108 réponses à ce sujet

[metatheurgist]

Plaintiff wrote...
Because classes should be more distinct, not less. DA:O's system blows. Not only did Rogues have the least skills of every class, but two thirds of their abilities were co-opted by Warriors. Lame.

Warriors didn't co-opt anything. Rogues are just lame in combat RPGs. Rogues are designed for actual RP'ing: sneaking, spying, running cons, not combat. Developers have to shoehorn them into combat based RPGs.

[Jestina]

Qistina wrote...
valid?

If you really want to learn anything about real warfare during the period, there are plenty of surviving fighting manuals...links to which can probably be found on the ARMA or SCA sites. We also have plenty of artwork depicting historical battles...and you won't see anyone dual-wielding, unless it is a fencing competition. It can be difficult enough to wield one weapon properly, much less two with one in your less dominant hand.

The Arma---manuals
SCA Links
The AEMMA

Modifié par Jestina, 03 mai 2013 - 03:54 .

[Joy Divison]

Plaintiff wrote...

Knight of Dane wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

No.

Why?

Because classes should be more distinct, not less. DA:O's system blows. Not only did Rogues have the least skills of every class, but two thirds of their abilities were co-opted by Warriors. Lame.

Because defining the PC as some stereptypical notion of what consitutes a class is preferable than allowing the player to flesh out their own identity?  Especially when the "fighter/warrior" is incapable of using archery, a skill which took dedicated years of practice to perfect, whereas your common street-thug is William Tell?

[Plaintiff]

Joy Divison wrote...
Because defining the PC as some stereptypical notion of what consitutes a class is preferable than allowing the player to flesh out their own identity?

If you're going to have a class system, then classes should be distinct. Otherwise why even bother presenting the player with the choice at all?

Since class in DA is purely metagame information anyway, you are not in any way prevented from creating your own identity. You can class as a Rogue and still roleplay as a "warrior".

Especially when the "fighter/warrior" is incapable of using archery, a skill which took dedicated years of practice to perfect, whereas your common street-thug is William Tell?

Derp.

classing as a Rogue in either DA game does not require you to roleplay as a "common street-thug", so this is complete gibberish.

In fact, two Rogue-class party members in DA2 were from noble families.

And in fact, bows were a common weapon. Much more so than swords. Your average peasant would use them regularly, for hunting.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 03 mai 2013 - 06:08 .

[Plaintiff]

metatheurgist wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
Because classes should be more distinct, not less. DA:O's system blows. Not only did Rogues have the least skills of every class, but two thirds of their abilities were co-opted by Warriors. Lame.

Warriors didn't co-opt anything. Rogues are just lame in combat RPGs. Rogues are designed for actual RP'ing: sneaking, spying, running cons, not combat. Developers have to shoehorn them into combat based RPGs.

"Rogue" is a generic term that means "a dishonest or unprinicipled man".

There is no reason to presume that a "Rogue" would be less combat capable than any other kind of person.

[Boycott Bioware]

Jestina wrote...

Qistina wrote...
valid?

If you really want to learn anything about real warfare during the period, there are plenty of surviving fighting manuals...links to which can probably be found on the ARMA or SCA sites. We also have plenty of artwork depicting historical battles...and you won't see anyone dual-wielding, unless it is a fencing competition. It can be difficult enough to wield one weapon properly, much less two with one in your less dominant hand.

The Arma---manuals
SCA Links
The AEMMA

No, you claim Samurai don't fight with two swords, i say Samurai do fight with swords and give you You Tube link, you laughed and mock my reference, then i show you one of Kendo site showing there are two swords technique niten'ichi ryu in Samurai fencing and ask you if it is valid in your point of view

now my reference is valid or not?

Edit : Do you think the Samurai carry the second sword just for show? lol

Modifié par Qistina, 03 mai 2013 - 05:44 .

[Battlebloodmage]

It would be nice if they can differentiate the skills more between dual wield warrior and dual wield rogue. Maybe the dual wield warriors attack at a slower speed but stronger while rogue can do quick combo for less damage. Also, they could make it so that rogue can dual wield knives or small swords while warrior can only dual wield broad swords or one big and one small.

