108 réponses à ce sujet

[The Spirit of Dance]

Yes! and make the Arishok's weapons and armor obtainable.

[Fiacre]

Blazomancer wrote...

@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.

Indeed so. If I already have to liberally use the console to mix and match (which I am not ashamed to say I do -- if my character can become proficient at pickpocketing, he sure as hell can become proficient at lockpicking.) then I at least want to have a bunch of viable builds even with class restrictions. and again, DA2 introduced a bunch of class specific combat skill trees. And there's the specializations. If a dual wield warrior and a dual wield rogue are the same because they have ecatly one skill tree in common, I can only come to the conclusion that all the non weapon skill trees are crap and not worth using, otherwise they would be used and make the two obiously distinct. And maybe that's just me, but I still say the logical conlcusion would be to improve those skill trees (or, if we ant to focuse on "the rogue was useless in DA:O, the rogue class), not restrict customization and make one class worse than it was.

(But seriously, I still want the ability to have my mage learn how to use a sword. Even with the Arcane Warrior in DA:O it was all auto attacking -- you'd think my guy would pick a technique or two after fighting his way through Ferelden with a sword for year.)

[Ghaleon]

I would very much like this feature to return it was my favorite setup in DA:O, maybe allow warriors to dual wield two handed weapons?

[EdwinLi]

What they should do is to make Duel Weapons for Warrior changed to Duel Blades and make the Duel Blade skill tree different from the Rogue Duel Weapon skill tree because the Warrior will duel Wield two swords rather than 2 daggers.

[Doctoglethorpe]

Why so narrow thinking? Destroy the entire class system and let us go the Skyrim way, making whatever combination we want.

Its single player, so don't give me any nonsense about "balance." If I want a heavy armored mage that uses a sword in their main hand and flings lightning with their off hand, why the hell not?

[Shevy]

Doctor Moustache wrote...

Why so narrow thinking? Destroy the entire class system and let us go the Skyrim way, making whatever combination we want.

Its single player, so don't give me any nonsense about "balance." If I want a heavy armored mage that uses a sword in their main hand and flings lightning with their off hand, why the hell not?

The problem with this in the DA world would be, that every protagonist then has to be a mage because using magic seems to be a thing of genetics.

I would prefer to scrap the class system of non-magic classes, so you can a heavy armored rogue with a dagger and a buckler or so.

But being a mage is more than a simple class decision, so I would leave that separated.

[Fiacre]

Shevy_001 wrote...

Doctor Moustache wrote...

Why so narrow thinking? Destroy the entire class system and let us go the Skyrim way, making whatever combination we want.

Its single player, so don't give me any nonsense about "balance." If I want a heavy armored mage that uses a sword in their main hand and flings lightning with their off hand, why the hell not?

The problem with this in the DA world would be, that every protagonist then has to be a mage because using magic seems to be a thing of genetics.

I would prefer to scrap the class system of non-magic classes, so you can a heavy armored rogue with a dagger and a buckler or so.

But being a mage is more than a simple class decision, so I would leave that separated.

Yeah. Just make it mage/non-mage. And let mages wear armour/learn weapon abilities -- they'd still have to spend points on that rather than new mage abilities, so it would even out. And then have distinct differences in the story between the two classes, making both viable and appealing. The current system does nothing but restrict customization and roleplaying for no actual gain, and doesn't make sense, anyway.

[ManOfSteel]

Fiacre wrote...

Shevy_001 wrote...

Doctor Moustache wrote...

Why so narrow thinking? Destroy the entire class system and let us go the Skyrim way, making whatever combination we want.

Its single player, so don't give me any nonsense about "balance." If I want a heavy armored mage that uses a sword in their main hand and flings lightning with their off hand, why the hell not?

The problem with this in the DA world would be, that every protagonist then has to be a mage because using magic seems to be a thing of genetics.

I would prefer to scrap the class system of non-magic classes, so you can a heavy armored rogue with a dagger and a buckler or so.

