156 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wozearly wrote...

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.

B is, I think, the more important aspect of the game.  Because the fruits of B impact A.  If the non-combat gameplay produces better gear, or more information, that affects how combat plays out.  If you pay the combat penalty of having a rogue in the party, perhaps your warrior will be more powerful because he'll have better gear.  Or you'll know better which enemies to fight and which to avoid.

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.

Given how well DAO's warriors and rogues worked, individually, though, I would take that lack of differentiation as evidence that Dragon Age maybe should only have one non-mage class.

But given that there are two, each needs to make sense within the setting, no matter how much that makes them overlap.

And I don't think they did overlap that much.  The only way to differentiate them further would be to give them class-specific skill trees for each weapon type - so warriors would have access to archery talents that were different from a rogue's archery talents.

That's how to differentiate the classes.  Creating these baseless equipment restrictions are not the way to go.

[DanaScu]

badboy64 wrote...

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

Intended in which game? They went from DA:O to the weapon restrictions in DA2 without any explanation; not even "The Chantry discovered a scroll, written by Andraste Herself, that said warriors are now too clumsy to use a bow; rogues can't understand how to use a sword, and mages haven't got a clue that any item that doesn't look like a staff is a weapon." My warrior in DA:O had enough dexterity to use a bow and not shoot herself. My rogue used a sword and dagger for reach and speed. It had nothing to do with a jack of all trades. If the enemy was far enough away, my warrior could use a bow to deal some damage before they closed enough for melee. That didn't mean I wanted to make my warrior an archer. It meant I wanted more support at range; just like I wanted my rogue to stop using a bow when the enemy closed and deal backstab damage with a sword and dagger....Still a warrior, still a rogue, but a safer party....

[DanaScu]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Wozearly wrote...

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.

B is, I think, the more important aspect of the game.  Because the fruits of B impact A.  If the non-combat gameplay produces better gear, or more information, that affects how combat plays out.  If you pay the combat penalty of having a rogue in the party, perhaps your warrior will be more powerful because he'll have better gear.  Or you'll know better which enemies to fight and which to avoid.

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.

Given how well DAO's warriors and rogues worked, individually, though, I would take that lack of differentiation as evidence that Dragon Age maybe should only have one non-mage class.

But given that there are two, each needs to make sense within the setting, no matter how much that makes them overlap.

And I don't think they did overlap that much.  The only way to differentiate them further would be to give them class-specific skill trees for each weapon type - so warriors would have access to archery talents that were different from a rogue's archery talents.

That's how to differentiate the classes.  Creating these baseless equipment restrictions are not the way to go.

+1, agreed.

[Solmanian]

I don't understand why people have such problem with freedom, which is to me the most importent part of an RPG.

What's so hard to grasp something like a sneaky axe murderer? Or maybe someone like Harley, skulking with a giant mallut, playing whack a mole with people. If anything, dual wielding should be removed as a basic fighting style (since it is the most complex to master) and be made unlockable down the line; the fact that every knave and brigand in thedas is ambidexterous is very jarring to me.

[The Six Path of Pain]

For a Rogue it kind of makes sense,but not for a warrior

Edit:Then again Origins was extremely versatile.So you definitely could make a Sword and Shield Rogue work

Modifié par The Six Path of Pain, 20 juin 2013 - 01:25 .

[Urazz]

The Six Path of Pain wrote...

For a Rogue it kind of makes sense,but not for a warrior

Edit:Then again Origins was extremely versatile.So you definitely could make a Sword and Shield Rogue work

Not very well actually.  They pretty much got rid of the small crap that no one used in weapons.  How many people actually used a bow or crossbow that much in DA:O on their warrior?  Sure I used them occasionally but not often enough that I felt upset by it's loss in DA2.

It was the same with weapons on mages.  There was like one sword your mage could use in DAO but otherwise staffs had better stats better suited for mages.

The only questionable weapon restriction was on warriors and dual wielding weapons.

