419 réponses à ce sujet

[Xepep]

I think warriors are dis-balanced. Warriors-archers are useless, and dual-weapons too. Rogue is much better in it. Warrior with a shield must be a tank, but he's an armored car, not more. The real tank is arcane warrior (up to 70 armor and 170 defense), then golem, but not normal character. Two-handed weapon not very bad tree, but it's attack speed... So the way to use warrior is to send him into the battle and heal, heal, HEAL him. This opinion is based on a trip to Arl Howe's estate, when i was without Shale.

[nestorprado]

What I like:
Well i just like to play as a warrior
What I dislike:
W&S: Too many shield talents but no aoe
2H: Normal attacks are way too slow
DW: Better played as a rougue (and this really hurts)

Specializations:
1. Champion
2. Berserker
3. Templar (never used it because i've got an Alistair)
4. Reaver

[Jahannam]

Im on a second playthrough as a sword and board warrior so not sure what thats worth since im not high level with him yet. Anyway..

What do you like and dislike about the Warrior?

As a dual wield warrior I like the ability to take damage and dish it out as well.
As a S and B warrior I feel like Im taking it alot more than dealing much.

Is there anything that you feel that is underpowered or overpowered on the Warrior?

Not really anything overpowered. S and B seems a bit low on damage. I tried 2 hand and it was painfully slow so I bagged that idea with a quickness.

What are your favorite Warrior specializations? What are your least favorite? Champion and berserker are ok. Although I havent really used them much templar and reaver didnt really interest me.

What are your favorite Warrior talent trees? What are your least favorite? Dual wield by far my favorite. 2 hand isnt even on my radar.

Modifié par Jahannam, 19 janvier 2010 - 02:38 .

[pixichic07]

 The warrior class overall just didn't interest me. I mean, I started out as a warrior and whats sad is that I ended up doing more damage as a rogue or an archer than as a warrior! 

Things that should change:

1) Warrior attack speed needs to increase. What good are all his skills if the enemy can get in 10 hits before my 1?

2) The skill tree. It was all so BORING. Especially for the Templar. Where was all this lyrium enhanced goodness? Shouldn't I have been able to give them lyrium potions for an extra "power boost" or something?

[theczaroftsars]

draxynnus wrote...

theczaroftsars wrote...

The warrior was fun... for a while. The templar and champion specs were my favorite and i picked DWs mostly and tried some shield talents which were very satisfying =shield bash. This talent chain could have been so much more powerful though, i think using a shield is the most effective combat style, historically as well, and could potentially deal more damage in combat than any other style depending on the shield (if is spiked or fitted with blades) and the power and strength of the user and how the shield is used in combat, for example slicing a limb or head off with a very sharp rounded shield or using a shield with a large pointed spike in the center to continually pierce your oppnent as you bash with your shield. The main hand weapon is also important, but the shield is your defense and your attack, so maybe shields should have had a damage component with special shields or more modifiers with special shield talents, like overpower and assault. The chain also could have had a few more activated combat talents, although i like the sustained abilities which reflect the fact that stance is also important when positioning your shield

Historically, sword and shield was popular up until what the game calls "massive armour" started to become common, at which point most knights went over to two-handed weapons for two related reasons: first, because it was needed to have a chance of getting through the armour, and second, because any attack that could get through the armour could probably get through the shield (or break the shield-arm) as well.

Continuing to allow sword-and-board to be useful with heavy armour around is an anachronism I'm willing to accept, however. One presumes that warrior fantasy heroes are Just That Good that they can cleave plate armour with an arming sword or hold up a shield against a blow that would shatter their own armour.

I think shields were still being used even with the advancements in plate armor at the time, but i wasn't around so im not going to bet my life on it. Also one could still find a large sturdy metal shield that could resist the shattering from a twohanded weapon, now breaking the shield arm, that is a possibility thats always there and just cause your armor can now withstand more damage does not mean you should abandon a shield, where did you read that? the shield still makes you less likely to get hit, and the shield users also wore "massive" armor. Against another two hander with "massive" armor the warrior will absorb the blow with his shield and strike him quickly in a counter attack with the main weapon and the shield as well to make sure hes ddown.  Maybe some knights or warriors chose two handers to get more kills more often and for the weight=damage+almost unblockable advantage but where did you get the info that all abndoned their shields, so they can get hit more often?

