I'm thinking to make dual wielding different from warriors and rogues is to make warrior dual wielding do AOE damage compared to rogue dual wielding. To differentiate the 2 stylistically, rogue dual wielding moves should be more acrobatic while warrior dual wielding should be about being in the enemies face.
To differentiate it from 2 handers, make dual wielding more sustainable dps with some AOE damage while 2 handers are more burst damaging and do more AOE damage.
It just makes no sense - why warriors suddenly lost an ability to dual-wield swords?
Was there some epidemic in Thedas that made warriors unable to use two swords at once? Was there a law which forbids it?
Like, what happened?
Nothing happened. They were just reclassified as rogues under the new class designation plan.
The only "lore" difference between a dual wielding warrior and a rogue is that one likes heavier armor.
Since that distinction is going away in Inquisition, you can play a dual wielding heavy-armored rogue and just call yourself a warrior if you choose to.
Done.
Since that distinction is going away in Inquisition, you can play a dual wielding heavy-armored rogue and just call yourself a warrior if you choose to.
A warrior with 2 daggers? that won't be possible.
At the very least they should allow for str based rogue with dual swords. Same trees, same skills but with swords and str instead of daggers and dex.
At the very least they should allow for str based rogue with dual swords. Same trees, same skills but with swords and str instead of daggers and dex.
Now that's an idea I agree.
Either give the warriors dual wielding back or give the rogues the option to wield swords. Preferably both, but maybe thats too much to ask.
Wether I'll play a Warrior or Rogue will depend entirely on that 
I mean, aren't they supposed to be "experts of close-quarters combat" or somesuch? Dual-wielding makes sense for a warrior.
Either give the warriors dual wielding back or give the rogues the option to wield swords. Preferably both, but maybe thats too much to ask.
Wether I'll play a Warrior or Rogue will depend entirely on that
I agree 200%. The interesting part is i read a dev comment from December:
We're looking at it, but I wouldn't say the prognosis is great at the moment. It's a hotly requested feature, though
Hotly requested feature ? Go make animations of throwing jar of bees instead !
No, no, no. I had to dig up some old info and refresh myself with the specifics of the mechanics for this argument.
Firstly, backstabs, which gave the rogues their greatest amount of damage, would only occur with basic attacks. If you activated Punisher or Whirlwind, you would not get any backstab damage even if you were standing behind your opponent (and drain most of your stamina).
Secondly, rogues simply did not have talent points to buy heavily into the dual wield trees, or at least not if they wanted an efficient character. This is the talent allocation of a duel wield Assassin/Bard rogue from origins. It uses maximum extra talents from tomes etc. Level 17 is the first time a rogue could even consider taking the special moves as they started running out of "must haves". Note that this build doesn't take any lockpicking, stealth or ranged options and doesn't go all the way up the bard tree. If you wanted those, the special moves would get dropped altogether. I never picked most of them at all.
Level
0) Dirty Fighting (no choice)
1) Dual Weapon Sweep + Dual Weapon Training
2) Flurry
3) Below the Belt
4) Momentum
5) Combat Movement + Dual Weapon Finesse (Need Dex=24)
6) Deadly Strike
7) Song of Valor
8) Coup de Grace + #Lethality
9) Distraction
10) Song of Courage
11) Dual Striking
12) Riposte
13) Evasion (Need Dex=35)
14) Mark of Death + #Exploit Weakness + #Lacerate
15) Dual Weapon Expert
16) Feast of the Fallen
17) Whirlwind
18) Cripple
19) Punisher
20) Dual Weapon Master
Thirdly, the resource system didn't support it. Rogues regained a small amount of stamina from each time they hit an enemy. They wanted a lot of cheap, fast attacks, and because of that could sustain the momentum talent, which constantly drained stamina. Warriors had more stamina but only regained it when killing enemies. They couldn't really leverage Momentum because cheap quick attacks didn't return stamina, and they didn't gain any backstab bonus making basic attacks a poor choice. In contrast a rogue couldn't really use special moves efficiently because they had less stamina and didn't get a good return for slower much more costly attacks.
So Rogues used Dual Wield primarily for Momentum, D-Training, D-Finese and D-Expert whereas a Warrior wanted it for everything except momentum.
The origins combat system could definitely have been deeper and had more options. But the dual wield part of it being shared between rogues and warriors was quite elegant. They played absolutely nothing alike.
I disagree with this, at least to me they played remarkably similar in DAO. The main difference was the backstab and Lethality, which allowed focusing on Cunning instead of Strength for damage, while getting the other benefits of Cunning. Technically the second difference was the used weapons, but that could be avoided just by putting the points in Strength.
