146 réponses à ce sujet

[karushna5]

Because there were certain abilities that you had to take and it was more filling out your sheet. You are looking at weapons, but if I was duel weild I would buy all of those and all my abilities would be the same of every other duel weild.

Add in Sabatoge, specialist, scoundrel and Subterfuge you have a greater variety by far with many more options

Same with warriors. You are not only a sword and shield you can also be battlemaster, Vanguard, defender and warmonger which not only suit more for warriors but also give them more options and styles of play.

[The Elder King]

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.

This is a great idea, though I doubt that Bioware will do something similar for DA3.
About the OP, I agree on the return of DW warriors, different from DW rogues.

[deatharmonic]

karushna5 wrote...

Because there were certain abilities that you had to take and it was more filling out your sheet. You are looking at weapons, but if I was duel weild I would buy all of those and all my abilities would be the same of every other duel weild.

Add in Sabatoge, specialist, scoundrel and Subterfuge you have a greater variety by far with many more options

Same with warriors. You are not only a sword and shield you can also be battlemaster, Vanguard, defender and warmonger which not only suit more for warriors but also give them more options and styles of play.

Edit: of course i'm looking at weapons, because changing from a sword&sheild to bow or dual wield gave the player a completely different set of skills to work with, independant of the specialization they chose.

The difference between those specializations for war you listed are small compared to what a change of weapons can give. A sword and shield warrior is drastically different from a bow warrior, a bow warrior is drastically different from a dual weild warrior, and on top of that you also have the specializations. The range in what you can create is much wider. You could be a templar, berserker, champion, reaver - and on top of that change your weapon set (which also changes your play style). You have your specialization skills, but then you also have your weapon skills. Compared to DA2? Just the specialization skills. There are more combinations to mix and match.

Modifié par deatharmonic, 17 mars 2013 - 12:19 .

[karushna5]

I would say there is a lot more difference between the abilities of the Vanguard, Battle master, defender, and warmonger than the abilities of duel weild.

Also none of those were specialization skills, which were still in this game but under the names of Berserker, Templar, and Reaver

So as I see it not only do you get two types of weapon skills, Shield and Sword, and Two handed, you also get four sets of abilities to define the kind of warrior you want AND specialization skills ie Berserker, Templar, and Reaver,

All in all actually we gain more in DAII compared to DA:O

[deatharmonic]

karushna5 wrote...

I would say there is a lot more difference between the abilities of the Vanguard, Battle master, defender, and warmonger than the abilities of duel weild.

Also none of those were specialization skills, which were still in this game but under the names of Berserker, Templar, and Reaver

So as I see it not only do you get two types of weapon skills, Shield and Sword, and Two handed, you also get four sets of abilities to define the kind of warrior you want AND specialization skills ie Berserker, Templar, and Reaver,

All in all actually we gain more in DAII compared to DA:O

... lol, forget it.

[Solmanian]

only having access to Sword&board and two handed is incredibly limiting. In DA:O my standard tactic (wether a rogue or warrior) was to harres the enemy at range than switch to melee when they close in.

To me, frankly, archery&dual wield didn't realy made sense for rogues. Both are combat style that require alot of training, and years to master to effectiveness and would make sense for a weapon master like the warrior, but not a rogue that would prefer to ply his trade from the shadow.

I believe rogues should be more focused on their utilitarian side, than direct combat; controling the battlefield and striking only at the right place and time, making their first strike the last strike.

Arguments along the line of "this is my skill tree, and you can't have it!" are hardly productive.

As for possible fighting styles for rogues: a single handed or two handed one "assassin" based on back stab, positioning and damage "bombs" (not actual bombs); a dual wield sword&dagger "duelist" focused at tanking (part of my initiative to allow each class perform multiple roles); a ranged class focused on throwing knives and maybe grenades for striker/controller build. Why throwing knives instead of bows? Because I'd imagine a rogue would prefer weapons more concealable the a 6ft long bow, which is like carrying a sniper rifle in mid street (war bows are very easily distinguishable from hunting bows).

[Solmanian]

karushna5 wrote...

So as I see it not only do you get two types of weapon skills, Shield and Sword, and Two handed, you also get four sets of abilities to define the kind of warrior you want AND specialization skills ie Berserker, Templar, and Reaver,

As long as the warior you want doesn't want to dual wield or have any sort of ranged ability...

Every time you have an enemy shooting at you from high ground in DA2, and your warrior is forced to make a B-line to get to them (sometimes even being forced to go through other rooms), you can't help but sigh and say to yourself "man I wish I had a bow...".