[Boycott Bioware]

Dex-Cun Dual Swords Rogue is the best build i say, high defense, high armor penetration and high damage, also can lockpick and disarm traps. It is a hard build but once got to certain point it is the best ever build

One can argue with Dex-Cun Dual Daggers or Strength-Dex Dual Swords but i go for Dex-Cunning Dual Swords

Sadly, DA2 don't allow such build

[Rawgrim]

Anyone should be able to pick up any weapon. A human being is able to hold a sword and wave it around. Just because you are a thief or a mage, you shouldn`t be deprived of the option, at least.

As a side not: I hope they don`t just give us a weapon when we don`t have one equipped this time. In DA2 I got weapons magically popping into Hawke`s hand whenever I was dumb enough to not equip one.

[Rawgrim]

TexasToast712 wrote...


Because the Dragon Age series is more of a tactical RPG than a free roam, do anything RPG like Skyrim. Why play as a warrior if you can play as a mage warrior? Same thing goes for people who want no armor restrictions or the return of the Arcane Warrior. Its for balance.

Because people like to roleplay. Sometimes that might include playng a normal warrior that has no magic.

And where exactly did you find tactical combat in DA2?

[badboy64]

DanaScu wrote...

badboy64 wrote...

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

Intended in which game? They went from DA:O to the weapon restrictions in DA2 without any explanation; not even "The Chantry discovered a scroll, written by Andraste Herself, that said warriors are now too clumsy to use a bow; rogues can't understand how to use a sword, and mages haven't got a clue that any item that doesn't look like a staff is a weapon." My warrior in DA:O had enough dexterity to use a bow and not shoot herself. My rogue used a sword and dagger for reach and speed. It had nothing to do with a jack of all trades. If the enemy was far enough away, my warrior could use a bow to deal some damage before they closed enough for melee. That didn't mean I wanted to make my warrior an archer. It meant I wanted more support at range; just like I wanted my rogue to stop using a bow when the enemy closed and deal backstab damage with a sword and dagger....Still a warrior, still a rogue, but a safer party....

The DA:Inquisition game. They don't need to follow the way Skyrim does it. I played both DA games and never ever used a bow with a warrior or even dual-swords in DA:O. Shield and sword or Greatsword is all I used for my Warrior builds. They should keep it the way it was DA:O period. The only other class that I used with them weapons was a Arcane Warrior. How do we even know how they are gonna hvae the weapons classes since we don't even have any information period and everybody assumes it will have the samething as DA:O does.

Modifié par badboy64, 20 juin 2013 - 04:18 .

[Rawgrim]

badboy64 wrote...

DanaScu wrote...

badboy64 wrote...

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

Intended in which game? They went from DA:O to the weapon restrictions in DA2 without any explanation; not even "The Chantry discovered a scroll, written by Andraste Herself, that said warriors are now too clumsy to use a bow; rogues can't understand how to use a sword, and mages haven't got a clue that any item that doesn't look like a staff is a weapon." My warrior in DA:O had enough dexterity to use a bow and not shoot herself. My rogue used a sword and dagger for reach and speed. It had nothing to do with a jack of all trades. If the enemy was far enough away, my warrior could use a bow to deal some damage before they closed enough for melee. That didn't mean I wanted to make my warrior an archer. It meant I wanted more support at range; just like I wanted my rogue to stop using a bow when the enemy closed and deal backstab damage with a sword and dagger....Still a warrior, still a rogue, but a safer party....

The DA:Inquisition game. They don't need to follow the way Skyrim does it. I played both DA games and never ever used a bow with a warrior or even dual-swords in DA:O. Shield and sword or Greatsword is all I used for my Warrior builds. They should keep it the way it was DA:O period. The only other class that I used with them weapons was a Arcane Warrior.

I had Wynne chop down Kolgrim with a greataxe (got a finisher too) in DA:O. One of my favorite memories from the game.