[Korva]

I'm a melee gal at heart. First in, last out, toe to toe, sweat and blood and guts -- it's just a lot more appealing than hiding in the background wiggling one's fingers or shooting toothpicks. In particular, I enjoy "tanking" i.e. protecting my companions and the sheer courage and fortitude of literally standing between them and death. So the choice for my "canon" character was easy.

Victor Wachter wrote...

• What do you like and dislike about the Warrior?
• Is there anything that you feel that is underpowered or overpowered on the Warrior?

I like that, unlike many older games, warriors actually get something to do besides autoattack. The basic idea of a (slowly) regenerating stamina pool to fuel their abilities is a good one. In practice, though, there are two problems.

1) The stamina pool is too small.
2) There is no way to replenish it at will.

Now these issues alone are not necessarily a bad thing, since they require you to weigh your choices of when and how to use your powers. The real problem is the mage class, which can focus on Willpower as its secondary stat and has essentially unlimited mana via -- supposedly very rare -- lyrium potions. The result is that a mage (already a very powerful and versatile class) can cast all day long, limited only by cooldowns, while a warrior/rogue runs dry very quickly. That disparity is a big mistake IMO and should be remedied ASAP -- and it is especially baffling since the little browser game has stamina poultices. So why does the "real" game not have them? I would strongly suggest implementing them, or getting rid of lyrium potions.

I like the animations for sword & board combat, the shield punches and killing blows are fun to watch. Dual-wielding is okay. Archery is boring to watch but what can one expect ftom that? It's not nearly as dynamic as melee after all. Two-handed weapons through are way too slow and ponderous, which makes the style very boring to watch and also presents the known problem of reducing your output if you activate abilities in a "wrong" moment. That too should be fixed, for all combat styles.

Another quibble from the POV of a "tank" is that Constitution should matter more. Boosting Strength, Dexterity, Cunning or Magic can be a no-brainer and must-have depending on what you play, but the ready availability of healing spells and potions plus the small gain from investing points means a tank does not really feel as "tough" compared to other classes as it "should" be.

• What are your favorite Warrior specializations? What are your least favorite?

Champion wins by virtue of having two useful abilities, and fitting in with my preferred playstyle.

Templar comes in second for the fun Holy Smite (though as has been said, it is sadly outclassed by mage abilities). The other talents are very disappointing. Casters are almost always killed first or incapacitated until I can kill them at my leisure, so Righteous Strike is quite useless. Cleanse Area was a talent I was very much looking forward to as a debuff-remover, but it never seemed to work. Mental Fortress is okay on principle, but mental resistance rolls are rare compared to physical ones.

Berserker leaves me cold, mainly because of the nuisance of having to turn it back on every three steps in some areas.

Reaver I haven't even unlocked because I don't play "evil".

I'm not impressed with specializations overall. Most are very "meh" and it does not help that there are zero repercussions in terms of NPC reactions (lack of consequences is a general issue I have with this game). The big exception is Arcane Warrior, which is really a sick joke. A specialization from one class should never beat the living crap out of an entirely different class and essentially make that class obsolete. Was it not stated sometime before release there would NOT be an uber mage-melee hybrid in this game?

• What are your favorite Warrior talent trees? What are your least favorite?

Weapon & shield wins out purely based on personal playstyley, followed by two weapons, then archery, then two-handed weapons. In terms of the best design, though, I'd have to give the nod to dual weapons.

I really wanted to like the two-handed style and play a dwarf pasting darkspawn with a nice big axe. But the combination of being boring to watch and what feels like an uninspired tree killed that plan pretty quickly. It feels as if mage spells, dual-wielding and some of the rogue-only talents got most of the creativity, while sword & board and two-handers were left in the dust. I still like the sword & board style best simply since it's my personal preference, but along with two-handers it suffers from the "pick up a talent with various drawbacks and spend several more points on reducing them" syndrome which other trees do not. The style could also use a little AoE to make it less reliant on other trees for holding threat on multiple enemies. Lastly, does it really need three very similar talents in the form of Shield Defense, Shield Wall and Shield Cover? Having one that is improved by subsequent talents and freeing the other slots for more offensive abilities would be more fun.

Modifié par Korva, 19 janvier 2010 - 06:45 .

