are and aren't and suggesting that they study up on it because I say that they don't know but that I do?

No. That's what you did.
 

Jassper wrote...
Once again nothing but snide remarks. Does that somehow make you feel Superior? Maybe you should put the bag of Cheeto's down and get out side more.

Let me know when you say something that requires me to respond with something more thoughtful and potentially less hurtful to your precious feelings. And don't need snide remarks to feel superior. You're doing a good enough job with that all by yourself. Keep going. If I'm not going to stuff my face with Cheetos, you may as well stuff my ego with your stupidity.

[Gecon]

Brunopolis wrote...

Then it only stands to reason that Rogues and Warriors be combined into one class as well.

It would make sense, but it wouldnt improve the game.

[Jassper]

MarloMarlo wrote...
Do I need to be an authority on rogues? Am I telling other people what rogues are and aren't and suggesting that they study up on it because I say that they don't know but that I do?

Insisting that all the legends an lore out there - all though out history and rpg games - is wrong and not valid, is in fact claiming that you are an expert on the subject - obviously you know better as I am apperantly wrong. And you are implying to others what rogues are or aren't by stating that my references to historical (fantasy or real) Rogue type classes is baseless and "in my imagination".

Let me know when you say something that requires me to respond with something more thoughtful and potentially less hurtful to your precious feelings. And don't need snide remarks to feel superior. You're doing a good enough job with that all by yourself. Keep going. If I'm not going to stuff my face with Cheetos, you may as well stuff my ego with your stupidity.

Don't worry, you didn't hurt my feelings - But your initial personal attacks were unwarranted and only served to bolster your own ego - Did you expect me to run and hide?

[Darpaek]

I feel bad for the Cheetos that always get dragged into these internet fights. The Cheetos didn't do anything! Ramsey, let my Cheetos go!



They're tasty and crunchy and the spicy ones are great with a glass of milk!



As if there's some shame in the act of eating Cheetos (with a napkin)...

[SheffSteel]

At the end of the day, there's nothing wrong with a good classless rules system, in principle.
In the world of Dragon Age, though, players either have the talent for magic or they don't. That creates two de facto classes.
The question is whether having two classes means that there should be more.
Currently we have one extra class: the Rogue. At first my concept of the Rogue was a character focussing on skills rather than on combat talents. Unfortunately, there aren't any rogue-specific skills, so although Rogues get more skills, the system falls a little flat - in practice, rogues end up developing lots of combat talents, because they get as many talents as warriors and there is a large overlap between their talent pools. All that warriors have over rogues is the option of using shield and two-handed talents, and better health/attack per level (IIRC).
I just don't think Rogues are sufficiently differentiated to justify having their own class right now. If there were rogue skills rather than rogue talents, and rogues got one skill per level and one talent per three levels, they would hold their own as a class. I'd go so far as to say they should have the option of using weapon&shield talents too.
Mage = spells, warrior = talents, rogue = skills.
Maybe for DA2.

Modifié par SheffSteel, 08 décembre 2009 - 03:10 .

[Gecon]

@SheffSteel: You're ignoring the fact that Bioware choose to make some skills talents.



Its hardly noticeable, as Bioware also choose to make Skills very much like talents - IMHO a very limiting decision which leads to a multitude of problems, including the fact you cannot make a character really specialized into skills like you can in D&D. There is no attribute that gives you more skillpoints.

[MarloMarlo]

Jassper wrote...
Insisting that all the legends an lore out there - all though out history and rpg games - is wrong and not valid, is in fact claiming that you are an expert on the subject - obviously you know better as I am apperantly wrong.

Did I say that all legends and lore out there and the history of RPG games is wrong? No. I don't even need to say that.

And here you are, claiming to know what all the legends and lore and the history of RPG games is, and that it somehow supports your position, right after claiming that you didn't say that you thought you were an authority on rogues. Well done. That's like 10 Cheetos worth of ego boost you just gave me right there for being clueless about your own position.

Jassper wrote...
And you are implying to others what rogues are or aren't by stating that my references to historical (fantasy or real) Rogue type classes is baseless and "in my imagination".

Merely insisting that you have references doesn't change the fact that all you've done is say "Legolas is a rogue because I said so." Name dropping someone who doesn't even fit your imaginary description of what a rogue is isn't the same as having sources. All I've done is point that out, and point out that your definitions don't line up with reality. Or anything, really. Again, not even your imagination.

Jassper wrote...
Don't worry, you didn't hurt my feelings - But your initial personal attacks were unwarranted and only served to bolster your own ego - Did you expect me to run and hide?

After reading your posts, why would I expect you to do anything but continue failing? That's not a rhetorical question.

And would the personal attacks be more warranted to you if I suggested you study because you're wrong, without offering any reason for my declaration of your wrongness other than my imaginary standards over what you're wrong about?

[Brunopolis]

I like the idea a lot of making rogues very utility heavy. This could actually be a great improvement in variety for the class in the next DA:O and make the class different enough to warrant its existence in the sequel. For example, making a handful of new skills like crafting(runes, sockets, etc), armorer(heavy armors, shields, and heavy weapons), leatherworking(light armors, bows, and light weapons), mobility(increased movement speed + trap evasion), bartering(reduced item cost, increased sell cost), and other various skills. Then move over stealth and lockpicking to skills as well and then give rogues a skill every level up. They would be the utility masters and would definitely be the best by far in that regard.