[Boycott Bioware]

I think speed have nothing to do with it, but attribute points

Warriors have strength and dexterity for damage and hit modifier while rogues have dexterity and cunning for damage and hit modifier

[Sir JK]

The realism argument falls rather flat on the face as long as there is both rogues and warriors as distinct classes. There's no reason whatsoever that warriors couldn't learn stealth techniques, lockpicking, the brewing and application of toxins and such. So if the realism argument is to be used to give warriors dualwielding and archery, we might just as well just make rogues a specific warrior build rather than a distinct class.

And ultimately, there's the core why warriors lost dual wielding and archery. Because class systems are about roles, not what fits with their background. Of the mundane classes there's four primary roles they currently serve. Each distinct with their own distinct participation in combat.
So what purpose would a dualwield warrior serve? What does it actively do that sets it apart from all other mundane roles? And we're talking about the fundamentals here, not the details like which armour it wears or whether it uses x abilities instead of y.

What would a dualwield warrior do that no other build/class does?

[Jestina]

Qistina wrote...
No, you claim Samurai don't fight with two swords, i say Samurai do fight with swords and give you You Tube link, you laughed and mock my reference, then i show you one of Kendo site showing there are two swords technique niten'ichi ryu in Samurai fencing and ask you if it is valid in your point of view
now my reference is valid or not?
Edit : Do you think the Samurai carry the second sword just for show? lol

They didn't fight dual wielding, no. They carried two weapons much as medieval knights did...for status, a back-up weapon, delivering a final blow, etc. I already mentioned that though, so I guess you failed at reading. They also used bows and yari. 

[Sharn01]

People need to get the idea that a class needs to confine a character into a role out of their heads, just because your character is a rogue class doesn't mean that character isn't a warrior. Ideally DA should have just had two choices at character creation, standard, and mage, but they went with a class based system, and all the players instantly push their stereotypes from multiple sources onto these classes.

[metatheurgist]

Plaintiff wrote...
"Rogue" is a generic term that means "a dishonest or unprinicipled man".

There is no reason to presume that a "Rogue" would be less combat capable than any other kind of person.

There is In RPG terms. A rogue is not honourable, this extends to combat. They are not stand up fighters, usually due to either a lack of physical or moral strength (cowardice). They hide in shadows, use low blows, they backstab. If they were competent fighters you'd call them warriors. This is an RPG cliché, not one I necessarily agree with but if you're going to use a Rogue in RPG terms that's the definition. It wasn't that long ago that they were still called Thieves.

The best solution is to remove classes and go with a skill based system. Then you could have fighters who sneak and sneaks that happen to be good in combat. To get back on topic, then anyone that wanted to dual-wield would do it because they are capable of doing it, not because they belong to one arbitrary class or another.

[Boycott Bioware]

Jestina wrote...

Qistina wrote...
No, you claim Samurai don't fight with two swords, i say Samurai do fight with swords and give you You Tube link, you laughed and mock my reference, then i show you one of Kendo site showing there are two swords technique niten'ichi ryu in Samurai fencing and ask you if it is valid in your point of view
now my reference is valid or not?
Edit : Do you think the Samurai carry the second sword just for show? lol

They didn't fight dual wielding, no. They carried two weapons much as medieval knights did...for status, a back-up weapon, delivering a final blow, etc. I already mentioned that though, so I guess you failed at reading. They also used bows and yari. 

Of course the Wakizashi is a status symbol for a Samurai, only Samurai carry Wakizashi, those who carry none are not Samurai, usually are Ronins.

It doesn't mean they never use the secondary weapon in battle and it doesn't mean they didn't dual wielding.

They dual wielding a lot. A battle is not like Hollywood movies or any Japanese movies, the real life combat is not fanciful.

Edit : The reason why only Samurai can carry two swords because having two weapons is an advantage in combat, Samurais are elite soldiers serving their lords, as an elite soldier they must always have the advantage in combat.

