146 réponses à ce sujet

[snackrat]

I can see why in DAO their roles (dw warr and dw rogue) seemed very similar - the rogue felt rather like a warrior that just happened to pick locks, sometimes.

But I am saddened by complete compartmentalism. Everything was divided into its own little box without any elements that could be considered cross-class capable.

Taking ME as an example (yes I know people hate that, but more people will be familiar with this example than others I can probably think of):
Technically, the classes are three - combat (warrior), tech (rogue), biotic (mage). But there a six classes, because three are a mix of two of the categories. They are however, not 'watered-down' copies, but have their own roles. Combat/tech is not a hardy engineer or a squishy soldier, they are an infiltrator for long-range spike damage. Tech/biotic is favoured for their flexibility regarding enemy defenses and squadmates. And combat/biotic is about high-risk, high-reward close-quater combat.

So, why can't Dragon Age have elements common to two different classes, that yet perform different roles?
Templars are already warriors with their OWN role in magic influence, so the system isn't impossible. DAO's arcane warrior was supposed to be a mage with warrior influence.

Dual-wielding in DAO was very AoE-oriented, along with cripples and debuffs. (I always chose it for its AoE, any attempt to join others were met with frustration and respec.) One can dual-wield any one-handed weapons, though a talent unlock is required for dual-wielding full size weaponry in each hand.
In DAE, dual-wielding is rogue-only - and rogues are single target only - and also, daggers only.

So, why not different varities of dual-wielding? A warrior's tree would focus on heavy AoE, so they could hold threat and attenttion from numerous enemies at once, extending their AoE angle wider than two-handed, but with less reach, good for clusters (which, imo, DAE had waaay too many of - hopefully DAI is different). Would work well as a bezerker/reaver - focusing on dealing hurt and living through damage rather than mitigating it. If we're still going sword/dagger only weapon locks as DAE did, would be swords only, with possible support for axes and/or maces.

As for the rogues, the tree would operate similarly to as it did in DAE: focused single-target assassination at close range, spike damage, battle-field mobility, strike speed, single-target debuffs (cripples and such). If we're going weapon locks, then daggers - but without locks, stick to swords (no maces or axes) to avoid the uhh.. backstabbing animation weirdness, as well as to keep animations similar.


TL;DR: Warriors dual-wield is AoE damage (potentially) for bezerker tanking, rogue dual-wield can be single-target damage and cripples for crowd-control and debuffs.

[Blazomancer]

That's one of the reasons why I had twice the number of playthroughs for origins compared to DA2.

I'm all right with the idea of having separate Dual weapon talents for rogues and warriors as you've proposed; well, assuming for a moment that they are actually bringing back dual wielding for warriors.

[snackrat]

I think a lot of people will be disappointed if they do not, though they haven't said anything about changing it.
They've mentioned they're doing a lot more with 'customisation' and options, but that's all I can attribute to them. Customising your combat style MAY be included, but it wasn't stated, so I don't put much hold in it.

We'll know when they're ready to announce.

Modifié par Karsciyin, 15 mars 2013 - 05:40 .

[Solmanian]

I think every class should have at the VERY LEAST 3 combat styles. In DA2 we had 2 for warrior&rogue and mages had to settle for autoattack (and well, magic). The return of the dexterity based warrior will be most welcome. Mages should take a lesson from the other too classes: instead of magic giving them a grocery list of spells, making them into swiss knives or jack of all trades; give them figthing style. like specializing as long range artilary or close range brawlers, or simply support/control. And have the spells augment their style. staves, sword&wand, and something else (dual wielding wands? arcane archery?)

[karushna5]

In that case it would not be fair unless rogues could either sword and shield, or two hand and that is a little hard to imagine. To keep it fair they need two unique styles for them, archery and duel weilding is what they are. Many warriors want the cool bows and duel weilding of rogues, but few rogues on the most part do sword and shield or two handed and it doesn't really fit with the rogue motif.

If rogues can have a new style exclusive to them, then I see no problem with warriors and rogues sharing duel wield.