But being a mage is more than a simple class decision, so I would leave that separated.

Yeah. Just make it mage/non-mage. And let mages wear armour/learn weapon abilities -- they'd still have to spend points on that rather than new mage abilities, so it would even out. And then have distinct differences in the story between the two classes, making both viable and appealing. The current system does nothing but restrict customization and roleplaying for no actual gain, and doesn't make sense, anyway.

That is something I could get behind.

[Gebert]

Fiacre wrote...

Shevy_001 wrote...

Doctor Moustache wrote...

Why so narrow thinking? Destroy the entire class system and let us go the Skyrim way, making whatever combination we want.

Its single player, so don't give me any nonsense about "balance." If I want a heavy armored mage that uses a sword in their main hand and flings lightning with their off hand, why the hell not?

The problem with this in the DA world would be, that every protagonist then has to be a mage because using magic seems to be a thing of genetics.

I would prefer to scrap the class system of non-magic classes, so you can a heavy armored rogue with a dagger and a buckler or so.

But being a mage is more than a simple class decision, so I would leave that separated.

Yeah. Just make it mage/non-mage. And let mages wear armour/learn weapon abilities -- they'd still have to spend points on that rather than new mage abilities, so it would even out. And then have distinct differences in the story between the two classes, making both viable and appealing. The current system does nothing but restrict customization and roleplaying for no actual gain, and doesn't make sense, anyway.

This is something that I can very much support. 

[AlexRD]

supremebloodwolf wrote...

Yes! and make the Arishok's weapons and armor obtainable.

Not sure if sarcastic or serious

DoomHK wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

Shevy_001 wrote...

Doctor Moustache wrote...

Why so narrow thinking? Destroy the entire class system and let us go the Skyrim way, making whatever combination we want.

Its single player, so don't give me any nonsense about "balance." If I want a heavy armored mage that uses a sword in their main hand and flings lightning with their off hand, why the hell not?

The problem with this in the DA world would be, that every protagonist then has to be a mage because using magic seems to be a thing of genetics.

I would prefer to scrap the class system of non-magic classes, so you can a heavy armored rogue with a dagger and a buckler or so.

But being a mage is more than a simple class decision, so I would leave that separated.

Yeah. Just make it mage/non-mage. And let mages wear armour/learn weapon abilities -- they'd still have to spend points on that rather than new mage abilities, so it would even out. And then have distinct differences in the story between the two classes, making both viable and appealing. The current system does nothing but restrict customization and roleplaying for no actual gain, and doesn't make sense, anyway.

That is something I could get behind.

That's what she... he... nevermind.

[TMZuk]

Give everybody access to all weapons.

If I want to play a mage with a two-handed sword, why can't I? Silly restrictions feel so artificial and contrived!

And while we are at it, more classes! And hybrid-classes!

More freedom in character-creation and development!

[Tenshi]

no, dw warriors were just lack luster rogues.
also dont bring samurais into this, they would get wiped quite easily if they faced medieval european knights / foot soldiers.

[AlexRD]

xxx2emo4Uxxx wrote...

no, dw warriors were just lack luster rogues.
also dont bring samurais into this, they would get wiped quite easily if they faced medieval european knights / foot soldiers.

Oh boy.

Modifié par AlexRD, 04 mai 2013 - 09:42 .

[Tenshi]

AlexRD wrote...

xxx2emo4Uxxx wrote...

no, dw warriors were just lack luster rogues.
also dont bring samurais into this, they would get wiped quite easily if they faced medieval european knights / foot soldiers.

Oh boy.

Oh please, lets just end the thing about samurais forever. Im huge fan of them and i know quite a LOT about katanas and their effect vs shield or armor. 
Samurais are certainly not a good example of dual wielding when it comes to dragon age.

Modifié par xxx2emo4Uxxx, 04 mai 2013 - 09:45 .

[Zelto]

Yes please,

And for those saying it makes rogues pointless or less defined, then improve rogues, they shouldn't be defined by the fact that they use two weapons. In DA:O they weren't, they were defined by being stealthy and able to pick locks, maybe that didn't work very well but that was still what they had over others.