Realy, K5, what do we need to say, to convince you that you shouldn't gimp other classes just to make your class feel better?

[karushna5]

I am saying having 6 trees instead of 4 is not as limiting as you may think. Also everything needs to be equal, I prefer Warriors to rogues actually I have only done one rogue and deleted it not long afterwards.

But keeping things equal is important. Giving Warriors all four trees without giving the rogue four weapon types is unfair. It is not so much as you can't take it away from me as much as rogues need just as much. Warriors have two distinct weapon trees. So do rogues. Personally the two weapons I always associated with Duelists who admittedly are very much rogues. Also Archery in my mind is Robin Hood who probably is the definition of rogue. I don't think it is ever implied Rogues have less training, just different kinds.

Still we got 6 trees instead of 4 in DAII so they didn't just take away, they added more. It may not be what we specifically want, but I do like the classes having their own flair, what I want more is a flair for warriors, something that makes them special.

[Blazomancer]

karushna5 wrote...
....Still we got 6 trees instead of 4 in DAII so they didn't just take away, they added more....

I believe Bioware did a great job of creating an illusion of having more choice, but in reality what they did is scrap champion as a spec, then take it's abilities plus the warrior specific abilities, a few random passives, and then throw them around in 4 trees. There were a couple of new abilities of course, but all it did was allow the SnS warrior access to previously 2Hander specific abilities. I don't think it's like they added more, they only reorganized the stuff we had in Origins into more number of trees so that we don't feel the absence of the Dual Weapon and Archery talents. Apparently, the fans are not fooled by that gimmick. Sure, more number of trees meant less rigidity of choice than Origins, but such flexibility ultimately becomes meaningless, when conceptually only two builds for each weapon type are possible with all them 6 trees - a heavy hitter and a tank/off tank.


I do agree with you that keeping things equal is important. But keeping things equal doesn't necesssarily mean allowing all classes acces to equal number of weapon styles. If that were so, one can argue that mages were overpowered in Origins despite the fact that they only had access to spells, and not the weapon style specific abilities. I think balancing classes is more about making each class more efficient in their respective roles.

Even if we see it from a lore perspective, rogues being efficient in the use of shield talents and 2H talents hardly makes sense, although they should be able to equip them and use them  in a sub-optimal way. So, I'd rather have rogues the option of equipping a buckler/shield or a 2H weapon if they want but  without the abilities. Now, it is bioware's job to decide what more types can they add to the rogue's arsenal, but it'd surely take my suspension of disbelief  too far if I were to see a rogue tanking with a shield like Aveline or jumping around dealing large aoe splash damage like Fenris.

[Wulfram]

With DA:O non-mages you picked your weapon at the start of the game and then you'd basically already had many of your talents effectively pre-picked. That's very rigid, particularly for warriors who had fewer non-weapon talents.

Because most talents weren't assigned to specific weapons in DA2, I felt you had more real choice.

Doesn't apply to DA:O mages of course, they had a hell of a lot of choice available to them.

[Blazomancer]

Wulfram wrote...
With DA:O non-mages you picked your weapon at the start of the game and then you'd basically already had many of your talents effectively pre-picked. That's very rigid, particularly for warriors who had fewer non-weapon talents.

Yes, as I mentioned above, it's blatantly obvious that the DA2 system was far more flexible than Origins. I'm in no way advocating for the DA:O system, but for the inclusion of more weapon types to take advantage of that flexibility. I also want to see those 4 non-weapon trees to be little more versatile - IIRC, except for vanguard, the other 3 were more suited for a tankish-support role. I wouldn't talk about rogues here, as this thread is about the warrior; besides I actually liked the non-weapon specific rogue trees.

I was quoting Karushna5 above as I disagree with her regarding bioware adding more. No, they didn't. Despite the heavy rigidity, we could have two extra builds - DW and Archer in Origins. DA2 scrapped those two and by virtue of a less rigid system, introduce two more potential builds - the SnS DPS'er and a 2 Handed tank with more survivability. So, at best we can say that things remained same (although when we take into account the attribute system, Origins offers two choices for DW), but at the expense of two weapon types, which I personally don't approve of.

Wulfram wrote...
Because most talents weren't assigned to specific weapons in DA2, I felt you had more real choice.