[snackrat]

They wouldn't be sharing dual wield. Both holding two weapons perhaps, but they would be different trees, with different roles, and holding DIFFERENT WEAPONS. Rogues would still have two unique trees, it would not be like warriors 'stole' it.

As for three each... well, why? In DAO, mages had six trees, warriors five, and rogues three (if I remember right). For combat styles, that was mages one, warriors four, rogues two. In DAE, combat styles are one for mages and two for warriors and rogues.

Even if you gave rogues a new tree (like, say, FISTICUFFS, wot-ho), so that warriors and rogues each have three, mages would still only have one combat style. Options are good, but classes do not need to be homogenous to be fair - simply balanced. For variety in play is probably supposed to come from the augmentation trees, not the combat styles trees - otherwise they likely wouldn't have stripped them out.

Modifié par Karsciyin, 15 mars 2013 - 07:12 .

[Plaintiff]

My personal solution would be to categorize "Weapon" skill tress separately from "class" skill trees, and have them level up independently of each other. Then every class could equip every possibly weapon category and develop skills in them, while still maintaining the class abilities that make them distinct from each other. Or at least the players could. Companions might have in-game reasons for choosing to use a specific weapon.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 15 mars 2013 - 07:36 .

[Kidd]

Plaintiff wrote...

My personal solution would be to categorize "Weapon" skill tress separately from "class" skill trees, and have them level up independently of each other. Then every class could equip every possibly weapon category and develop skills in them, while still maintaining the class abilities that make them distinct from each other. Or at least the players could. Companions might have in-game reasons for choosing to use a specific weapon.

I'm falling for you again and again, m'dear! 'twas a delicious design! =)

[FDrage]

Interesting idea .

One of the 2 reasons why I didn't "import" any of my DA:O / DAA playthroughs, even so I was looking forward to that (for different reasons then ME imports, so not going to go into it here). I can understand the reasons behind the changes from DA:O to DA2, just didn't agree with the "taking them out completely" part.

My two main characters were a DW warrior and a Arcane Warrior. Personally, and that is just me, DW rogues felt more cumbersome to me then it was worth it. So I generally left Zevran out and only took Sigurn (left it AI controlled) because I liked the character. So something in the line of high "single target" vs "AoE" (which is how I generally imaging my DW warrior vs any DW rogue companions from an RP perspective anyway) or "precision" vs. "brute force".

Modifié par FDrage, 15 mars 2013 - 09:24 .

[Dutchess]

I like your suggestion. I missed the dual wielding warrior in DA2. I also think Fenris should have been one, instead of a two-hander. Would have looked much better and fitted with the slender elf frame.

[Blazomancer]

@renjility - exactly, when I first saw Fenris, I thought he must be some kind of warrior-mage hybrid and agile as a rogue. A 2H sword just didn't suit his frame and the armor.

[karushna5]

I disagree, changing the weapons where they are so interchangeable does steal the rogues thunder, they may do different things but they are essentially a thing unique to rogues, duel weilding, that now both do in different ways. If you want rogues to use sword and shield but with a buckler instead with different abilities, it still is the same idea of taking a rogue thing and making it a rogue and warrior thing.

As I said to give Warriors duel weild, or even in your case of the warrior getting an additional fighting style than so should the rogue. If warrior has a type of duel weilding, sword and Shield, and two handed and Rogue only has Archery, and Duel weild type it is still unfair. I think us fond of warriors just have to accept that the rogues get a wonderful fighting style that we can't have, but they can't have ours either so all is fair

[Wulfram]

If your going to have to go to the effort of doing a whole new talent tree and set of animations, does it make sense to do something that plays rather like Two Handed and looks rather like Rogues.

If I was going to have a 3rd warrior weapon talent tree, I'd rather have crossbows - actually I'd personally give crossbows to rogues and longbows to warriors - or polearms.

