156 réponses à ce sujet

[Qyla]

Alodar wrote...

Qyla wrote...

I partially agree. Surely the switching weapon system and the ability to use close and long range combact weapons is important, but I can't picture in my mind a rogue with a double-hand sword. If your goal is to have a chara like this you should play the warrior to begin with.

Why should the weapon choices my rogue has be limited to what you can picture in your mind?

I just expressed my opinion, if that's forbidden what are we doing here?
The difference between warrior and rogue is that a warrior considers his strenght his weapon of choice, so h/she train to be a living tank but the rogue chosees his speed and dexterty to fight. A double-handed sword can be anything but swift to use, so it doesn't fit to the train the fighter did, that's the reason they used this system . They exaggerate, no argue here (why my warrior can't use two swords?) but they did it for a reason.

[Little Princess Peach]

unless they add an arcane archer or an arcane swords master I don't see the point in mages using those weapons, and so forth, sure it was fun in da:o but my warden became overpowered fast, and it became less fun after a while, I don't see a tank using a mages staff now :/, unless he was cosplaying as Anders.......

Modifié par Tharja, 19 juin 2013 - 09:22 .

[Qyla]

Tharja wrote...

unless they add an arcane archer or an arcane swords master I don't see the point in mages using those weapons, and so forth, sure it was fun in da:o but my warden became overpowered fast, and it became less fun after a while, I don't see a tank using a mages staff now :/, unless he was cosplaying as Anders.......

Not a mage staff...a normal staff. As people can do in NWN and Olimpia does in Xena for example

[Asdrubael Vect]

Alodar wrote...

The freedom to use any weapon you had the stats for was there in Dragon Age Origins.

Mages could use swords if they designed their character that way.
Fighters could use bows instead of being restriced to melee only.
If they wanted to a Rogue could even use a shield.

IMHO this was much better class design.

There is no reason that fighters shouldn't be able to use distance weapons -- especially when encounters can have dragons that perch high above and make the class useless for a portion of the encounter.

IMHO restricting weapons to class is a mistake that I would love to see changed back to the way it was implimented in DAO.

weapons and armors for everyone:wizard: Tevinter Empire, Elvhenan Empire with Grey Wardens aproves this


Duncan aproves too:D

PS. and Reaver option(this is not a specialization(this is similar to Grey Wardens Joining), this is should be like Aventus potion) for all classes, Templars for rogues, lockpicking for everyone

Modifié par Dark Korsar, 19 juin 2013 - 10:10 .

[metatheurgist]

TexasToast712 wrote...
Why play as a warrior if you can play as a mage warrior?

Easy, because they play differently. You can be an excellent warrior or you can be an excellent mage or you can be an adequate mage and an adequate warrior, which means not being as cool as being dedicated in either, but still has it's advantages. You just need better game design to make that happen.

[Asdrubael Vect]

metatheurgist wrote...

TexasToast712 wrote...
Why play as a warrior if you can play as a mage warrior?

Easy, because they play differently. You can be an excellent warrior or you can be an excellent mage or you can be an adequate mage and an adequate warrior, which means not being as cool as being dedicated in either, but still has it's advantages. You just need better game design to make that happen.

1)became exelent mage and blood mage,

(especially if you can....find and drink dragon blood-became reaver....and pay Danarius for your personal Lyrium Vassalin(mix with some dragon blood)...or do both things to became more unstopable...and i am not talking about Arcane Wariior knoledge because with all this things(Reaver and Vassalin) you are GOD OF WAR) 

2)Improve your body(if you was weak like Chantry Circle mages who are SPECIALLY not allowed to learn how use weapons and armor) strength/agility/endurance by blood magic rituals and special potions

3)hire best teachers(if your never have those like Chantry Circle mages) of weapon arts and learn for few months/year

4)hire best blacksmith(mages blacksmith) who would create for you best weapons and armor from silverite=>vulcanic aurum

5)improve your weapons and armor with runes,lyrium and blood magic rituals

now your a baddas and can kill anyone who would try to atack you:wizard:

especially if you are elf mage and dreamer and do all of this stufs you are became a God of God of War

Modifié par Dark Korsar, 19 juin 2013 - 12:23 .

[Tarek]

hmmm never gave it any thought.... I mean it kinda makes sense that mages should suck in melee arts and rogues should suck at "conventional" combat techniques and such .... but its a meh thing for me

[Alodar]

Qyla wrote...

Alodar wrote...
Why should the weapon choices my rogue has be limited to what you can picture in your mind?

I just expressed my opinion, if that's forbidden what are we doing here?

And I just expressed why I didn't agree with your opinion. If that's forbidden what are we doing here? 

The difference between warrior and rogue is that a warrior considers his strenght his weapon of choice, so h/she train to be a living tank but the rogue chosees his speed and dexterty to fight. A double-handed sword can be anything but swift to use, so it doesn't fit to the train the fighter did, that's the reason they used this system . They exaggerate, no argue here (why my warrior can't use two swords?) but they did it for a reason.

