62 réponses à ce sujet

[Mike Canary]

 For DA3, does anyone else think they should bring back the rogue's ability to use swords? I rather liked the one-hand sword and dagger combination, and I feel like that might bring back some of the feeling of a rogue's versatility, rather than just making them faster, dagger wielding warriors.

I dunno though, does anyone else want to see this?

[Herr Uhl]

I like the sword/dagger combo as my prototype rogue is a swashbuckler.

If I get to one hand a sword and have that be viable I'd be happy too.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

While I loved the two handed rouge and warriors in DA:O but I can understand why Bioware's decesion to give the two-handed ability to the rouge and make the rouge use daggers only. Every time I played DA:O it was as a rouge basically for the lock picking abilities and I after I maxed out the lock picking abilities I played the rouge more as a warrior that as a rouge I had some Wardens that were stronger and more powerful than any  "tank" warrior characters like Stern, Shale, Alistair, and Oghren. 

This made warriors and rouge way to similar and since the rouge could extra XP by lock picking, springing traps, pickpocketing, and etc. I had no incentive to play as a warrior and come to think of it I don't think I ever finished a playthrough of DA:O as a warrior.  

By giving two handed daggers excuslively to the rouges and I perfer swords to daggers I actually had a reason to play as a warrior in DA2 although I did beat DA2 as a warrior I didn't enjoy it as much as playing as a rouge.

[Mike Canary]

This may sound unusual, but I just felt like that by taking away the skills (the rogue's bread and butter) and amping up their combat ability, the rogue was actually made more similar to the warrior, and thus a little more boring. When I was a rogue in DA:O, I needed to use the skills (like trap-making or persuasion) to make up for a lessened combat ability. It just felt like a more different class than rogues in DA:2.

[Fiacre]

Besides the above, you don't *have* to play the rogue as a warrior with lock picking in DA:O. I much prefer leaving the choice to the player -- if one wants to do that, they can, if one wants to play their rogue focusing on skills and backstabbing, they can. It's the same reason why I would like to have something like the Arcane warrior spec back (my AC and my primal mage in DA:O were both offence based and felt satisfyingly different. My two mages in DA2 felt the same, gameplay wise) and dual wielding and archery to be available to warriors again as well. DA2 feels so... samey. Building characters in DA:O was a lot more fun.

[xsdob]

Actually, I want warriors to have two weapons against, that was awesome back in DAO to dual weild one handed swords.

[batlin]

Restricting weapons to classes is stupid. All it serves to do is limit the player in what they can do.

Hawke: "Hey Isabela, want to use this sword?"

Isabela: "No, I can only hold things shorter than 12 inches"

George Takei: "Oh myyy."

[Sith Grey Warden]

I liked how in DAO there was a difference between the classes, but still enough flexibility to let you play how you wanted. The dwarf in my profile pic, for instance, was dual-wielding longswords in the end, and had a far higher strength stat than dexterity. Did that make him not a rogue? Not at all. I relied heavily on stealth for ambushes and backstabs to maximize damage. I also wasn't nearly as much a tank as a DW warrior would have been.

At the same time, in a different playthrough, I had a dual-wielding warrior who I spec'd as a berserker. He still felt like a warrior, even though he was wielding two daggers and tanked based on dexterity.

Were these the most optimal builds? No. But they were possible, and on Hard difficulty, perfectly viable (I never actually beat the whole game on Nightmare, though, even when playing better builds).

[garrusfan1]

Yeah I want the one sword and one dagger back that said please leave it to only that cause if you have two swords you get overpowered

[vortex216]

PLEASE!

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

Mike Canary wrote...

 For DA3, does anyone else think they should bring back the rogue's ability to use swords? I rather liked the one-hand sword and dagger combination, and I feel like that might bring back some of the feeling of a rogue's versatility, rather than just making them faster, dagger wielding warriors.

I dunno though, does anyone else want to see this?

I want rogues to be able to wield swords again, but I want them to fight using a different style and with different skills than warriors. I'd also like to see warriors be able to dual wield again, but fighting in a different style from rogues and with their own dual wielding skillset.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Personally, I think companions and PC should be able to hold any weapon regardless of class.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Yeah. The rogue could also wield two swords once they unlocked the ability to do so. Worried about no diversity between warrior and rogue? Well this can easily be averted by ensuring that the attack speed and animations of the rogue are different as well as their abilities. As such, you shouldn't end up with a rogue who does stronger attacks than a warrior of the same level with the sword (unless it's backstabs).

The rogue was way more powerful than warrior in Origins? The rogue was a god in Dragon Age 2 and needs to be powered-down for DA3. The rogue is supposed to attack either using stealth or speed and in Dragon Age 2 they had speed and devastating attacks thanks to the critical attacks and 100% chance of landing them with abilities.

My view of the rogue is someone who provides support in combat rather than just rushing into there like a warrior and you could do just that as a rogue in Dragon Age 2 so the only thing that changed was their weapons.