Would like to see archery as well, really annoyed me in DA:2 that during the high dragon encounter your warriros become totally useless because they can't attack the dragon sitting on top of a 3 foot cliff.

[Tenshi]

Zelto wrote...

Yes please,

And for those saying it makes rogues pointless or less defined, then improve rogues, they shouldn't be defined by the fact that they use two weapons. In DA:O they weren't, they were defined by being stealthy and able to pick locks, maybe that didn't work very well but that was still what they had over others.

Would like to see archery as well, really annoyed me in DA:2 that during the high dragon encounter your warriros become totally useless because they can't attack the dragon sitting on top of a 3 foot cliff.

no.. DW warriors were pointless.. there was nothing he could do that rogue could not.

[Fiacre]

xxx2emo4Uxxx wrote...

Zelto wrote...

Yes please,

And for those saying it makes rogues pointless or less defined, then improve rogues, they shouldn't be defined by the fact that they use two weapons. In DA:O they weren't, they were defined by being stealthy and able to pick locks, maybe that didn't work very well but that was still what they had over others.

Would like to see archery as well, really annoyed me in DA:2 that during the high dragon encounter your warriros become totally useless because they can't attack the dragon sitting on top of a 3 foot cliff.

no.. DW warriors were pointless.. there was nothing he could do that rogue could not.

And yet plenty people who have played both a DW rogue and a DW warrior talk about how very different the two felt. How very odd...

(And wouldn't that a sign that warriors and rogue aren't really distinct enough to really justify having them as seperate classes in the first place? Not that yours is an all that vald comaparison in the firt place, unless they drastically reduce the number of class specific abilities to DA:O levels instead of keeping the DA:2 ones.)

[Tenshi]

Fiacre wrote...

xxx2emo4Uxxx wrote...

Zelto wrote...

Yes please,

And for those saying it makes rogues pointless or less defined, then improve rogues, they shouldn't be defined by the fact that they use two weapons. In DA:O they weren't, they were defined by being stealthy and able to pick locks, maybe that didn't work very well but that was still what they had over others.

Would like to see archery as well, really annoyed me in DA:2 that during the high dragon encounter your warriros become totally useless because they can't attack the dragon sitting on top of a 3 foot cliff.

no.. DW warriors were pointless.. there was nothing he could do that rogue could not.

And yet plenty people who have played both a DW rogue and a DW warrior talk about how very different the two felt. How very odd...

(And wouldn't that a sign that warriors and rogue aren't really distinct enough to really justify having them as seperate classes in the first place? Not that yours is an all that vald comaparison in the firt place, unless they drastically reduce the number of class specific abilities to DA:O levels instead of keeping the DA:2 ones.)

i reconesidered, and decided that i dont care. just dont give them same set of skills as rogue has 

[Zelto]

xxx2emo4Uxxx wrote...

no.. DW warriors were pointless.. there was nothing he could do that rogue could not.

Right and what can a rogue do that a warrior. Open locks and stealth. At the end of they day they are both sword swinging classes. You say a DW warrior is pointless, personally I think rogues are pointless, other than for opening locks. In DA:O I downloaded a lock bash mod so I didn't need to have a rogue because I never felt they added anything. DA:2 didn't make rogues better by allowing only them to duel weild all it did was arbitrarily limit what warriors could do.

If you love DW rogues, play as a rogue, but there is no reason a warrior can't also DW. You may not like it because it detracts from your personal playing choice but thats not a reason to remove it.

[Tenshi]

Zelto wrote...

xxx2emo4Uxxx wrote...

no.. DW warriors were pointless.. there was nothing he could do that rogue could not.

Right and what can a rogue do that a warrior. Open locks and stealth. At the end of they day they are both sword swinging classes. You say a DW warrior is pointless, personally I think rogues are pointless, other than for opening locks. In DA:O I downloaded a lock bash mod so I didn't need to have a rogue because I never felt they added anything. DA:2 didn't make rogues better by allowing only them to duel weild all it did was arbitrarily limit what warriors could do.