[Rylor Tormtor]

badboy64 wrote...

DanaScu wrote...

badboy64 wrote...

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

Intended in which game? They went from DA:O to the weapon restrictions in DA2 without any explanation; not even "The Chantry discovered a scroll, written by Andraste Herself, that said warriors are now too clumsy to use a bow; rogues can't understand how to use a sword, and mages haven't got a clue that any item that doesn't look like a staff is a weapon." My warrior in DA:O had enough dexterity to use a bow and not shoot herself. My rogue used a sword and dagger for reach and speed. It had nothing to do with a jack of all trades. If the enemy was far enough away, my warrior could use a bow to deal some damage before they closed enough for melee. That didn't mean I wanted to make my warrior an archer. It meant I wanted more support at range; just like I wanted my rogue to stop using a bow when the enemy closed and deal backstab damage with a sword and dagger....Still a warrior, still a rogue, but a safer party....

The DA:Inquisition game. They don't need to follow the way Skyrim does it. I played both DA games and never ever used a bow with a warrior or even dual-swords in DA:O. Shield and sword or Greatsword is all I used for my Warrior builds. They should keep it the way it was DA:O period. The only other class that I used with them weapons was a Arcane Warrior. How do we even know how they are gonna hvae the weapons classes since we don't even have any information period and everybody assumes it will have the samething as DA:O does.

Wait. Are you even paying attention to what you are saying? You said keep it the way is was in DA:O. So is he. In DA:O anyone could wear any weapons/armor (except for some particular items) if they met the STAT requirements. Just because you personally are not a very inventive person does not mean other people were not. 

The weapon restrictions in DA2 were simply terrible and Diablo-esque in their implementation. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Urazz wrote...

The Six Path of Pain wrote...

For a Rogue it kind of makes sense,but not for a warrior

Edit:Then again Origins was extremely versatile.So you definitely could make a Sword and Shield Rogue work

Not very well actually.  They pretty much got rid of the small crap that no one used in weapons.  How many people actually used a bow or crossbow that much in DA:O on their warrior?  Sure I used them occasionally but not often enough that I felt upset by it's loss in DA2.

I used Sten as an archer almost exclusively.  Sten makes a greater archer in DAO.

It was the same with weapons on mages.  There was like one sword your mage could use in DAO but otherwise staffs had better stats better suited for mages.

The only questionable weapon restriction was on warriors and dual wielding weapons.

Daggers on warriors were also something we lost.  A Sword & Dagger warrior in DAO was undoubtedly the very best tank possible.

[Marbazoid]

I would largely agree with Sylvius that having two broad base classes to separate magic users from non-magic users would be better, and a natural evolution of how the warrior and rogue overlapped in DAO. The setting would necessitate making a magical base class as its not an acquired skill, you have to be born with it. Also considering how wildly different mages could be in DAO depending on how you built them made the arbitrary separation of rogue and warrior stand out even more.

And I would really like to see a class agnostic skill system that opens up some real non-combat solutions and rewards to encounters. Even if Bioware want to keep combat as the main design intent of class talents and abilities, a separate skill system would add a real opportunity to further define your character, for example a warrior should be able to be persuasive in dialogue and a mage should be able to pick locks. There is nothing barring this kind of diversity in the setting of DA and it would be good for roleplaying.

[Solmanian]

In DA2 by endgame most warrior players ended wearing the same armor and wielding the same weapons; how dreadfully boring. I would like each player have a unique look and style to call his own.

[metatheurgist]

Solmanian wrote...

In DA2 by endgame most warrior players ended wearing the same armor and wielding the same weapons; how dreadfully boring. I would like each player have a unique look and style to call his own.

Sounds like you want to play an RPG and not an action game...

[Wulfram]

Why can't Roger Federer defeat Tiger Woods at golf?

[Rylor Tormtor]

Marbazoid wrote...