Mushahi Miyamoto says we have two hands, if we have two weapons but use only one is a waste. That means Samurai dual wield a lot in combat because of the advantage

The rest about status, harakiri/seppuku and all are just tradition, yes they also carry the Wakizashi for harakiri/seppuku, but that is not the main purpose of carrying that sword for a Samurai, the main reason is the advantage in battles.

Modifié par Qistina, 03 mai 2013 - 08:14 .

[Joy Divison]

Plaintiff wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...
Because defining the PC as some stereptypical notion of what consitutes a class is preferable than allowing the player to flesh out their own identity?

If you're going to have a class system, then classes should be distinct. Otherwise why even bother presenting the player with the choice at all?

Since class in DA is purely metagame information anyway, you are not in any way prevented from creating your own identity. You can class as a Rogue and still roleplay as a "warrior".

What?  class in DA is fundamental to who the PC is, from the weapons she can or can't use, to the skills she can employ, to the attributes she must raise to use the equipment me specifically designed for her class, to the animations that the game will use in combat.  The type of imagination you are describing only mechanically works in games like GURPS or D&D 3E which have very loose class templates and allow the PCs to cherry pick whatever they want. I can try to imagine Hawke rogue as a warrior until the cows come home, but with his duel wielding daggers and jumping around like House of Pain it doesn't really work unless that warrior is of the swashbuckler-ninja type (read: rogue).  If the combat identity I want to create is a warrior who uses a greatsword for melee and his trusty bow for ranged - a real novelty you know - I don't think your "not in any way prevented" theory works very well, now does it?

Especially when the "fighter/warrior" is incapable of using archery, a skill which took dedicated years of practice to perfect, whereas your common street-thug is William Tell?

Plaintiff wrote...
Derp.

classing as a Rogue in either DA game does not require you to roleplay as a "common street-thug", so this is complete gibberish.

In fact, two Rogue-class party members in DA2 were from noble families.

And in fact, bows were a common weapon. Much more so than swords. Your average peasant would use them regularly, for hunting.

Wow.  Not only did you miss the point but your historical justification is so wrong I don't even know where to begin.  I, and every poster here, are well that aware classing as a rogue does not require to roleplay as a street thug.  And I happen to like the fact that "rogues" in DA2 could opt to excel at archery and were not pigeonholed as pickpockets and dagger wielders.  None of that changes the ridiculousness of the hordes of common thugs Hawke encounters on the streets in Kirkwall (where apparently hunting is a common pastime) who were adept practitioners of archery unlike the professionally trained soldier Hawke.

And I realize military history is not exactly considered trendy in the historical profession, but your claim that "average peasant" used bows regularly for hunting is so off base I'm not even sure it is worth the time to discuss.  First of all, average peasants spent the vast majority of their miserable lot in life toiling in the fields of their lord; they barely had enough time to drink themselves to sleep to say nothing of taking weekend excursions into the forest and stalk game.  Secondly, it took a veritable lifetime of training and experience to be any good with a bow and arrow. Firearms replaced bows and arrows as the ranged weapon of choice not because they were superior weapons (they were not until the late 18th century), but because firearms were weapons the average peasant could become somewhat proficient in quickly.  Quality archers were rare: frontiersmen who lived in forests, commoners who specifically trained (hunting is a skill which requires practice, dedication, and keen knowledge of the local fuana, not something "average peasants" were schooled in or could do in their precious spare time), and in specific areas such as Wales where it encouraged for military recruitment.

I get it, RPGs need ranged enemies so random NPC girl will somehow know how to nock and arow and be a deadly shot.  I can suspend disbelief...if there is at least the consistency that a professionally trained warrior can at least *use* a bow

Modifié par Joy Divison, 03 mai 2013 - 02:38 .

[Plaintiff]

Joy Divison wrote...
What?  class in DA is fundamental to who the PC is,

No it's not.

from the weapons she can or can't use, to the skills she can employ, to the attributes she must raise to use the equipment me specifically designed for her class, to the animations that the game will use in combat.

All metagame information that has nothing to do with your character's history, family, social standing or career. 