To go over this point by point, yeah, Punisher and Whirlwind did not cause backstab damage, but they were just one off attacks that depended on the damage modifier from stats, so either Str or Cunning. They also had relatively long cooldowns, but having the double attack with backstab did do a lot of damage.
Second point, your whole argument here kind of relies on a very specific build, especially that the rogue would start investing so heavily on Bard from the get go, especially when you can just have Leliana along and trust her to keep on singing. You can build a perfectly capable Rogue that hits the better skills a lot faster than the build you just presented.
Third point, here you actually mixing up two systems, as the stamina regeneration system you are referring to is the DA2 system, not the DAO system. In DAO, stamina regeneration is constant in combat for all classes, only affected by the feats and equipment. In DA2, the Rogue's get additional stamina for each hit and warriors for each kill. So this argument is not actually relevant for DAO.
And for your point about what Rogue's primarily use two weapon system is somewhat misleading, as I never used Momentum as Rogue and still ruled every combat like a king with the special skills gained. The two weapon warriors and rogues were really similar and by separating them for DA2, Bioware was able to go more specific on the classes and better build supporting skill trees. So for them to the implement the two weapon system for warriors in DAI would either require them to really simplify the system again, create and balance a completely new skill tree for both warriors and rogues so that both sides have as much choice and create the animation bases for separation of the classes. I'm not saying that one can't ask this, but we should be clear on all that it would require.
would either require them to really simplify the system again, create and balance a completely new skill tree for both warriors and rogues so that both sides have as much choice and create the animation bases for separation of the classes. I'm not saying that one can't ask this, but we should be clear on all that it would require.
You realize that creating a new enemy type is as much/more challenging then delivering DW Warriors and/or dual swords rogues right ? There is over 9000 threads on this topic ever since they announced Inquisition. Search in google to see how many people posted on this forum this same request over and over again. Till the release date i am pretty confident we will see some more topics about this.I dunno i am forked whether to buy the game.
This seems like kind of feature which you can live with its absence but for me its not like that. I am not a fan of mages. I hate stealthy rogues and little weapons. I never play with bow and find it boring. Tanking or swinging 7ft swords were never my thing either. The one way i play the games is with two weapons, high damage, medium armor. Or in very rare cases one handed weapon with empty left hand........I dunno.....i am looking forward to combat details and hope for good news.
As the above quote states "It is hotly requested feature". Let's hope it does not turn into cold disappointment which i feel it will be.
I hope the warrior's dual-wielding talent tree is different to the rogue's. It would make sense if the rogue has more speed, finesse and trickery to it. It would also make it more interesting to try both. Although I liked that warrior's could DW in DAO, it was a little dull to have the same talent tree for both classes.
I hope the warrior's dual-wielding talent tree is different to the rogue's. It would make sense if the rogue has more speed, finesse and trickery to it. It would also make it more interesting to try both. Although I liked that warrior's could DW in DAO, it was a little dull to have the same talent tree for both classes
If there is dual wielding warrior at all you mean......
You realize that creating a new enemy type is as much/more challenging then delivering DW Warriors and/or dual swords rogues right ? There is over 9000 threads on this topic ever since they announced Inquisition. Search in google to see how many people posted on this forum this same request over and over again. Till the release date i am pretty confident we will see some more topics about this.I dunno i am forked whether to buy the game.
This seems like kind of feature which you can live with its absence but for me its not like that. I am not a fan of mages. I hate stealthy rogues and little weapons. I never play with bow and find it boring. Tanking or swinging 7ft swords were never my thing either. The one way i play the games is with two weapons, high damage, medium armor. Or in very rare cases one handed weapon with empty left hand........I dunno.....i am looking forward to combat details and hope for good news.
As the above quote states "It is hotly requested feature". Let's hope it does not turn into cold disappointment which i feel it will be.
I am not completely certain why the new enemy type is relevant, but okay. I guess it can be, especially when creating the grouping and balancing it within it. I would also assume that creating variety in opponents has its own priority against expanding already rather large, internally variable character classes. Especially when limiting the weapons is something that Bioware has explained their perfectly valid reasoning for.
As for the rest, I mean if it is an important feature, I completely support in you requesting for it, my argument was never for that. My point has constantly been that implementing it successfully seems to me to be really a lot more difficult than most of these discussions seem to claim and would an insane amount of balancing to do, especially since the skill tree system is a lot more complicated than the linear system in DAO. As for your playstyle, if that is how you enjoy games, I hope you find that enjoyment. Having said that, I have to admit that if your preference is so limited and strongly focused on one approach to combat, I do not know if it fair to criticize Bioware if none of the five or six different weapon approaches offered by them fits that very strict demand.