If you love DW rogues, play as a rogue, but there is no reason a warrior can't also DW. You may not like it because it detracts from your personal playing choice but thats not a reason to remove it.

i dont even need to prove my point... there is no reason to play dw warrior over dw rogue.. if rogue goes strenght he can wear heavy armor... and do exactly same things as warrior + backstabs.

Modifié par xxx2emo4Uxxx, 04 mai 2013 - 10:29 .

[cJohnOne]

Rogues get distracted by various rogue skills like open lock while DW warriors are more likely to have heavy armor and get their DW skills sooner.

Changing subjects. Having distinct classes help unimagative people like myself roleplay. Having less distinct classes means not roleplaying a class. classes are the only reason I replayed DA2. There were 5 I believe 2 warriors, DW rogue and bow rogue plus mage.

DAO let you switch up your warrior campanions into DW Warriors which I only have done recently which I enjoy. What I trying to say is DAO had more combinations and I think was a better game from that standpoint.

[cJohnOne]

Rogues use Dexterity over Strength. Use lighter armor and may also use Cunning. Cunning was better in DAO than DA2. In my opinion.

[Fiacre]

xxx2emo4Uxxx wrote...

Zelto wrote...

xxx2emo4Uxxx wrote...

no.. DW warriors were pointless.. there was nothing he could do that rogue could not.

Right and what can a rogue do that a warrior. Open locks and stealth. At the end of they day they are both sword swinging classes. You say a DW warrior is pointless, personally I think rogues are pointless, other than for opening locks. In DA:O I downloaded a lock bash mod so I didn't need to have a rogue because I never felt they added anything. DA:2 didn't make rogues better by allowing only them to duel weild all it did was arbitrarily limit what warriors could do.

If you love DW rogues, play as a rogue, but there is no reason a warrior can't also DW. You may not like it because it detracts from your personal playing choice but thats not a reason to remove it.

i dont even need to prove my point... there is no reason to play dw warrior over dw rogue.. if rogue goes strenght he can wear heavy armor... and do exactly same things as warrior + backstabs.

I still don't quite see how that is an argument against it. Having a DW warrior doesn't mean you can't play a DW rogue, it just means those who prefer a warrioir can't dua wield for some arbitrary reason. (And what if you don't want your character to have backstabs froma rolpeplaying point of view?)

[Zelto]

xxx2emo4Uxxx wrote...

i dont even need to prove my point... there is no reason to play dw warrior over dw rogue.. if rogue goes strenght he can wear heavy armor... and do exactly same things as warrior + backstabs.

So your argument on why a rogue was better was because they can become warriors...

As I said, if you like DW rogues fine but that in itself isn't a reason for warriors to be able to DW, even if its inferior to that of a rogue.

[Fiacre]

cJohnOne wrote...

Rogues get distracted by various rogue skills like open lock while DW warriors are more likely to have heavy armor and get their DW skills sooner.

Changing subjects. Having distinct classes help unimagative people like myself roleplay. Having less distinct classes means not roleplaying a class. classes are the only reason I replayed DA2. There were 5 I believe 2 warriors, DW rogue and bow rogue plus mage.

DAO let you switch up your warrior campanions into DW Warriors which I only have done recently which I enjoy. What I trying to say is DAO had more combinations and I think was a better game from that standpoint.

How so? You can still use a classic rogue or warrior build. but you can also switch it up through mixing and matching -- Skyrim would be an example, but I'd almost say Kingdoms of Amalur is a better one. While that does have three distinct classes, you're free to mix them however you wish without the game telling that you're wrong -- want to make a Might/Finesse hybrid? There you go? Want to mix Sorcery and Finesse? No problem? Sorcery and Might? All three together? Perfectly fine. It still lays out a distinct class design, but it's more of a guide line rather than forcing arbitrary  restrictions on you.