@DeathScepter
Alright, based on what you believe a ranger is, how would you classify the following rangers, warrior or rogue?
Aragorn/Strider
The Grey Company (the Dunedain that followed Strider)
Hawkeye (from Last of the Mohicans)
Daniel Boone
Davy Crockett
Jim Bridger
Drzzt Do'Urden
Army Rangers
And why?
Return of the Ranger in DA3
Débuté par
Dakota Strider
, avril 24 2012 07:00
Retour en haut
#77
Posté 02 mai 2012 - 04:25
DeathScepter
-
- Members
- 5 528 messages
What is your definition of a Rogue and a Warrior?
#78
Posté 02 mai 2012 - 04:58
Dakota Strider
-
- Members
- 892 messages
Not a simple answer, for a simple question.
Rogues: Generally thought to be a bit shady, or under-handed, even if that is not always true. Tries to accomplish its goals through guile and deception, Weak in combat, unless able to gain surprise, or has support from others, than is able to make make devastating attacks.
Warriors: Experts at combat and weapon skills. This would generally include tactics and strategies (though I think that depends on the Wisdom/Intelligence of the individual). Physically are usually more fit or hardy than their companions.
What makes the issue grey, is that both general classes have subclasses that have a myriad of skills. Most would agree an assassin is a rogue, but what is an assassin other than someone that kills for money? Would that not qualify a warrior as well?
Many game systems allow skills to be taken by all classes, and that blurs the lines even more. As I have stated earlier in the thread, I believe that the class is more about attitude, than skills. A ranger is more of a defender / protector type, (which is basically the generic definition of the word ranger), and has honed skills that fit his environment best. While he may use stealth, just as a rogue would, he is far more likely to engage in frontal combat, as a ranger gains no more benefit from surprise, than any other warrior.
I would like to see what your definition is as well.
Rogues: Generally thought to be a bit shady, or under-handed, even if that is not always true. Tries to accomplish its goals through guile and deception, Weak in combat, unless able to gain surprise, or has support from others, than is able to make make devastating attacks.
Warriors: Experts at combat and weapon skills. This would generally include tactics and strategies (though I think that depends on the Wisdom/Intelligence of the individual). Physically are usually more fit or hardy than their companions.
What makes the issue grey, is that both general classes have subclasses that have a myriad of skills. Most would agree an assassin is a rogue, but what is an assassin other than someone that kills for money? Would that not qualify a warrior as well?
Many game systems allow skills to be taken by all classes, and that blurs the lines even more. As I have stated earlier in the thread, I believe that the class is more about attitude, than skills. A ranger is more of a defender / protector type, (which is basically the generic definition of the word ranger), and has honed skills that fit his environment best. While he may use stealth, just as a rogue would, he is far more likely to engage in frontal combat, as a ranger gains no more benefit from surprise, than any other warrior.
I would like to see what your definition is as well.
#79
Posté 05 mai 2012 - 07:49
Rabid Rooster
-
- Members
- 240 messages
Allan Schumacher wrote...
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.
For a definition of a "true rpg" or at least as close to one as a video game can come to it, just look at BG 1-2, PS:Torment, TES games, NWN 1-2, DA:Origins, KOTOR 1-2.
DA:3 needs more of the above and less DA:2.
#80
Posté 05 mai 2012 - 08:05
Rabid Rooster
-
- Members
- 240 messages
DeathScepter wrote...
What is your definition of a Rogue and a Warrior?
You know this question gets to the heart of one of my biggest problems with DA2 (other than combat overall and the buttfugly redesgined elves) In DA:O my warriors did not have to fit into the "Tank" mold. I could make them archers or finesse/fencer type warroirs with dual weild. Likewise I didnt have to play or build my rogue to be a sneaky theif character, heck most of my rogues never took stealth and were better in combat than my warriors thanks to Ranger/Duelist and Assassin/Duelist builds with the right power selections.
Now in DA2 I could not bring myself to play a warrior because I was stuck in the MMO "Tank" mold and could only use weapon and sheild or two handed weapons and the animations were crap.
I did somewhat enjoy DA2 rogues but still was limited compared to DA:O.
#81
Posté 06 mai 2012 - 04:31
Iosev
-
- Members
- 685 messages
I think that it is important to understand that the Dragon Age series are video games, so beyond lore, I think that the classes and specializations should fulfill entertaining, useful, and UNIQUE roles in gameplay.
Rather than contemplate the subjective differences between what distinguishes a rogue and a warrior, I think a better question to ponder is how could a ranger be implemented and be both unique, fun to play, and fit with the archetypes in Dragon Age. What type of weapons would they use? What type of damage (AoE or single target) would they inflict? What type of role would they perform (damage, crowd control, or tanking)?
I think it's easy for us RPG fans to think of various class and specialization ideas from a lore perspective, but ultimately forget that there are gameplay concerns that HAVE to be addressed.
Rather than contemplate the subjective differences between what distinguishes a rogue and a warrior, I think a better question to ponder is how could a ranger be implemented and be both unique, fun to play, and fit with the archetypes in Dragon Age. What type of weapons would they use? What type of damage (AoE or single target) would they inflict? What type of role would they perform (damage, crowd control, or tanking)?
I think it's easy for us RPG fans to think of various class and specialization ideas from a lore perspective, but ultimately forget that there are gameplay concerns that HAVE to be addressed.
Modifié par arcelonious, 06 mai 2012 - 04:56 .