Yes, I believe that too. But the sad part is we had only 2 weapon types, and coupled with the fact that the non-weapon trees for the warrior aren't much different from each other, we could come up with conceptually only two builds - a tank and a heavy hitter. Good thing about the less rigidity is that now we could see a heavy hitting SnS and more tankish 2Hander. Again, if my preference were to hold any weight, I'd prefer more weapon types, to take full advantage of this flexibility of choice.

Wulfram wrote...
Doesn't apply to DA:O mages of course, they had a hell of a lot of choice available to them.

Well, it applies as an arguement for Karushna5's premise above that it is unfair if a class has access to lesser weapon types than the rest. If not anything, it is a vague albeit logical counter for an equally vague premise.

[wright1978]

I'd certainly like the return of the dual wielding warrior, so i approve of this idea.

[RobRam10]

Yes bring out the DW warriors!

[philippe willaume]

Wulfram wrote...

With DA:O non-mages you picked your weapon at the start of the game and then you'd basically already had many of your talents effectively pre-picked. That's very rigid, particularly for warriors who had fewer non-weapon talents.

Because most talents weren't assigned to specific weapons in DA2, I felt you had more real choice.

Doesn't apply to DA:O mages of course, they had a hell of a lot of choice available to them.

hello

Yet in DA:2 more choice did  not equate to more choice in tactical  game play once you have chosen your build.
(for me that's DA:2 in a nutshell, great concept that somehow did not really work that well)

I though the non-weapon specific tree where a good idea but reducing the weaponsyou could choose from  for a given class kind of put two torpedoes in the first concept.
in a way it is the same linitation in a different guise.

In DA:2, I would guess that it was conceptual short cut ,as dagger do more damage that two handed swords. So it does not take a lots of imagination to see that a DW a vanguard berseker/reaver would have savagely broken.

in the grand scheme of things, weapon based talent tree or non-weapon based talent tree are kind of a presentation issue. 
Fundamentally game wise,  it really boils down to what are the fundamental difference between a rogue and a
warrior and how they are implemented/implementable in the game.

what i am trying to get a is that

for DW rogue and warrior to be implemented you need

a) a scaleing weapon system where a dagger <one hand weapon<two hand weapons.
a non weapon dependant damage bonus based on class.
c) cross functional talents/skills perks need to be available to both class.

phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 17 mars 2013 - 03:31 .

[Solmanian]

Warriors are weapons masters, it would make sense for the, to be able to use all weapon styles. Rogues are the masters of stealth and subterfuge, so frankly I don't even think weapon trees are a must for them. They're suppose to be a utilitarian class, so give them utilitarian skill trees that aren't dependant on weapon choices...

And as for rogues having the same level of training as warriors? Warriors training is focused on weapon usage, rogue training is focused on avoiding combat. To imply that their fighting skills should be identicle is laughable. What were the years of training the warrior spent for? He can't pick locks, can't sneak or backstab; the least you can do is acknowledge he knows how to use weapons better than anyone...

[Solmanian]

OK nuke time. Is drizzt a rogue or a warrior?

[darrylzero]

I support this wholeheartedly, either in the OP's formulation or in the one Plaintiff describes. For those saying that they would need to add more options more rogues and/or mages, I can't agree entirely because I think there's no reason to restrict flexibility just for the sake of keeping things even between the classes, but I think greater ability to sit between these archetypes would be very welcome in all the various combinations. And I say that as someone who is still going to play a rogue, because that's just what I do.

Back in the D&D days of Bioware (and in any number of other video-and-other-sorts-of-games), I would always play some kind of fighter-thief combination. When I was younger, that was all about ninja-like agility, but as I aged, the vision got more muscular, less skilled, and more cautious. More recently, I've been more drawn to characters that are pretty average in terms of strength and agility but make up for it with their wits and insight, to the point that I'm happiest making combat in the game harder on myself by allocating attributes away from combat-relevant stats until the plot of the game can justify to me why my character has started to get stronger and more agile.

I know Bioware has decided that stats are just abstractions and don't necessarily mean that our warriors are superhumanly strong or fast or agile, and I don't mean to open that can of worms. However, by making rogue combat so dexterity dependent, with those flashy animations, they're imposing a single vision of what a rogue is like just as much as they are vis-a-vis warriors by denying them dual-wielding. And I would love to be able to break out of the archetype more.

I understand and respect where Laidlaw is coming from when he says that he'll never feel bad about the decision to give rogues and warriors distinct fighting styles, but I wonder if it's something that could be a little more customizable. If they do add dual-wielding for warriors back in, and maybe let rogues use small shields or wield swords two-handed for extra damage, I would love the choice of which fighting animations my fighter or rogue adopted.