[bloodtallow]

Like: Dual-Weapon - especially Punisher and Riposte. Even better when combined with Momentum. This tree is very strong, with lots of versatility and great damage output.
Love: When Dual-Weapon talents are combined with Templar abilities, turning the warrior into the ultimate mage-killer, with anti-magic, stun, and spell interrupt abilities, plus crowd control. Extra points if they're a dwarf, for magic resistance.
Dislike: I agree with above posters in that threat generation abilities for tanks are not as powerful as they might be - too often my dual-wielding warrior or my Arcane Warrior pulls threat from my tank. And I also agree that putting threat generation abilities in both chains of the warrior talents is a significant setback for non-tanking warriors early in the game, forcing us to spend points on useless abilities.
Would love to see change: Just as Arcane Warriors can use their Magic score to wear heavy armor, so too would I love to see Dual-Weapon warriors have a similar ability to use Dex to wear heavier armor.
Overall, I love warriors - they're tough and versatile and a great class choice. And thanks to so many abilities, they are anything but boring to play.

Modifié par bloodtallow, 19 janvier 2010 - 06:47 .

[Torious]

[*]What do you like and dislike about the Warrior?

I like their Armor, it's shiny. I also like the clanking when they're on the move, they're very well presented in the game world. Good job there, Bioware.

I dislike the rigid skill system as a whole, but this isn't really exclusive to warriors, so...

[*]Is there anything that you feel that is underpowered or overpowered on the Warrior?

I'm not really concerned about over- or underpowered in a single player game as long as it's within a reasonable spectrum. I guess you already got the memo, that two-handed warriors are a bit on the slow side.... and they look like drunken monkyes swinging their swords, Jackie Chan style.

[*]What are your favorite Warrior specializations? What are your least favorite?

Haven't played a Warrior myself, but from the companions I'd say Champion and Templar aren't too bad.

Berserker needs to be changed from a +x to damage per hit bonus, though. When I think of a Berserker I see someone with a huge ass axe or sword, not someone with two daggers..

Don't care about Reaver, IMO the story doesn't really allow for a really nasty character so I didn't unlock it.

[*]What are your favorite Warrior talent trees? What are your least favorite?

Talent Tree? I'm not seeing any talent trees! I only see 12 more or less useful talents per weapon type put into three rigid lines. Often seemingly at random! How else is it possible, that the Warrior's threat management tools are devided into both warrior lines, or that the 3 shield stances are split into 2 different lines?

NO ONE wants to spent their entire reward for leveling up (1 talent point wooo) on a sucky talent (Powerful Swings I'm looking at you) then another one on a talent that makes the former talent suck a bit less (Yes, I mean you, Two-Handed Strength) to get to something they actually want. Two-Handed Sweep.

Why can't there be a real branching skill tree that would allow for some diversity? As it is now pretty much every s+s warrior is the same as the next one... just with a different attribute allocation. It doesn't get much more boring then that..

Look at action RPGs like Titan Quest or, hell, even the ancient Diablo 2. Let me select one active/sustainable skill every other level and then give me a few points per level with which I can get passive bonuses or upgrade those talents, to increase damage, CC duration, to hit chance, whatever! And please give me enough choices, that I don't end up maxing out the entire talent tree... MAKE ME CHOOSE!

I'm sorry for the rant, to answer the question:

Favourite: DW, reasonable number of actives and the first line even makes some sense.
Least Favourite: probably Archery, the aim time really killes most active attacks save for AoS and Scatter Shot.

Modifié par Torious, 19 janvier 2010 - 07:27 .

[Curlain]

adembroski11 wrote...


What are your favorite Warrior specializations? What are your least favorite?
My favorite is Champion, mostly for its final ability. This, however, is a problem. It's a completely nonsensical ability... I scream so loud everyone falls down? C'mon!

Have to agree with this, I like Champion spec but it's not the Templar or Reaver spec, there is nothing stated to be magical or supernatural about this spec, so why can your voice knock people off their feat, how can the Champion warrior do this naturally?  It would make more sense for it to have some kind of brief scare effect, which while not perfect I could accept more easily as a gameplay representation of those enemies being intimidaited by the Champion's warcry, but as it stands it looks unbelievable as a natural ability

[Curlain]

theczaroftsars wrote...

draxynnus wrote...

theczaroftsars wrote...