[kheldorin]

If you've played ME MP a lot, you'll realize that there are very little "roles". Maybe tanking and healing since the volus and the juggernaut after they were introduced but before that very little. Most of them are just DPS. classes are more like themes. Take the Sentinel; the only thing common between the different Sentinel kits are that they both have tech and biotic powers. The human sentinel have long-range projectile tech and biotic powers while the Krogan Warlord Sentinel wields a hammer that can be imbued with tech or biotic power. And if you spec the kits differently, you could have a totally different playstyle. For example, there's Infiltrators that can melee just as well as any other supposedly melee based classes. In ME3, there aren't even any weapon restrictions; all the kits could use every gun. Yet, it didn't take away the uniqueness of each class or kit.

Personally, as long as the rogue skills fits the theme of a rogue and the warrior skills fits the theme of a warrior, it doesn't really matter to me that their functions can be similar. Probably not a popular opinion around here, but I prefer that each class be similarly capable in all aspects of gameplay. The primary reason is so that there can be enemies that can challenge the player strategically without forcing the player to bring that particular class or have that particular skill. Even though I enjoy the freedom of playing my character however I want, I've begun to enjoy games that forces me to play a certain way for that particular scenario, to adapt and change in the heat of battle.It shouldn't be the case where if I play my build efficiently, the enemies didn't matter. If the classes are too restrictive, then certain enemies would just be too difficult for certain classes and the designers would be forced to reduce the strategic depth and variety of enemies.

Modifié par kheldorin, 15 mars 2013 - 02:13 .

[FieryDove]

I think the DW and archery tree should be included back for warriors. It was fun in the first game to have variety and options. There were many people who didn’t want to be a rogue/have a rogue companion and even with da2 didn’t want to *drag one along* to lock pick/disarm trap. So I feel the unique aspect was moot. (Plus it made replays/trying experimental builds a bit dull)

The weapon trees just need to have individual flair and fluff. But it’s more work that way and whatever vision for DA doesn’t seem to be set yet with the experimenting that has been done. We’ll see one day what happens I guess…soonish. lol

[Vajraja]

I fully support that - going back to a lot of the previous styles I play. I always did the high dex dual wield warrior builds (with archery backup). To go off on a tangent with the older D&D based games you could get amazing weapon specialization with a warrior you can't get with a rogue.

It was also the build I enjoyed in DA:O. I didn't like DA2 and the gameplay simplification is still one of my major gripes (no dual wield, no quick weapon swap, less skill customization, etc). So I hope they bring back OPTIONS in inquisition. I really think that is what people are looking for as long as it doesn't destroy some core mechanics that need to be respected.

[Eyerock]

As one who enjoyed playing a duelist rogue in DAO I support this wholeheartedly. DA2's duelist disappointed me greatly, as my image of a duel doesn't consist of doing a lot of flipppedy-dos and cartwheels with tiny daggers. I always saw it as more of an Errol Flynn character, with sword and dagger in offhand, serving as a rogue-tank. Also, I think swords looks cooler than daggers.

[CaptainBlackGold]

Eyerock wrote...

As one who enjoyed playing a duelist rogue in DAO I support this wholeheartedly. DA2's duelist disappointed me greatly, as my image of a duel doesn't consist of doing a lot of flipppedy-dos and cartwheels with tiny daggers. I always saw it as more of an Errol Flynn character, with sword and dagger in offhand, serving as a rogue-tank. Also, I think swords looks cooler than daggers.

Agreed; here's hoping that rogues in DA3 get rapiers, with proper lunge, parry, and riposte animations. A fighting style with rapier/dagger (not short sword) would be sweet.

Making the role of the rogue unique does not require artificial restrictions on weapons but rather building the game where his/her unique talents and skills are necessary (i.e., locked chests with loot worth having, traps that can kill, secret passages that only he can find, missions where stealth and theft is essential for an optimum outcome, etc.). In Orlais, I can imagine numerous duels being fought in city streets/back alleys, etc., where this kind of fighting would showcase a truly unique fighting style for rogues. How cool would it be to have assassination missions, or quests where your rogue has to infiltrate a heavily fortified building, steal precious documents, but have to avoid fighting?