There are many kinds of rogues in literature. Your average theives guild would have thugs or bashers who are rogues but get what they want through bullying and intimidation instead of subtlety and stealth.

Yes BioWare chose to limit weapons based on class for a reason in DA2 however I would like them to re-examine their reasons because IMHO the negatives of that choice far outweighed the benefits.

Modifié par Alodar, 19 juin 2013 - 01:47 .

[mickey111]

Because Bioware thinks it gives the player too much agency. If Bioware design the mage class for example to be entirely ineffective at weilding 2 handed weapons (which is true), they don't want to have to deal with the consequences of a handful of bone heads who stubbornly refuse to give up the sword and do something useful with their build like magic instead.

[mickey111]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

You could make precisely this same argument for eliminating the concept of "class" at all. Every game is going to contain arbitrary restrictions of one kind or another.

Morrowind.

[mikeymoonshine]

Might be cool if some of the specializations gave you the ability to fight in a different way like maybe a sword wielding mage or a dagger wielding warrior, Rogues who can use short swords or something idk. Templars and (Reavers I guess) can sort of learn magicalish abilities so it could work.

However the whole dragon age combat system in both games is based around your class so i certainly don't want to see a have any skills you like (Like in skyrim) style. That works fine for skyrim but doesn't really suit the law for dragon age.

[garrusfan1]

how would anyone besides a mage use a staff when it is used to enhance your magical powers. also I think the way it was set up in DAO was good because you could have a rouge using a two handed weapon but it would have no skill set. I would like DA3 to bring back the option to have two swords for dual wielding instead of two daggers

[Patchwork]

garrusfan1 wrote...

how would anyone besides a mage use a staff when it is used to enhance your magical powers. also I think the way it was set up in DAO was good because you could have a rouge using a two handed weapon but it would have no skill set. I would like DA3 to bring back the option to have two swords for dual wielding instead of two daggers

There's theses things called quaterstaffs, halberds, pole weapons of all sorts really.

I preferred DAO's system of if you had the stats you can equip it but it would be nice if you could get access to the passive upgrades if you found certain books or trainers. 

Modifié par Ser Bard, 19 juin 2013 - 02:31 .

[Deemz]

Then you have to start designing staffs with rogue stats, swords with mage stats, etc.

[badboy64]

Leave the way it is intended for specific classes to use certain weapons. This is not Skyrim with a jack-of-all-trades character.

[Brodoteau]

The way to hybrid the two systems would be for everyone to start as a "fighter" and then specialize after that. Yet even this has limitations.

In the military, for example, everyone gets basic training and then specializes. But if you join the navy, you don't the get the same basic training as someone in the army. There are similiarities but they are not the same.

So it doesn't make sense that a mage would learn how to use a sword, as much as it makes sense that an boxer would learn judo throws. They might both learn how to punch though. So it's about finding this balance in your game.

Secondly, if your PC can do everything, why does he need a party? This is the "Superman" problem. Superman is better than everyone in the Justice League and can do everything they do just as well, if not better. So why does he really need Green Arrow hanging around? Numbers? If you played as a warrior in DA2, you'll notice that you don't take Aveline or Fenris quite as much as you take Varric or Bethany etc. Because you have their skill set.

While I actually think class systems help to balance the game and make everyone more useful, I am fully in favour of two things:
1. Switch weapon sets was good and useful (sometimes I want to use a war hammer, sometimes I want to use a long sword. Let me choose)
2. Warriors should have the ability to be archers. Limit them just to crossbows if you want. But there is not reason why a warrior can't be an archer.

[Boycott Bioware]

Weapons should not be restricted, but only certain class can use special attacks using them. Everyone can use any weapons, at least swinging them, but only trained ones can utilize the weapon fully

[Sylvius the Mad]

Deemz wrote...

Then you have to start designing staffs with rogue stats, swords with mage stats, etc.

No you don't.  DAO didn't.

Equipment should be stat-limited, not class-limited.  Anyone with sufficient <relevant stat> should be able to use a sword.  He might not be able to learn any special abilities for use with that sword, but that's no reason to say he can't use it at all.

[Wozearly]

Qyla wrote...

The difference between warrior and rogue is that a warrior considers his strenght his weapon of choice, so h/she train to be a living tank but the rogue chosees his speed and dexterty to fight. A double-handed sword can be anything but swift to use, so it doesn't fit to the train the fighter did, that's the reason they used this system . They exaggerate, no argue here (why my warrior can't use two swords?) but they did it for a reason.

Using an old-English style longbow requires absolutely incredible upper body strength and as archers shoot from a stable, standing position they have almost no use for speed or dexterity except when the battle goes south and they high tail it for the hills. So it makes perfect sense that the archer is a lithe, dexterous, strength-low rogue.

