45 réponses à ce sujet

[Eveangaline]

I realize this is a silly request, but am I the only one who hates running into chests before we have the option to recruit a rogue? I don't mind if there's chests we only see once and never can go back to, and if we didn't bring a rogue then well it's our own fault. I just hate running into locked stuff before I even get the chance to have someone in my party who can unlock it, and then it's locked forever

[Masha Potato]

*break the lock => ruin the random amout of loot* would be less frustrating

[Eveangaline]

Masha Potato wrote...

*break the lock => ruin the random amout of loot* would be less frustrating

Oh no, I'd hate that, I'm perfectly fine with rogues being the only one to be able to open the chests, but I'd at least like such locks to only happen after I have a chance to get a rogue if I'm not playing one, then if I miss the loot, it's my own fault for not bringing a rogue

Modifié par Eveangaline, 30 octobre 2012 - 10:07 .

[jackkel dragon]

It wasn't that bad in DA2 (one prologue locked chest for Rogue Hawkes), but this is actually something that bothered me in the DAO Prelude, particularly Ostagar. Here you actually have a Rogue, but they don't have any ranks in the lock picking skill and so you have to leave the loot behind.

Basically, I think it'd be a good idea to limit how many locked items appear before NPC Rogues join the party. It makes completionists that play as non-Rogues feel like they missed something, even with the poor quality of most randomized treasure.

[MillKill]

Masha Potato wrote...

*break the lock => ruin the random amout of loot* would be less frustrating

In a game with infinite saving and reloading, stand-alone randomized checks are effectively pointless.

Modifié par MillKill, 30 octobre 2012 - 10:19 .

[TsaiMeLemoni]

To piggyback onto this, I'd like it if we didn't have to switch to our rogue to unlock the chests. If I am a mage or warrior or even lower level cunning rogue, the fact that I have a rogue in my party that is capable of unlocking a chest/disarming a trap should be enough for me to just select that action with my PC. If XP can be shared among all parties for an action, surely this can to.

I realize this is a somewhat silly request, but I hate switching to my rogue character and making them do it, then switching back.

[MillKill]

TsaiMeLemoni wrote...

To piggyback onto this, I'd like it if we didn't have to switch to our rogue to unlock the chests. If I am a mage or warrior or even lower level cunning rogue, the fact that I have a rogue in my party that is capable of unlocking a chest/disarming a trap should be enough for me to just select that action with my PC. If XP can be shared among all parties for an action, surely this can to.

I realize this is a somewhat silly request, but I hate switching to my rogue character and making them do it, then switching back.

I completely agree on chests. I would like the rogues to be the ones to disable traps, though, since it will add a layer of tactical consideration in combat.

Modifié par MillKill, 30 octobre 2012 - 10:22 .

[The Night Haunter]

TsaiMeLemoni wrote...

To piggyback onto this, I'd like it if we didn't have to switch to our rogue to unlock the chests. If I am a mage or warrior or even lower level cunning rogue, the fact that I have a rogue in my party that is capable of unlocking a chest/disarming a trap should be enough for me to just select that action with my PC. If XP can be shared among all parties for an action, surely this can to.

I realize this is a somewhat silly request, but I hate switching to my rogue character and making them do it, then switching back.

There was a mod for this in DAO and OMG I loved it. It was like christmas everytime I saw a chest cause I didnt run up to it, click it, hear 'Can't do that', curse, switch characters, unlock, open, switch back. I just ran up to it, clicked it, got goodies a second later after my rogue ran up and opened it for me .

[TsaiMeLemoni]

MillKill wrote...

TsaiMeLemoni wrote...

To piggyback onto this, I'd like it if we didn't have to switch to our rogue to unlock the chests. If I am a mage or warrior or even lower level cunning rogue, the fact that I have a rogue in my party that is capable of unlocking a chest/disarming a trap should be enough for me to just select that action with my PC. If XP can be shared among all parties for an action, surely this can to.

I realize this is a somewhat silly request, but I hate switching to my rogue character and making them do it, then switching back.

I completely agree. I would like the rogues to be the ones to disable traps, though, since it will add a layer of tactical consideration in combat.

Hmm...I will grant you that. Often times I just run over traps because I don't want the hassle of switching between characters (especially while in combat).

@GhostMessiah: That sounds amazing. I game on a console, and stuff that like makes me reconsider every so often.

Modifié par TsaiMeLemoni, 30 octobre 2012 - 10:24 .

[Todd23]

Finally this is brought up! I hated having to see these loot options that are physically impossible to do unless you yourself were a rogue, every, single, profile.

[mousestalker]

For some reason, after reading the title, I thought this thread would be about Varric. So I was excited. But it was not about Varric. That is disappointing.

Modifié par mousestalker, 30 octobre 2012 - 10:25 .

[Plaintiff]

I wouldn't mind so much, as long as we had the option of coming back to open the chest later. It is very annoying,however, when you can't go back to a place for plot reasons, and all that stuff has to be left behind.

[Asch Lavigne]

I always wished there was an auto open chests/disarm traps for rogues so I don't have to keep switching characters. Though I hate being forced to take a rogue in my party all the time so I can open/disarm things.