The type of imagination you are describing only mechanically works in games like GURPS or D&D 3E which have very loose class templates and allow the PCs to cherry pick whatever they want. I can try to imagine Hawke rogue as a warrior until the cows come home, but with his duel wielding and jumping around like House of Pain it doesn't really work unless that warrior is of the swashbuckler-ninja type (read: rogue).  If the combat identity I want to create is a warrior who uses a greatsword for melee and his trusty bow for ranged - a real novelty you know - I don't think your "not in any way prevented" theory works very well, now does it?

What you just described is not roleplaying in any context that I've ever heard the term used.

Rogue Hawke is a warrior, as far as the narrative (ie, the only thing that matters) is concerned. He served at Ostagar. The weapons he used and how he used them have nothing to do with that distinction. "Rogue" is not a job description that exists in Thedas, it's a class distinction that exists outside the narrative.

Alright, fine, so you can't cherry pick exactly the skills you want. I would weep a river for you, except for the fact that you couldn't do that in Origins either, especially if you played a Rogue.

I don't give a crap which class gets which weapons, as long as they each have an equal number of possible skills.

Wow.  Not only did you miss the point but your historical justification is so wrong I don't even know where to begin.  I, and every poster here, are well that aware classing as a rogue does not require to roleplay as a street thug.

If you knew it was a stupid thing to say, why even bring it up? Being a street thug and being a 'Rogue' in terms of gameplay mechanicss have nothing to do with each other.

And I happen to like the fact that "rogues" in DA2 could opt to excel at archery and were not pigeonholed as pickpockets and dagger wielders.  None of that changes the ridiculousness of the hordes of common thugs Hawke encounters on the streets in Kirkwall (where apparently hunting is a common pastime) who were adept practitioners of archery unlike the professionally trained soldier Hawke.

Because you can only learn archery under super-specific circumstances that Joy Division deems acceptable.

"It's okay for Rogues to have archery, but not if it disadvantages my preferred Fantasy RPG class in any way."

What do random mooks in Kirkwall have to do with anything? The issue is class selection for the protagonist.

And I realize military history is not exactly considered trendy in the historical profession, but your claim that "average peasant" used bows regularly for hunting is so off base I'm not even sure it is worth the time to discuss.  First of all, average peasants spent the vast majority of their miserable lot in life toiling in the fields of their lord; they barely had enough time to drink themselves to sleep to say nothing of taking weekend excursions into the forest and stalk game.  Secondly, it took a veritable lifetime of training and experience to be any good with a bow and arrow. Firearms replaced bows and arrows as the ranged weapon of choice not because they were superior weapons (they were not until the late 18th century), but because firearms were weapons the average peasant could become somewhat proficient in quickly.  Quality archers were rare: frontiersmen who lived in forests, commoners who specifically trained (hunting is a skill which requires practice, dedication, and keen knowledge of the local fuana, not something "average peasants" were schooled in or could do in their precious spare time), and in specific areas such as Wales where it encouraged for military recruitment.

If you're any sort of historian, then you know that weapons generally were not common among the peasantry, so making a fuss about the proliferation of bows in Dragon Age while accepting the far more common swords, shields and daggers without complaint is absolutely hypocritical. Not to mention stupid, since any metal weapon is far more expensive to craft than one made of wood and string.

Not that history has any relevance here, but you're the one that brought it up.

I get it, RPGs need ranged enemies so random NPC girl will somehow know how to nock and arow and be a deadly shot.  I can suspend disbelief...if there is at least the consistency that a professionally trained warrior can at least *use* a bow

Nothing in the story says that your Warrior Hawke can't use a bow. The mechanics do not allow for the possibility, but mechanics are metagame information. Nothing is stopping you from imagining whatever the hell you want.

In what sense is it "internally consistent" to allow a Warrior to wield a bow, and access all the skills thereof, but deny Rogues access to the sword/shield skilltree?

Modifié par Plaintiff, 03 mai 2013 - 10:42 .

[AlexRD]

I don't understand why all the hate against giving someone the option to do something.