The warrior was fun... for a while. The templar and champion specs were my favorite and i picked DWs mostly and tried some shield talents which were very satisfying =shield bash. This talent chain could have been so much more powerful though, i think using a shield is the most effective combat style, historically as well, and could potentially deal more damage in combat than any other style depending on the shield (if is spiked or fitted with blades) and the power and strength of the user and how the shield is used in combat, for example slicing a limb or head off with a very sharp rounded shield or using a shield with a large pointed spike in the center to continually pierce your oppnent as you bash with your shield. The main hand weapon is also important, but the shield is your defense and your attack, so maybe shields should have had a damage component with special shields or more modifiers with special shield talents, like overpower and assault. The chain also could have had a few more activated combat talents, although i like the sustained abilities which reflect the fact that stance is also important when positioning your shield

Historically, sword and shield was popular up until what the game calls "massive armour" started to become common, at which point most knights went over to two-handed weapons for two related reasons: first, because it was needed to have a chance of getting through the armour, and second, because any attack that could get through the armour could probably get through the shield (or break the shield-arm) as well.

Continuing to allow sword-and-board to be useful with heavy armour around is an anachronism I'm willing to accept, however. One presumes that warrior fantasy heroes are Just That Good that they can cleave plate armour with an arming sword or hold up a shield against a blow that would shatter their own armour.

I think shields were still being used even with the advancements in plate armor at the time, but i wasn't around so im not going to bet my life on it. Also one could still find a large sturdy metal shield that could resist the shattering from a twohanded weapon, now breaking the shield arm, that is a possibility thats always there and just cause your armor can now withstand more damage does not mean you should abandon a shield, where did you read that? the shield still makes you less likely to get hit, and the shield users also wore "massive" armor. Against another two hander with "massive" armor the warrior will absorb the blow with his shield and strike him quickly in a counter attack with the main weapon and the shield as well to make sure hes ddown.  Maybe some knights or warriors chose two handers to get more kills more often and for the weight=damage+almost unblockable advantage but where did you get the info that all abndoned their shields, so they can get hit more often?

Nope he's right, once fully articulated plate armour came in around the 13th-14th centuries shields largely disappeared from use by knights (there was simply no need, the armour gave you as full a  protection as possible that covered their entire body with strong tempered steel so a shield just become an encumberance to fighting rather then giving any useful help), in which in melee they used either two-handed weapons or dual-wielded weapons often of different types (such as a axe and mace/morningstar combination for maximum damage and armour breaching opportunities).  Among regularly soldiers shields soon largely survived just a bucklers fixed on a shoulder as pikes and halberds became more popular then simple spears (largely shields were largely impractical with such large weapons) or not at all in the case of longbow or crossbow users.

Modifié par Curlain, 19 janvier 2010 - 07:58 .

[yasuraka.hakkyou]

What I like / dislike:

1) I dual wielding. my berserker can charge in and just slaughter. she's really fun to play because of her point-and-it-dies playstyle.

2) sword & board seems underpowered. might be because of a mod I'm using, but my tank's a human noble and half (most?) of my abilities were useless because the knights would activate Indomitable. about the abilities; you'd think being hit with a broad object the size of your chest would usually knock you on your butt, or stun I guess, but it seems to be 50/50. the different stances reserve too much stamina, at least early game. and like someone else said, the fact that you get an ability and then later have to get a couple passives to make that ability useful is lame.

3) a fairly pure warrior archer is useless. rogues can stealth into a good vantage point, will be able to use the best bows more or less as they find them, and will generally (always?) do much more damage.

4) it seems that warriors in general have too many stats to raise, or to think about raising. a S&B tank will want to raise strength and dexterity for abilities, but as a tank they'll need health, and if your character is the tank, you'll either need to run Broken Circle asap for the +5 cunning or you'll need to spread your points even thinner. you might want more willpower so you can actually use more than 2 or 3 abilities, and maybe magic so self-healing works better. mostly theory, though.