[Serillen]

If they continue with the class restrictions on fighting styles I'd like to see warriors and rogues get a third style. Rogues could get a one handed style using a sword, while warriors could dual wield using two swords for a different style of dual wielding than rogues.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Serillen wrote...

If they continue with the class restrictions on fighting styles

Something they should absolutely not do.

[Dhiro]

Axe + Axe Rogue or go home

[Solmanian]

They should remove the weapons restrictions completley. Even mages should be able to use weaponry other than staves, like wand+sword

[Vaeliorin]

Dhiro wrote...
Axe + Axe Rogue or go home

Damn straight.  Sigrun using two axes (especially using Daisycutter, iirc, because it's a 1-handed axe with a 2-handed model) + heavy armor is awesome (also, hilarious).  It's also the only time I've ever found a use for heavy armor outside of a warrior archer (I still haven't found a use for medium armor.)

Honestly, all the class-based restrictions on fighting styles, weapons and armor need to go away.  Not only are they nonsensical, they're not any fun, especially since they make me not want to take certain characters (I'd never have taken Isabella with me anywhere if I hadn't gotten a mod that let her use a bow.  I don't need two people in melee with a dragon...it puts an undue strain on my healing resources.)

[Doctoglethorpe]

They may as well.  I never liked the idea of class-restricted equipment.  At least anything between warriors and rogues.  If you got the strength to carry it, you should be able to use it, even if its technically less useful cause your not trained to use it.  Only exception should be staffs.  Can't use em without mana, obviously. 

Which is why I think a more open class system is preferable.  Why can't a mage be skilled with a sword, or a guy with a poleaxe also be a lock-smith?  Stereotypes I tells ya.


Stricter class systems do have there uses though.  Namely balance.  *shrug*  But yeah, I think DAO had a good balance of that, right down the middle.  Wanna give your rogue a two-hander?  Go ahead.  You don't have any training for it, but thats your problem not the games.  DA2 got a bit too restrictive, limiting almost all equipment to specific classes. 

Modifié par Doctor Moustache, 03 décembre 2012 - 03:58 .

[tishyw]

batlin wrote...

Restricting weapons to classes is stupid. All it serves to do is limit the player in what they can do.

Hawke: "Hey Isabela, want to use this sword?"

Isabela: "No, I can only hold things shorter than 12 inches"

George Takei: "Oh myyy."

Agreed.  Both fighting classes should be able to duel wield and their not being able to was a silly change.
I also think they should bring back the fighter mage options that were in DA:O, I like to play my character my way not the way Bioware thinks I should.

Limited player freedom is one of the reasons that so many felt no connection to Hawke.

[Reofeir]

I honestly believe that the classes should work like this:
Warriors: Sword and shield, Dual wield Swords, Giant sword
Rouge: Duel wield daggers, Bow & arrow, crossbow
Mage: Staff (unless a certain specialization from Dragon age comes back, but that's for another discussion)

I prefer not to have the rouges trained in holding two swords or a sword at all.

[Revenant147]

I hope rogues (and warriors) get to wield a single sword again, not that I mind daggers, I just like the idea of a single one-handed sword and nothing else. I just didn't play as a warrior again once I found out I had to have a shield to go long with one, and I hate 2 handed swords with a passion.

[AshenShug4r]

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...

While I loved the two handed rouge and warriors in DA:O but I can understand why Bioware's decesion to give the two-handed ability to the rouge and make the rouge use daggers only. Every time I played DA:O it was as a rouge basically for the lock picking abilities and I after I maxed out the lock picking abilities I played the rouge more as a warrior that as a rouge I had some Wardens that were stronger and more powerful than any  "tank" warrior characters like Stern, Shale, Alistair, and Oghren. 

This made warriors and rouge way to similar and since the rouge could extra XP by lock picking, springing traps, pickpocketing, and etc. I had no incentive to play as a warrior and come to think of it I don't think I ever finished a playthrough of DA:O as a warrior.  

By giving two handed daggers excuslively to the rouges and I perfer swords to daggers I actually had a reason to play as a warrior in DA2 although I did beat DA2 as a warrior I didn't enjoy it as much as playing as a rouge.

rogue! rogue, rogue, rogue, rogue, rogue.

[Imp of the Perverse]

As of DA2, there's a pretty good tactical distinction between warriors and melee rogues. Rogues attack a single target with very high damage output (better for assassinating elite targets), warriors attack multiple targets with lower damage output (better for crowd control.) I like that distinction, but I also liked having more dual wielding flexibility in DAO. Maybe dual wield warriors would normally use two swords, and have a higher damage output than two-handed warriors, but across a smaller area (closer to sword and board.) Rogues would continue to be single target specialists with daggers.

Maintaining that distinction, you could then let them mix and match daggers and swords. Daggers might increase attack speed and critical chance, but require higher dexterity for warriors, swords might increase raw damage and defense, but require higher strength for rogues.