Warriors would obviously be slower than rogues because :
A- Uses heavy armor
B- One full sized sword at least

Asking why rogues can't use sword/shield or two handed swords, comparing it to giving the warrior the ability to dual wield is silly because:

Sword/shield is the role of a tank, not what someone in light armor can do, specially since it goes against the very nature of the rogue. Two handed sword requires a lot of strength, which is not what the rogue stands for (speed/critical).

But there is no single valid reason why the warrior can't dual wield, aside from (rogues have it so warriors shouldn't)

On a side note:
Just because dual wielding wasn't used in battles doesn't mean it's not effective.
Dual wielding was/is very difficult to master, and not something acessible to the average soldier, both due to cost and training.

Oh and please, if you're going to quote me don't dissect it and separate phrases out of the whole.

[Cloaking_Thane]

I prefer more distinction in the classes myself, alot could be resolved by gameplay mechanics...

Sneaking, potion/poision making (rouges can equip on whole team/ for longer duration), etc.

As long as the two classes of DW were distinct then it wouldn't be so bad.

[Joy Divison]

Plaintiff wrote...

Joy Divison wrote...
What?  class in DA is fundamental to who the PC is,

No it's not.
.
All metagame information that has nothing to do with your character's history, family, social standing or career. 

What you just described is not roleplaying in any context that I've ever heard the term used.

Rogue Hawke is a warrior, as far as the narrative (ie, the only thing that matters) is concerned. He served at Ostagar. The weapons he used and how he used them have nothing to do with that distinction. "Rogue" is not a job description that exists in Thedas, it's a class distinction that exists outside the narrative.

Alright, fine, so you can't cherry pick exactly the skills you want. I would weep a river for you, except for the fact that you couldn't do that in Origins either, especially if you played a Rogue.

I don't give a crap which class gets which weapons, as long as they each have an equal number of possible skills.

1. You seem to be under the impression that roleplaying is completely independent of a game's mechanics.  As far as things like personality, ambitions, career - those aspects that are largely absent from a game like DA - I'd largely agree.  But when the game's mechanics interfere or imposes restrictions with how I want a character to mechanically
function in the game, to match the personality, history, and ambition I devised, then I do not see how such a contention can be sustained. Mage Hawke was born with magic and know how to wield it because father trained him.  But he is reluctant (as opposed to unwilling) to openly do so [especially in Kirkwall!!!!] not just because it's illegal but because he believes magic is a curse, the work of demons, etc. So he trained hard in the arts of swordplay. Hmm...scratch that idea.

2. Just because Origins imposed limitations doesn't mean it did not suffer from the same flaw.  But at least it
offered more mechanically flexibility.  I could play a rogue to grab stealth but was not forced to use daggers.  I could play a warrior yet duel wield.  I could play a mage and use swords and armor.

3. You do seem to give a crap which weapons a class can use. You don't want "warriors" to duel wield or apparently use bows because that steps on the toes of "rogues."

If you knew it was a stupid thing to say, why even bring it up?

It wasn't a stupid thing to say.  It was simply pointing out the stupidity that if I opted to pick "warrior" because the class mechanics best fit the combat concept I'd like to play, then I am somehow not proficient in using a weapon that takes specific training to use but your ordinary street thug is somehow adept at it. Your solution: pick a "rogue."  What if I dislike light armor, think daggers are unworthy of a warrior, cringe at the thought of duel wielding, and rather not see her set high jump records in every single one of the hundred of combats the game will play out?  Too bad, but hey, since I can roleplay the fact that daddy was a rolling stone so it's all good right?

If you're any sort of historian, then you know that weapons generally were not common among the peasantry, so making a fuss about the proliferation of bows in Dragon Age while accepting the far more common swords, shields and daggers without complaint is absolutely hypocritical. Not to mention stupid, since any metal weapon is far more expensive to craft than one made of wood and string.

Well at least you're learning not to make broad sweeping claims which are almost wrong in history, but you would have been better off to simply admit you were wrong. Actually the peasantry was relatively quite well armed, the various polearms that constituted the majority of weapons used by medieval combatants derived from farm implements and the bulk of those conscripted or who volunteered to make a life of soldiering were expected to provide their own weapons.  You want to say swords were very rare amongst the peasantry and only would be found under atypical circumstances.