5) Specializations - haven't played with champion or reaver yet, but the champion seems much better designed. the health-from-nearby-corpses ability seems like the only useful reaver ability EDIT: ok, the others don't seem terrible, but could have been done better probably. I like the idea of a crazy warrior that gets stronger the closer to death they get, but I don't think it was implemented well. like I said, this is just theory.
- I have played enough to get alistair up a few levels, and I just gun for Mental Fortress, really. Perhaps instead of that Cleanse ability, something like that magic neutralization glyph? I hate fighting templars on my mage, but I think I've read that Holy Smite is better when it's being used on you, not vice versa (like other things...coughchainlightningcough). I've also read that the final berserker ability needs to have more oomph, the stamina -> damage ratio needs to be better or something...and having to activate Berserk for every fight + its 30s cooldown was annoying, but I have mods for those now.

6) 2-handed needs to swing faster, and / or do more cool things in the tree.

Modifié par yasuraka.hakkyou, 19 janvier 2010 - 08:55 .

[Orlomm]

Favorite tree - Dual Wield
Least - 2H
Favorite Spec - Berserker
Can't comment on my least favorite specialization since I have not tried all of them yet.
S&B Warrior could use a buff, compared to a tank-built Shale there's no contest. Shale is a beast. Two AoE taunts and a single target one. They seem to attack pretty slow for only using one weapon. Just my opinion though.

2H - As most people have said, could use a bit faster swing.

Gaining some Stamina (not a huge amount, just a bit) out of Strength or Constitution would be nice too. Compared to the other classes warriors typically have to spread more points out.

Modifié par Orlomm, 19 janvier 2010 - 09:10 .

[wanderingboxer]

I Like that warriors as a concept are the most skilled at melee combat than all of the other  base classes,  I don't like that there are no specializations that focus on skill over brute strength(like the duelist for a rogue).

I think the warrior is fine apart from the archery tree.  also a dps warrior is hard to build without Reaver and Reaver is a pain to get, warriors need a another dps specialization(as I said something conceptually similar to duelist would make me happy)

I guess Berserker is my favourite specialization because its a dps spec,  I hate that it focuses on brute strength.  My least favourite is either Reaver or Templar. 

Dual wielding is my favourite tree and archery is my least favourite.

[Sbri]

Only comment - Being a warrior seemed redundant from the perspective of party balance for me. Why would I play a warrior when I have 3 NPC warriors, plus a golem and dog that cover the same bases? I felt more of a need to play either a mage or a rogue as I had fewer possible ways (NPC speaking) to cover those bases.

[ericsa]

Just started a DW warrior, will return later for my oppinion!

BTW, what origins story starts with a point in dual wielding? The dalish one I created had one in archery.

[yasuraka.hakkyou]

I don't think any origin does. I like the dalish elves for rogues, and then city elves for warriors, personally.

[Zabaniya]

ericsa wrote...

Just started a DW warrior, will return later for my oppinion!
BTW, what origins story starts with a point in dual wielding? The dalish one I created had one in archery.

Poor people warriors (City Elf/Dwarf Commoner, although City Elf's dad is rich by CE standards).  1 point each in Dual Weapon Sweep.

Modifié par Zabaniya, 19 janvier 2010 - 11:49 .

[yasuraka.hakkyou]

oops...

[lazuli]

Sbri wrote...

Only comment - Being a warrior seemed redundant from the perspective of party balance for me. Why would I play a warrior when I have 3 NPC warriors, plus a golem and dog that cover the same bases? I felt more of a need to play either a mage or a rogue as I had fewer possible ways (NPC speaking) to cover those bases.

Just to clarify, the Dog doesn't fill the Warrior niche because it cannot control aggro (Taunt, Threaten, etc).

[ericsa]

Zabaniya wrote...

ericsa wrote...

Just started a DW warrior, will return later for my oppinion!
BTW, what origins story starts with a point in dual wielding? The dalish one I created had one in archery.

Poor people warriors (City Elf/Dwarf Commoner, although City Elf's dad is rich by CE standards).  1 point each in Dual Weapon Sweep.

thanks! 

[draxynnus]

Curlain wrote...

theczaroftsars wrote...

draxynnus wrote...

theczaroftsars wrote...

