2 réponses à ce sujet

[Dakota Strider]

I will give the DA team a pass for not having the Ranger Specialty in DA2, there was very little wilderness area, and without stealth outside of combat, the claim could be made there was no need for a ranger.  But I am hoping that they will be bringing back the ranger, as a specialty for either the warrior or rogue class. 

And I am sure I may be in the minority that enjoys playing a ranger.  It is an iconic figure in fantasy, since Strider/Aragorn, and there are different styles in which they can be played.  I know that a ranger is not the most effective in combat as most warriors, and that is a reason many do not play them.  To be honest, the benefits that a ranger gained in DAO, namely the animal companions, were probably weaker than benefits gained by other classes.  But for me, the reason to play a ranger is not for a combat advantage.  It is purely for roleplay reasons, of having a warrior/scout, that is in his/her element in the wilderness.  And since DA3 is supposed to be covering a very large part of Thedas, I am hoping there will be lots of opportunities for rangers to show off their skills in the wilds.

I would prefer, if the Ranger is brought back, that the animal companion part is not part of the package.  That is something that is more suitable for a druid....or Drzzt.  Tracking skills, and opportunities to use them, perhaps trap setting and making, and perhaps a bonus when in combat in the wilds.  Not often that specialties include negatives, but a ranger should probably have penalties when trying to use class skills in cities.

Anyways, there is my plea.  Hoping since the DA3 dev team says they have heard the message about player choices, have this in mind.

Modifié par Dakota Strider, 24 avril 2012 - 07:32 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Dakota Strider wrote...

As "the_one' " stated in another thread  "DAO was the compromise" between true rpg's and the action/arcade style game.  Many of us rpg fans believe that DA2 got way too far away from the Bioware rpg roots, and we would like to pull them back to a DAO style, or better yet, towards even more rpg orientated games like they have made in the past.

Well, that all depends on the exceptionally varied definition of what exactly constitutes a "true rpg."

Be careful using such definitions as I am already inclined to disagree with the notion of the "true rpg"   (i.e. it's pretty subjective).

The idea that DAO is the compromise between BG and games like DA2 is still fair though.

[Allan Schumacher]

I am sure there are lots of definitions, as to what a "true" rpg is. I played rpg's before there were computer games to handle the game mechanics and to give a visualization of what was going on, instead of the players imagination, Baldur's Gate has probably been the very best at doing all what i feel is most important for an rpg. Story matters, and not just a linear path that the player has no choice of getting off of, but multiple paths, with subpaths off of each main choice. Multiple choices in dialogues, with consequences for your choices that matter. Combat that has a sense of realism (yes, I know that magic is not real, but if it is used in a fantasy world, it has rules that need to be followed.) Also, combat needs to give the player to the ability to use tactics and strategy, not just build a character to have the coolest combat moves that do the most damage, and then have a button mashing exercise, which benefits those with the largest percentage of fast twitch muscles.

That's fair and I bet we probably see eye to eye on a good number of things. RPG is such a broad term, in my experience, that what someone considers to be the pinnacle is likely going to be close to the first experiences that brought them into the genre.

From what I look for in an RPG, The original Baldur's Gate actually falls short for me in a lot of ways. Baldur's Gate II and TOB get progressively better, and games like Fallout, Planescape: Torment, and Ultima VII all duking it out for what I'd consider to be my "ideal" RPG.

But I digress, and will now attempt to bring the conversation back on topic with the following:

Does a Ranger as a warrior make more sense because they are closer to a warrior type in other cases (i.e. Strider), or because that's just sort of the way they've always been. I often relate Ranger to "Archer-like" in that they often have ranged weapon proficiencies, and tend to wear lighter (i.e. non-warrior) armors because of their agility and affinity with nature. So when it was a Rogue it didn't really bother me much.

Would increased HP (and stuff like that) for speccing as a Ranger help satisfy the hardiness criteria to make it easier to swallow as a subclass for rogues instead of warriors?