I do not want to make DA a medieval combat simulation.  YOU were the one that tried to justify the nonsense that common street thugs were skilled at archery whereas warrior Hawke was not by bringing up average peasants.  I was merely pointing out your logic is wrong.

Nothing in the story says that your Warrior Hawke can't use a bow. The mechanics do not allow for the possibility, but mechanics are metagame information. Nothing is stopping you from imagining whatever the hell you want.

Well, I tend to play my game sober and not under the effect of hallucinogens. If I spend the entire game not using a bow - or any ranged weapon - then that is a rather large obstacle to overcome, no?  If your powers of imagination allow for such deviation from what you see and play then sir, I salute you.  I might be able to envision a "greatsword" as a scythe or probably convince myself that a long bow is actually a crossbow or even some sort of primitive firearm, but, for me anyway, there has to be at least a little consistency between the mechanics and the roleplaying.

In what sense is it "internally consistent" to allow a Warrior to wield a bow, and access all the skills thereof, but deny Rogues access to the sword/shield skilltree?

It's not, that's rather stupid as well.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 03 mai 2013 - 04:04 .

[jillabender]

Plaintiff wrote...

Knight of Dane wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

No.

Why?

Because classes should be more distinct, not less. DA:O's system blows. Not only did Rogues have the least skills of every class, but two thirds of their abilities were co-opted by Warriors. Lame.

Personally, I liked the fact the fact that both rogues and warriors in DA2 had more abilities to choose from than in DA:O.

I don't think, though, that giving warriors access to ranged or dual-wielding abilities would necessarily need to end up making the choice of class feel redundant. Maybe warriors could have a different set of dual-wielding or ranged abilities than rogues.

Modifié par jillabender, 05 mai 2013 - 03:19 .

[Blazomancer]

@Jillabender - Exactly. May be the warrior DW tree wouldn't have the talents like Backstab, Merciless Strike, Lacerate/Maim which are kind of scoundrelly; rather we can have stuff like whirlwind, dw sweep and punisher back from origins, but making sure that they are never-crit unlike the bugged origins versions.

Rather than taking away from the warrior, they can add a couple of new weapon styles for the rogue like rapier-buckler or something.

[FINE HERE]

How about this then? The warrior can dual wield or use a bow, but won't get a skill tree for them.

[-TC1989-]

FINE HERE wrote...

How about this then? The warrior can dual wield or use a bow, but won't get a skill tree for them.

Actually that sounds fair to me. I think Warriors, and Rogues should be able to DW, and use bows. I never understood the decision to take that away. I guess Bioware thought that making Warriors, and rogues be able to do the same things would make them less different? I think the 2hS wielders, and sword and board types would want a word.

[Fiacre]

If the problem is that rogues will be useless if warriors got the ability to dual wield (and use a bow) back, shouldn't the logical response be to improve the rogue rather than limit the warrior? Though I'd argue that point anyway -- with DA2 introducing a bucket load of class based ability trees, dual wield warriors and dual wield rogues should still be sufficiently different (unless they reduce the number of abilities/those abilities suck and are basically the same thing for both classes with a slightly different look. Which would be a problem still not solved by limiting the weapons one class can use.)

Of course, I think they should junk the class system anyway, cause it's crap. Just make it mage/non mage and let mages learn weapons abilities. (Since you'd still have a finite number of points, you'd still ave to decide between those and getting better mage abilities, evening it out.) This way, everyone can build the character they want (and yes, combat style can have a lot to do with roleplaying. Certainly does for me. If it makes sense for the character I'm playing to be able to do it, he should). You want a typical rogue build? Perfect! Typical warrior? Also perfect! Mix and match to fit your character/the way you want to play! Just as perfect! More customization is good, not bad.

[Blazomancer]

@Fiacre - I agree completely. I'd be much happy having a mage-non mage type of character progression. But since most probably rogues and warriors are there to say, I'd want more number of possible class builds, and removing weapon types from a class surely does limit the variations.