The warrior was fun... for a while. The templar and champion specs were my favorite and i picked DWs mostly and tried some shield talents which were very satisfying =shield bash. This talent chain could have been so much more powerful though, i think using a shield is the most effective combat style, historically as well, and could potentially deal more damage in combat than any other style depending on the shield (if is spiked or fitted with blades) and the power and strength of the user and how the shield is used in combat, for example slicing a limb or head off with a very sharp rounded shield or using a shield with a large pointed spike in the center to continually pierce your oppnent as you bash with your shield. The main hand weapon is also important, but the shield is your defense and your attack, so maybe shields should have had a damage component with special shields or more modifiers with special shield talents, like overpower and assault. The chain also could have had a few more activated combat talents, although i like the sustained abilities which reflect the fact that stance is also important when positioning your shield

Historically, sword and shield was popular up until what the game calls "massive armour" started to become common, at which point most knights went over to two-handed weapons for two related reasons: first, because it was needed to have a chance of getting through the armour, and second, because any attack that could get through the armour could probably get through the shield (or break the shield-arm) as well.

Continuing to allow sword-and-board to be useful with heavy armour around is an anachronism I'm willing to accept, however. One presumes that warrior fantasy heroes are Just That Good that they can cleave plate armour with an arming sword or hold up a shield against a blow that would shatter their own armour.

I think shields were still being used even with the advancements in plate armor at the time, but i wasn't around so im not going to bet my life on it. Also one could still find a large sturdy metal shield that could resist the shattering from a twohanded weapon, now breaking the shield arm, that is a possibility thats always there and just cause your armor can now withstand more damage does not mean you should abandon a shield, where did you read that? the shield still makes you less likely to get hit, and the shield users also wore "massive" armor. Against another two hander with "massive" armor the warrior will absorb the blow with his shield and strike him quickly in a counter attack with the main weapon and the shield as well to make sure hes ddown.  Maybe some knights or warriors chose two handers to get more kills more often and for the weight=damage+almost unblockable advantage but where did you get the info that all abndoned their shields, so they can get hit more often?

Nope he's right, once fully articulated plate armour came in around the 13th-14th centuries shields largely disappeared from use by knights (there was simply no need, the armour gave you as full a  protection as possible that covered their entire body with strong tempered steel so a shield just become an encumberance to fighting rather then giving any useful help), in which in melee they used either two-handed weapons or dual-wielded weapons often of different types (such as a axe and mace/morningstar combination for maximum damage and armour breaching opportunities).  Among regularly soldiers shields soon largely survived just a bucklers fixed on a shoulder as pikes and halberds became more popular then simple spears (largely shields were largely impractical with such large weapons) or not at all in the case of longbow or crossbow users.

Pretty much. When your entire body is covered with steel plates, the benefit of adding an additional steel plate or wooden board to your arm becomes...less, especially when compared to the additional reach and armour shattering ability that a two-handed weapon will provide. And on a battlefield where full plate armour and polearms were becoming common, you might just need that extra armour penetration and reach - certainly more than a shield that had a significant chance of being rendered useless by any blow that actually presented a threat to your armour.

Of course, this is assuming that the knight in question is fighting on foot - shields were higher on the relative practicality scale for knights on horseback.

Now, this isn't to say that some knights didn't continue to prefer using weapon-and-shield even when fighting on foot - sometimes, personal inclinations and going with what you know is more important than what may be better for someone else, and shields would still be useful against arrows and crossbow bolts (an arrow or crossbow bolt that penetrates partway and gets stuck in your shield is one that doesn't hurt you. One that gets stuck in your armour, on the other hand...). Certainly, though, there was a move away from shields, especially among infantry, as plate armour (and weapons capable of punching through plate armour) became common.

EDIT: On breaking shield-arms specifically - yes, this was always a risk, but it becomes a much greater risk when someone is swinging a claymore or bec de corbin designed for smashing plate as opposed to an arming sword.

Modifié par draxynnus, 20 janvier 2010 - 08:33 .

[RBCharger]

I think the warrior class is just fine as written. However, I think a warrior with an ax or mace should be able to open a chest in the wilds. It might not be a subtle enough method to open that chest behind the bar like that, but most chests should be no problem for warriors.



Also, I like the idea of rune slots in armor. Hale and Dweomer runes should be in armor, not weapons.

[ArathWoeeye]

Some more thoughts of mine:

Shield runes.

A charge/bull rush skill.

Less "less damage from missiles" skill and more spell resist shield.

More variety in weapons and more obvious reasons to pick them. Like polearms=reach.

[ArathWoeeye]

lazuli wrote...

Sbri wrote...

Only comment - Being a warrior seemed redundant from the perspective of party balance for me. Why would I play a warrior when I have 3 NPC warriors, plus a golem and dog that cover the same bases? I felt more of a need to play either a mage or a rogue as I had fewer possible ways (NPC speaking) to cover those bases.