I would largely agree with Sylvius that having two broad base classes to separate magic users from non-magic users would be better, and a natural evolution of how the warrior and rogue overlapped in DAO. The setting would necessitate making a magical base class as its not an acquired skill, you have to be born with it. Also considering how wildly different mages could be in DAO depending on how you built them made the arbitrary separation of rogue and warrior stand out even more.

And I would really like to see a class agnostic skill system that opens up some real non-combat solutions and rewards to encounters. Even if Bioware want to keep combat as the main design intent of class talents and abilities, a separate skill system would add a real opportunity to further define your character, for example a warrior should be able to be persuasive in dialogue and a mage should be able to pick locks. There is nothing barring this kind of diversity in the setting of DA and it would be good for roleplaying.

In the Pre-DA:O boards (back in the halcyon days before the BSN) there was a lot of discussion on class systems and distinction, most of which centered around the ideas of fighter/mage/expert. Each class archetype basically speaks for itself. The expert (which become or discussed at the same time the rogue was being developed) relied on skill use instead of straight combat. Now, the skill combat system did not allow a lot of distinction (my warrior was as persuasive as my rogue, although he often used intimitade), but at least the minor illusion of difference was there. 

PE is setting this up in an interesting way as the devs have talked about seperation of combat and noncombat skill pools, with each pool having considerable affects, that is you can have a substantial non-combat set of skills without sacrificing combat effeciency. I am still on the fence about this, as I do think some classes should have benifits in one area over the other, but we will see. 

[DanaScu]

Solmanian wrote...

In DA2 by endgame most warrior players ended wearing the same armor and wielding the same weapons; how dreadfully boring. I would like each player have a unique look and style to call his own.

That is because in DA2 you couldn't use any other weapons or armor. Or underwear, in the case of one party member.

DA:O I had my Warden in Wade's Dragonbone plate, Oghren in Legion of the Dead armor, Leliana in Wade's Superior Drakescale, Sten in silverite Juggernaut, and Zev in inscribed. Weapons ranged from Starfang to Topsider's Honor and dragonbone mauls, axes, Asala, and Marjolaine's Recurve.

I found it much more interesting building a unique look and a style for each party member, instead of ending up the same outfit and weapons for 10 years.

[Eralrik]

Well Magic is a weapon should Rogues and Warriors be able to cast spells?

If so then the Circle Towers would become overcrowded and the Templars would be overworked trying to keep everyone in check.

Being able to use any weapon on any class pretty much eliminates having classes at all and then you have the Superman builds that eliminate having a party or a story with said companions.

Elder Scrolls Dragon Age doesn't work in my opinion I like the way it is setup Rogues are Rogues, Warriors are either tanks or DPS and mages Healers and DPS. I agree though Warriors should be able to use 2h or 1h weapons and a crossbow if needed for the given situation. But Rogues should stay light and nimble in a fight to be able to disarm a trap or do a stealth attack. <In real Life I've held a 2h sword and it was heavy and long not something I could see a Rogue using to try an disarm a trap or do a stealth kill with.>
If your an Arcane Warrior I can see using Armor and weapons like in DA:O as I had Wynn an old woman is chainmail and bow was a site to see. But other Mages should just use their staffs and light robes.

[LinksOcarina]

Why?

Because D&D of course.

Then again changing that would be nice, but then you need to balance out the weapons a bit.

[garrusfan1]

Ser Bard wrote...

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. 

I meant the magical staffs. also I  think the amount of animations it would take (if it looked even half way decent) would be a lot more

[Sylvius the Mad]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Why?

Because D&D of course.

An odd justification, given that DAO didn't have the same restrictions.  I would think DA2 is further removed from its D&D roots, than DAO is.

[n7stormrunner]

to help the umm... less experienced gamers? personally the only thing I missed was dual wielding with a warrior.. though mage figured out they could hit people with there staffs which is good.

[Volus Warlord]

To create tangible differences between the classes on perhaps the most annoying basis possible.