But to do that, the game has to be developed with the idea that a Rogue play through is going to be significantly different than a Warrior or Mage play through - that we will have to play the game at least three times in order to see all the content - which apart from the people on this board, is sadly, something that most players will never do.

It just seems to me that some people want to make rogues into fighters which really isn't their traditional role because the game itself has very few options for him/her to do what they have always done.

I keep reading complaints that "the classes aren't distinct enough so we have to take things away from warriors to make thr rogue feel special." The reason appears to be that the emphasis has been on combat, rather than all the other things that makes a great RPG.

Perhaps one solution is to allow warriors to spec either for AOE or single person DPS rather than trying to throw this role onto rogues? I want my rogue to be a sneaky, back-stabbing, thieving, assassinating ROGUE, not a specialist fighter.

[karushna5]

I agree that there seems to be a certain emphasis on rogue talents. I think an issue also is that in these games there has been some flair for rogues and mages and none for warriors. Warriors lack special quests, Slim Cauldry which can be done without being a rogue but generally means you are using a companion. It also lacks a plot developed around them.

Still I think warriors getting 4 fighting styles is unfair to rogues when they have two or if people just want duel weild than 3 and 2. I think it just means that they are going to use the flair of the rogue instead of the warrior. What I think would be important is giving warriors their own flair and things they can do because of it.

[philippe willaume]

Hello
As CaptainBlackGold said yes DW warrior in DA:2 will feed like DW rogue. The only differentiator is combat. so you can have two roles for one job so to speak.

And to make it worse, regardless of how many build you can choose from, each build only have on way to use them through the game. so i was in for 3 act of doing the same thing over and over again.

The game system needs to be designed to support it, but rogue and the warrior don't need to be the same, have variety of build and variety of game play within a build.

That is the point of a RPG. you should be able to play a highly specialised char in a class hence limiting you tactical game play option or something that is less specialised but has more tactical game play option.

I am fine if a rogue can be used like a warrior, In DA:0 I used leliena like that as a stop gap measure the time I reorganised myself or when you just needed two tanks.
It is clear that she could not be used like for too long but at least it was usable.


I am fine will warrior and mage being able to sneak (at least move in silence) but it would be nice to have a rogue only option in most of the case.
for example, you need to get documents from somewhere, you can either mount an assault.
or have the rogue climb a wall and let the re rest of the party in through a rope or by opening the kitchen door. at the very least should be able to use the rogue to scout ahead.

Ideally the rogue should be able to go the sneaky, backstab way, to rogue tank or a bit of both just as the warrior should be able to go Aoe or DSP or a bit of both 

phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 16 mars 2013 - 05:30 .

[ReallyRue]

With the inclusion of different 'schools' of combat like they had in DA2, this should be possible.

In DAO, the only talent trees rogues and warriors got were specifically linked to the weapons they used, so if they used the same weapons, they were pretty similar. DA2 however had more variety, so even if a warrior and rogue had the same dual-wielding talent tree, they could still be more diverse because the warrior could also pursue talent trees like 'Vanguard' and 'Battlemaster', and rogues could pursue ones like 'Sabotage' and 'Subterfuge', so they would end up quite different. If DA3 followed the same sort of thing, cross-class weapons and whatnot could work.

[deatharmonic]

I'm all for this. I would like to see more class flexibility in general for DA3, I was really disappointed with DA2, things became so rigid that the system felt incredibly outdated for an rpg in this day in age. Not to mention boring.

[karushna5]

I actually felt it was much less rigid. What with 4 other groups to be able to customize your character.

[deatharmonic]

karushna5 wrote...

I actually felt it was much less rigid. What with 4 other groups to be able to customize your character.

How so?

In DAO your mage could become a battlemage, your warrior could dual wield/use a bow, your rogue could use a sword & shield. There was a lot of variation in the builds you could create. Yes, DA2 expanded on the specializations but that just gives you more skills to choose from, it doesn't increase build variation. Compared to the last few rpg's i've played (dragons dogma, KoA, skyrim) there's an incredible amount of freedom to mix and match your builds, way more depth and variation than DA2.