Just to clarify, the Dog doesn't fill the Warrior niche because it cannot control aggro (Taunt, Threaten, etc).

I believe Dog has warrior talent tree on consoles.

Edit: oops, sorry for d-post.

Modifié par ArathWoeeye, 20 janvier 2010 - 01:58 .

[Thanatos45]

Likes:

- I really like that the warrior is less point-and-click than in other CRPGs with all the talents you have. It's not as good as a mage yet, but it's a start.

- the different weapon trees really give a different flavor to your warrior instead of just giving a different attack animation.

Dislikes:

- Stamina depending on willpower instead of constitution. It would make a lot more sense if the use of warrior, rogue (and their specializations) and weapon talents would depend on physical fitness (constitution) rather than mental fitness (willpower). It would also bring warriors closer to mages in terms of power since they would then be only dependent on 3 stats (strength, dexterity and constitution) instead of 4 as they are now (since now they are dependendent on willpower as well).

- Constitution should also offer slightly more HP/ point spent, 5 is just not enough. Maybe 7 or 8.

- Dual wield: fix dual striking animation and momentum + haste combo cancelling each other out bugs and disallow having both dual striking and momentum on at the same time, it's just too powerful for a warrior since the no-backstab and crit penalties that come with dual striking do not hurt warriors nearly as much as rogues.

About Two handed weapons:

- And now for my biggest gripe: The 2 handed weapon tree. It's just underpowered. Now I'm not even really bothered by the swing speed but rather by the weakness (and on the other hand, overpoweredness of a few others) of many of the talents. I'll just sum up all the talents and my thoughts on each of them:

Tier 1:
- Mighty blow: talent itself is fine but the cost is too high for just a crit with some added attack bonus.
- Pommel Strike: should do a little bit of damage (after all you're still being quite forcefully bashed by several kilograms of hard steel) and should not auto hit, I do not see why you should be able to evade the sharp but not the blunt side of a weapon.
- Sunder Arms: cost is way too low for 2 full hits at your full attack bonus that also hinder the enemy. Either increase the cost, remove one of the swings or make both swings only do half damage or something.

Tier 2:
- Indomitable: nice ability but upkeep cost is too high for what it does.
- Shattering blows: useless because as has been said before constructs are extremely rare.
- Powerful swings: underpowered. Either incorporate Two-handed strength into it (so it becomes like having both powerful swings and two-handed strength as they are now) or increase the damage bonus it grants.

Tier 3:
- Stunning Blows: Should work on normal hits too (it now seems to work only on crits), albeit with a lesser chance of the enemy being stunned on being hit with a normal strike.
- Sunder Armor: same as with sunder arms
- Two handed strength: see powerful swings.

Tier 4:
- Critical strike: needs a massive makeover as it is truly underpowered for a tier 4 talent. At the moment it's just a tier 4 mighty blow with thrice the cooldown. What I propose is the following: make it so that instead of the target being auto-killed if it has a certain percentage of health left if it's hit, the target is auto-killed if they have less than twice the amount of health compared to the damage you inflict when they are hit. Example: I use critical strike and hit a genlock for, say, 70 damage. If the genlock has 140 hp (or less) when I hit it, it's auto-killed. If the genlock has 141 or more hp when I hit it, I just inflict 70 damage (so it has 71 or more hp left after the attack). It should also keep inflicting an auto-crit as it does now.
- Destroyer: can't really comment on this one as I'm not entirely sure how it works at the moment.
- Two handed sweep: fine as it is.

Specializations:

I can only comment on Berserker as it's the only one I've really used so far: it's a cool concept but I feel it could be improved:

- Berserk: instead of making this a straight +8 damage per blow (I think that's how it works now?), the amount of damage should vary with the weapon you're using. A two-hander for example should receive more than 8 damage each blow while someone dual-wielding 2 daggers should receive a lot less.

Constraint and resilience: fine as they are but fix their ingame descriptions please, it's really confusing now.

Final Blow: underpowered for the amount of stamina you expend, you should receive more additional damage for every point of stamina you expend.

I know this seems like a lot of whining but hey, it means that everything else is ok

edit: edited to improve readability

Modifié par Thanatos45, 20 janvier 2010 - 02:43 .