The character I want to make is a rogue because he's genuinely involved in illicit activity. He needs rogue skills to survive in that world, and he makes use of them because he's cautious / risk-averse. But he's not a very good fighter -- not at the start of the game, at the very least -- and he's certainly no acrobat. His fighting style is probably more like a warrior's, in my head, when can't use his rogue skills to avoid the fight entirely (which is what he has those rogue skills for in the first place).

I can hand-wave a lot of this stuff, but I think finding space for more customization within these archetypes would mean a lot to a lot of us. And I think the Mass Effect model is not a bad idea. What's more, with the state of the circles in Thedas, the rationale for no-multiclassing is softened. And I'd also love to play a good illusionist-thief again.

Modifié par darrylzero, 17 mars 2013 - 06:39 .

[philippe willaume]

Solmanian wrote...

Warriors are weapons masters, it would make sense for the, to be able to use all weapon styles. Rogues are the masters of stealth and subterfuge, so frankly I don't even think weapon trees are a must for them. They're suppose to be a utilitarian class, so give them utilitarian skill trees that aren't dependant on weapon choices...

And as for rogues having the same level of training as warriors? Warriors training is focused on weapon usage, rogue training is focused on avoiding combat. To imply that their fighting skills should be identicle is laughable. What were the years of training the warrior spent for? He can't pick locks, can't sneak or backstab; the least you can do is acknowledge he knows how to use weapons better than anyone...

Not that i necessarily disagree with you, in fact I kind of agree, but you nuke time question is spot on. and you could ask that about plenty of other fictional chars.
Incidentally people will have a different vision of what is a rogue and what is a warrior.

And that is what RPG is all about, you should be able to create a char that is close to concept you want to play.

so by design rogue should be able to do sneaky backstab-y thing and rogue tank. Ideally you should be able to either follow one development or the other or a bit of both. 

phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 17 mars 2013 - 10:48 .

[CaptainBlackGold]

philippe willaume wrote...

Solmanian wrote...

Warriors are weapons masters, it would make sense for the, to be able to use all weapon styles. Rogues are the masters of stealth and subterfuge, so frankly I don't even think weapon trees are a must for them. They're suppose to be a utilitarian class, so give them utilitarian skill trees that aren't dependant on weapon choices...

And as for rogues having the same level of training as warriors? Warriors training is focused on weapon usage, rogue training is focused on avoiding combat. To imply that their fighting skills should be identicle is laughable. What were the years of training the warrior spent for? He can't pick locks, can't sneak or backstab; the least you can do is acknowledge he knows how to use weapons better than anyone...

Not that i necessarily disagree with you, in fact I kind of agree, but you nuke time question is spot on. and you could ask that about plenty of other fictional chars.
Incidentally people will have a different vision of what is a rogue and what is a warrior.

And that is what RPG is all about, you should be able to create a char that is close to concept you want to play.

so by design rogue should be able to do sneaky backstab-y thing and rogue tank. Ideally you should be able to either follow one development or the other or a bit of both. 

phil

Bioware may of course, change the role of rogue if they want. But please, do not call it a "rogue" any more if the class is not going to be doing "rogue" things. It's like a game developer making a race of tall, skinny, tree hugging mystics and calling them "Dwarves." A game creator has the freedom to imagine "classes" or "races" any way they like; but if they are going to use the traditional terminology to describe them, then we already have certain expectations of what they are going to "do" (or look like).

As I said earlier, the problem seems to be that the games have too much an emphasis on combat - thus making the traditional rogue's role significantly less important unless they create new combat skills for him. Then you have people complaining that this new version of "rogues" is under-powered so you have the ridiculous in-game situation of daggers outdamaging great-swords!

And then the same people justify taking away dual weilding and archery from warriors by saying, "DAO rogues were too much like Warriors so we need to take away warrior skills to make the rogue unique." But the reason why they played so much alike was because the traditional rogue's role was minimized so that he was unnecessary.

Bioware could solve the problem by getting rid of the "rogue" class altogether (since time/resources do not seem to be available to make a game where stealth, assassination, thieving, traps, persuasion, etc. can be incorporated). Instead of "Warrior, Mage, Rogue" they could go, "Warrior, Mage, Skirmisher" (or "Scout" or "Ranger") where the "Skirmisher" class wears light armor, uses daggers/rapiers, focuses on DPS, etc.