[TimTheGreek]

What does it matter? Gonna be like in DA2 anyway, never anything good in the Chests anyway. Gotta buy as DLC the nice stuff...

[Tinu]

I like the way how lockpicking works in skyrim, so I wouldn't mind some sort of puzzle or little precise work to be done before I get the loot.

Modifié par TinuHawke, 30 octobre 2012 - 11:16 .

[Wulfram]

locked chests should have keys.

[The Night Haunter]

Wulfram wrote...

locked chests should have keys.

That's either a lot of keys or a very silly GW(1) type system where you have 10 identical keys but they somehow break everytime you open any variety of lock pissible in that area.....

It would make rogues unneccessary, which could be a good thing or a bad thing depending. Personally I like that carry over from DnD, but in most older DnD games you have a party of 5 or 6 (NWN2 have 6 I think, but for the whole first act one slot was taken by that silly girl).

[mesmerizedish]

mousestalker wrote...

For some reason, after reading the title, I thought this thread would be about Varric. So I was excited. But it was not about Varric. That is disappointing.

For some reason, after reading the title, I thought this thread would be about Isabela. So I was excited. But it was not about Isabela. That is disappointing. 

Modifié par ishmaeltheforsaken, 30 octobre 2012 - 10:46 .

[GloriousDame]

I must be the only one who thinks this is fair. lol
I see it as just a perk of choosing a certain class: Rogues get the possibility to open locks/chests early on, Warriors have huge amounts of health from the get-go, and Mages get the possibility of healing themselves. Each class has its perks and disadvantages, we just have to weigh whether the sacrifice of said perk is worth it. I do see you point though, OP.

[philippe willaume]

TsaiMeLemoni wrote...

To piggyback onto this, I'd like it if we didn't have to switch to our rogue to unlock the chests. If I am a mage or warrior or even lower level cunning rogue, the fact that I have a rogue in my party that is capable of unlocking a chest/disarming a trap should be enough for me to just select that action with my PC. If XP can be shared among all parties for an action, surely this can to.

I realize this is a somewhat silly request, but I hate switching to my rogue character and making them do it, then switching back.

+1

[Wulfram]

ghostmessiah202 wrote...

That's either a lot of keys or a very silly GW(1) type system where you have 10 identical keys but they somehow break everytime you open any variety of lock pissible in that area.....

Well, in practical terms the keys would just be flags that unlocked the relevant chest.  No need to actually clutter up the inventory.

It would make rogues unneccessary, which could be a good thing or a bad thing depending. Personally I like that carry over from DnD, but in most older DnD games you have a party of 5 or 6 (NWN2 have 6 I think, but for the whole first act one slot was taken by that silly girl).

I think making rogues unnecessary is a good thing.  I think freedom to choose your party mix is a good thing, and giving less loot to rogueless parties is a bad way to encourage their inclusion.

Though there should still be occasions where acquiring the key is fairly impractical, or requires you to murder someone to acquire it, or set off a bunch of alarms that'll make things more difficult for you.  So having a rogue would still be advised if you're looking for a more subtle approach.

[Eveangaline]

mousestalker wrote...

For some reason, after reading the
title, I thought this thread would be about Varric. So I was excited.
But it was not about Varric. That is disappointing. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/sad.png[/smilie]

No no, that would be the rogue with the chest hair

Wulfram wrote...

I think making rogues unnecessary is a good thing.  I think freedom to choose your party mix is a good thing, and giving less loot to rogueless parties is a bad way to encourage their inclusion.

I'd prefer rogues be neccessary, I just don't want them to be necessary at a part of the game you cannot have them in yet. I'm still perfectly ok with them being needed to unlock chests, and freedom to choose the party is still there. Taking away something that makes them necessary is as silly as giving warriors and rogues heals and buffs like mages and rogues and mages tanking that works like a warriors.

[Wulfram]

Eveangaline wrote...

I'd prefer rogues be neccessary, I just don't want them to be necessary at a part of the game you cannot have them in yet. I'm still perfectly ok with them being needed to unlock chests, and freedom to choose the party is still there. Taking away something that makes them necessary is as silly as giving warriors and rogues heals and buffs like mages and rogues and mages tanking that works like a warriors.

It's entirely possible to play warriorless or mageless parties as it is, and you don't miss out on loot to do it.  Why give rogues special treatment?

Their combat role is, and should be, all that's necessary to warrant their inclusion.

[Eveangaline]

Wulfram wrote...

Eveangaline wrote...

I'd prefer rogues be neccessary, I just don't want them to be necessary at a part of the game you cannot have them in yet. I'm still perfectly ok with them being needed to unlock chests, and freedom to choose the party is still there. Taking away something that makes them necessary is as silly as giving warriors and rogues heals and buffs like mages and rogues and mages tanking that works like a warriors.

It's entirely possible to play warriorless or mageless parties as it is, and you don't miss out on loot to do it.  Why give rogues special treatment?

Their combat role is, and should be, all that's necessary to warrant their inclusion.

Eh, I don't really see a difference. Every class has things you miss if you don't take them along.