I wasn't even aware that rogues received more skills than warriors until recently. The difference is quite small and because there are so few skills(and so many other party members you can use to get all the skills easily) that there is really no difference skill-wise between picking a rogue and a warrior.



This could be an alternative to the current problem with warriors and rogues being too similar.

[Jassper]

MarloMarlo wrote...
...a bunch of crap...

Well I will say this, you are very good at twisting what has been said - and implying what isn't there - but you are starting to slipp. You quoted me on something I never said, what I said was "Legolas is defiantly a rogue type". If you disagree - then tell me WHY you diagree instead of "oh you think you are an expert". (not directly quote)

"Study up" was ment to imply - Look it up, there is plenty out there (but I'm betting you knew that). If you want to twist that into me claiming to be an expert then so be it, but yet you offer nothing to dispute it, nor have you offered anything constructive to anyone else, only attitude.

For whatever reason you took offence to me I don't know - nor do I care, belittle me all you want. It will not change my stance or opionion on the matter.

[Jassper]

Brunopolis wrote...

I like the idea a lot of making rogues very utility heavy. This could actually be a great improvement in variety for the class in the next DA:O and make the class different enough to warrant its existence in the sequel. For example, making a handful of new skills like crafting(runes, sockets, etc), armorer(heavy armors, shields, and heavy weapons), leatherworking(light armors, bows, and light weapons), mobility(increased movement speed + trap evasion), bartering(reduced item cost, increased sell cost), and other various skills. Then move over stealth and lockpicking to skills as well and then give rogues a skill every level up. They would be the utility masters and would definitely be the best by far in that regard. 

I like the Mobility and Bartering Idea,

[JaegerBane]

Gecon wrote...

@SheffSteel: You're ignoring the fact that Bioware choose to make some skills talents.

Its hardly noticeable, as Bioware also choose to make Skills very much like talents - IMHO a very limiting decision which leads to a multitude of problems, including the fact you cannot make a character really specialized into skills like you can in D&D. There is no attribute that gives you more skillpoints.

Frankly, this is really the major point of substance on this thread. The split between skills and talents is not totally logical and hence, since skills work for anyone and talents are confined to classes, you can have some odd barriers spring up. Quite why a warrior can become an expert alchemist but can't figure out how to move quietly, or a mage can learn the ways of a born woodsman but not figure out how to pick locks never totally made sense, but I would submit it just doesn't have that much of an effect on gameplay.

[jackofarcades]

I think specialization should be optional, but provide benefits for specialists (higher spellpower modifier for those spells). If they made mana more scarce and mana pots harder to chug then you would either have to specialize or face a lower spellpower bonus.



I could see why people would resist the idea, though.

[MarloMarlo]

Jassper wrote...
Well I will say this, you are very good at twisting what has been said - and implying what isn't there - but you are starting to slipp. You quoted me on something I never said, what I said was "Legolas is defiantly a rogue type". If you disagree - then tell me WHY you diagree instead of "oh you think you are an expert". (not directly quote)

"Study up" was ment to imply - Look it up, there is plenty out there (but I'm betting you knew that). If you want to twist that into me claiming to be an expert then so be it, but yet you offer nothing to dispute it, nor have you offered anything constructive to anyone else, only attitude.

For whatever reason you took offence to me I don't know - nor do I care, belittle me all you want. It will not change my stance or opionion on the matter.

Trying to argue about what you really meant or what you meant to imply only works when what you said can be reconciled with what you claim to mean. You can't say "I murder kittens" when talking about kittens and/or murder and then later on say "Well, what I meant was Cheetos go straight to my thighs."

I don't have to twist "I sugest you do some study on Rogues before you try to post anything rational between the 2" into anything. It and the rest of the half-baked post is clear enough. And none of it warrants disputing against beyond pointing out how little it's based on. While you want me to say why I disagree, you haven't even presented a good reason why anyone should agree with you in the first place, except that you say so. It's like you're expecting someone to disprove your lack of evidence for the existance of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, ignoring all the arguments on reasons why no one should agree in the first place, merely because you told someone to study up on it. Pointing out just how insubstantial your arguments are is as constructive as anyone can possibly get against someone that has no concept of the burden of proof.

By the way, saying that you aren't actually all that knowledgable about rogues doesn't really help your case any, because then who are you to "post anything rational between the 2," let alone tell someone to study before they make the attempt. Which is what I've been saying to you. If you want to join me in my argument against you, I guess you can do that.

And thanks for letting us know that you won't be changing your opinion. Without that announcement, none of us would've been able to predict that someone irrational would stick to their guns in the face of an overwhelming lack of support. I wonder where that conventional fighting argument of yours went, though (I don't actually wonder). Maybe Batman stole it away while Superman kept everyone's attention.

You bore me now. Let me know when you have more to offer than poor attempts at revision and arguments against yourself that I've already used.

[Hulk Hsieh]

The magic healing is DA:O isn't that powerful to be overpowered.

When I played the AW, a real overpowered spec, I'd rather use lesser Poultice which heals for 100+ HP rather than casting for heal.

[Reynen Starfyre]

Cleric class has now been released:

Check out the following two sites:

http://www.dragonage...file.php?id=374

http://www.damods.co...php?topic=953.0

Enjoy

Modifié par Reynen Starfyre, 20 décembre 2009 - 07:22 .