My personal hope is that when we see DA3, the rogue is again, restored to his honored, traditional role. From what we know of the Inquisition and Orlais, it would seem a perfect environment for stealth, trap-laying, deception, even assassination.

But then again, I still hope that people can be persuaded by rational argument...:innocent:

[Solmanian]

So in "wowspeak", you want to replace the rogue class with the hunter class? Interesting.
I, personally like DA:O rogues (playing one at this very time), they have a very tactical gameplay, and if played right can unleash ridiculus amount of damage (whirlwind backstab would wipe out entire groups of mooks)and kill lieutenants and red enemies in seconds. However, that game seriously penalized stealth. It was great as a utilatarian skill: you could scout enemies and dismantle traps before the fight began. But offensively? Using stealth backstab meant your "glass cannon" was stuck behind enemy lines with the rest of the party on the other side of the battlefield... Naturally I started investing in archery to be able to engage the enemy at range, and then engage in melee together with the rest of the party. If they gave the rogue a skill that meant he didn't break stealth if the backstab killed the target, it would've made him into a serious predator.

[CaptainBlackGold]

Solmanian wrote...

So in "wowspeak", you want to replace the rogue class with the hunter class? Interesting.
I, personally like DA:O rogues (playing one at this very time), they have a very tactical gameplay, and if played right can unleash ridiculus amount of damage (whirlwind backstab would wipe out entire groups of mooks)and kill lieutenants and red enemies in seconds. However, that game seriously penalized stealth. It was great as a utilatarian skill: you could scout enemies and dismantle traps before the fight began. But offensively? Using stealth backstab meant your "glass cannon" was stuck behind enemy lines with the rest of the party on the other side of the battlefield... Naturally I started investing in archery to be able to engage the enemy at range, and then engage in melee together with the rest of the party. If they gave the rogue a skill that meant he didn't break stealth if the backstab killed the target, it would've made him into a serious predator.

Bolded part my emphasis; no I do not want rogues replaced - I like rogues; in fact they are probably my favorite class to play; when they get to do "rogue" things. When they start getting all "Ninja! Wow! Awesome!" they may still be a fun class to play, but they are no longer "rogues" but something different.

All I suggested above was that if Bioware no longer wants to make games where rogues can "do their thing" than be honest and call them something different. It will avoid confusion and make these kinds of discussions a little less confrontational because we will at least all be on the same page.

What I really want is for the game to be designed (such as quests, mechanics, etc.) so that you need a rogue to find that secret passage that allows you to avoid a really nasty fight you might well lose (and getting just as much XP for doing so as if you had fought that battle). I want him/her to disarm those deadly traps that will either kill or incapcitate your team in that dark, nasty dungeon. I want him/her score some phat loot in that locked chest that would otherwise be unobtainable (not dirty pantaloons, two coppers and a broken sword).

Sure, when it comes to a stand up brawl, my kind of rogue will not be in the front lines going toe to toe with the big baddy. He may have to sneak around, avoiding combat until he is in just the right position to stick his pointy thing right between the boss's shoulder blades while the rest of the team is cleaning up the mooks.

That's what a rogue is supposed to be; whether we get one like that or not is up to the Development team's vision.

Hope that clears things up.

[Solmanian]

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQontNURcGa8kP0Wo_HMV5q1QNSDbZf_zMypjEDskBCW8uBJmFRhttps://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRwUPuHAkG27GDTNd7LNUZVNbzfU_xzqqlZlH3vNQp5L2i1Vp25https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRR5B_hYE0w_NF6m1G6wf7eDOQh9pHQUR6xKcL_XF42Pslx167Thttps://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQCvefBS5Fslyy2sX8eqekbXq9I_Nta78mSarttcrOr5aNQRMyKCA

Nothing to see here. Just a bunch of "rogues". You can tell by how stealthy and inconspicuous they are.

[CaptainBlackGold]

^Nice pictures - but irrelevant...

[Solmanian]

CaptainBlackGold wrote...

^Nice pictures - but irrelevant...

Oh, this I'd like to hear... Tell me how duel wielding warriors are irrelevant to this disscussion

[CaptainBlackGold]

Solmanian wrote...

CaptainBlackGold wrote...

^Nice pictures - but irrelevant...

Oh, this I'd like to hear... Tell me how duel wielding warriors are irrelevant to this disscussion

Sorry dude - it is late here, I just finished packing for a long trip and my mind decided to go to sleep without me.

I missed your point completely. I blame public education and their lack of emphasis on reading comprehension...