I don't actually disagree with your point about class specialisation and simplicity for the developers in terms of designing stats to classes (although I did personally prefer the more nuanced DA:O balance), but if my rogue can be strong enough to use a longbow, then my warrior should be dexterous enough to use two weapons.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Qyla wrote...

The difference between warrior and rogue is that a warrior considers his strenght his weapon of choice, so h/she train to be a living tank but the rogue chosees his speed and dexterty to fight.

I don't like that distinction. I'd much rather define Warriors as people who specialise in combat, and use combat to solve problems, while Rogues are more likely to use non-combat skills and guile to solve problems.  Even Rogue-specific combat skills involve exploiting weaknesses (backstabbing) rather than simply overpowering strength with greater strength.

And I still maintain that Rogues should be less good at combat than Warriors, but Warriors should be less good at nearly everything other than combat compared to Rogues.

[Enigmatick]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Non-Combat  Roles
New Dragon Age games

Pick one.

Modifié par Enigmatick, 19 juin 2013 - 08:29 .

[Maclimes]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Qyla wrote...

The difference between warrior and rogue is that a warrior considers his strenght his weapon of choice, so h/she train to be a living tank but the rogue chosees his speed and dexterty to fight.

I don't like that distinction. I'd much rather define Warriors as people who specialise in combat, and use combat to solve problems, while Rogues are more likely to use non-combat skills and guile to solve problems.  Even Rogue-specific combat skills involve exploiting weaknesses (backstabbing) rather than simply overpowering strength with greater strength.

And I still maintain that Rogues should be less good at combat than Warriors, but Warriors should be less good at nearly everything other than combat compared to Rogues.

While I'm not 100% opposed to this idea, I prefer the purely combat-oriented distinctions, and let the non-combat stuff be my choice.

In other words, are you saying Warriors can't be crafty, or pick locks, or be persuasive or subtle, just because their fighting style tends to be less subtle?

In MY thinking, all of the non-combat stuff should be available to all classes. Let the differences be combat based: The warrior has massive health and armor, has low mobility, and dishes out a steady stream of mid-range damage.  The rogue relies on dodging and speed as his defense, can zip around the battlefield quickly, and deals damage in brief but intense bursts.

[Plaintiff]

Because Archery and Fencing are in the same period. You have to pick one and enroll in the other next semester.

[Marvin_Arnold]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Deemz wrote...

Then you have to start designing staffs with rogue stats, swords with mage stats, etc.

No you don't.  DAO didn't.

Equipment should be stat-limited, not class-limited.  Anyone with sufficient <relevant stat> should be able to use a sword.  He might not be able to learn any special abilities for use with that sword, but that's no reason to say he can't use it at all.

Fully agreed. If a rogue has enough muscle (STR), s/he would be able to pick up that sword. And if a warrior has enough dexterity, nothing would keep him/her from dual-wielding or using a bow. If a (plain) mage wants to wear armor, well it's his/her party, even if s/he losese out on the benefits that mage robes give.

Everything else is unrealistic.

Modifié par Marvin_Arnold, 19 juin 2013 - 09:03 .

[Wozearly]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I'd much rather define Warriors as people who specialise in combat, and use combat to solve problems, while Rogues are more likely to use non-combat skills and guile to solve problems.  Even Rogue-specific combat skills involve exploiting weaknesses (backstabbing) rather than simply overpowering strength with greater strength.

And I still maintain that Rogues should be less good at combat than Warriors, but Warriors should be less good at nearly everything other than combat compared to Rogues.

Which would be an incredibly appealing answer if,

a) Bioware hadn't decided to make combat a significant focus of the Dragon Age series, including major conflict resolution

The non-combat gameplay and storyline was as in-depth, challenging and rewarding as the combat version, or couldn't be 'covered' by always bringing one rogue in the party.


In terms of combat balancing, its one of the areas where I broadly agree with the Bioware dev (Epler or Laidlaw, if memory serves) who said that one of DA:O's challenges was that damage-dealing rogues and warriors overlapped too much.

In twin weapon / 2H terms, the warrior tended to have the benefit of heavier armour and better group buffs (although warrior tanks also had these, so their usefulness was slightly questionable). The rogue had the advantage of significantly more effective damage-dealing and far better threat management, but if specced right could also take heavier armour if they counteracted the stamina penalty in another way. Twin weapon rogues were incredibly flexible and effective compared to 2H warriors or twin weapon warriors.

Again with archers, rogues got the slightly better deal although both archery lines were somewhat lacklustre prior to Awakening.

DA2 did, at least, better define and balance the benefits and weaknesses of the damage-dealing rogue and warrior roles. But it did so by making both of them combat gods, able to wipe out wave after wave of mindless enemy spawns. I too would have preferred a slightly different answer...but them's the breaks.