As for the hotly asked demand, there are a lot of features that are asked for a lot. Ultimately the developer needs to choose and implement those they feel fit best with the overall product and if for them that means limiting weapon choices for the classes in order to have clearer roles and variability within the class, then that is what they will do. I personally felt that that limitation worked for the best in DA2, as it allowed me to tinker a lot more with my characters abilities and approach than DAO ever did.
If you guys want really distinct classes, and at the same time the ability to play what you want, and not be put in a box again, then you need more than 3 base classes.
This is an RPG, you supposedly have options on how to affect your world, but you can't actually play what you want and be who you want? What happened to choice and flavor there?
So what if the DW Warrior is similar to the rogue? What's the problem with that exactly? The only argument i heard is that people don't like it because they want distinction.
You want distinction? Here's an idea. Put more classes, or make specializations actually change your play style fundamentally, then you will see a DW Warrior that is different than a rogue.
Mages have a specialization that we know, that at least changes a Mage's playstyle significantly, at least in theory. Knight Enchanter seems like the equivalent of a D&D Battle Cleric leading an army. And the possibility of Necromancer and Rift Mage offering more options for distinctive gameplay is there, since one can be a summoner. So you have, Battle Cleric, Summoner, whatever else.
For Warriors, i am not that confident. Templar, Reaver and Champion. They will probably play differently, but not THAT differently, since these specs do not alter how you approach a fight. It's not like a Melee Mage. I could be mistaken since this is all assumption based on past experience, but we'll have to actually see.
The fact however, remains, and it's that distinction is fine, until it becomes too much restriction. And DA2 was TOO MUCH restriction. The classes might have been distinct, but their specs were not really anything special.
There was plenty of differences in DA:O.
Playing a dual wield warrior using heavy armor and two swords standing toe to toe in fights at the front lines was a bit different then going stealth an dusing two daggers nad backstabbing people.
I don't get why anyone would think they were the "Same" or "Too similar" they boht played very differently in their roles.
It's like saying a tank and a rogue are the same because they are melee.
Guest_Caladin_*
Awesome DW is back for the Warrior, just hoping it aint a glorified Rogue tbh, but have the up most confidence it wont be
Awesome DW is back for the Warrior, just hoping it aint a glorified Rogue tbh, but have the up most confidence it wont be
It is not back....How you came with such conclusion ?
Reading the thread title, skipping the actual thread and wishful thinking. A lot of wishful thinking.It is not back....How you came with such conclusion ?
Guest_Caladin_*
read the picture posted lol, i norm read maybe first n last page of thread not much in between
There was plenty of differences in DA:O.
Playing a dual wield warrior using heavy armor and two swords standing toe to toe in fights at the front lines was a bit different then going stealth an dusing two daggers nad backstabbing people.
I don't get why anyone would think they were the "Same" or "Too similar" they boht played very differently in their roles.
It's like saying a tank and a rogue are the same because they are melee.
There was nothing stopping you from putting a Rogue in heavy armor,giving them two swords and having them stand toe to toe against enemies on the front lines...
Only if you specifically built them to be different.
Rogues can't use shield and 2hd talents however.
I just love how sadistic Bioware are. Revealing big things such as all companions, half the romances, some story stuff and dont even care to say yes/no on the dual wield swords.
@Caladin - for the record that picture is fake.
Guest_Caladin_*
lol cheers ofr clearing that up m8 
Well i for one never really understood what was all the clamor about dual wield warriors, i tried it and didnt feel very impressed, prolly my fault for deficient build. What i really dont get is lots of people raging that DA2 felt very outlandish with the press the awsome button and no realism, but here they are asking for pretty much the same thing. Ever tried holding a sword on your hand? Those actually have weigth and are tiring to swing around. Dual wielding is pretty rare in fencing, where the off hand weapon is simply used to help in parries; dual with 2 full sized weapons is pretty much inexistent since it offers no real advantage. And that the end of my rant, since i dont really care much either way, just pointing out the sweet irony 
There was plenty of differences in DA:O... Playing a dual wield warrior using heavy armor and two swords standing toe to toe in fights at the front lines was a bit different then going stealth an dusing two daggers nad backstabbing people.
No, not really. Rogues could do anything a warrior could do as warrior-specific talents were pretty much meaningless. DW rogues had the additional option of backstabbing, and because backstabbing was far more efficient than the alternative, most DW rogues went that route. Then again, every non-mage was all about autoattack spam in that game.
Well i for one never really understood what was all the clamor about dual wield warriors, i tried it and didnt feel very impressed, prolly my fault for deficient build. What i really dont get is lots of people raging that DA2 felt very outlandish with the press the awsome button and no realism, but here they are asking for pretty much the same thing. Ever tried holding a sword on your hand? Those actually have weigth and are tiring to swing around. Dual wielding is pretty rare in fencing, where the off hand weapon is simply used to help in parries; dual with 2 full sized weapons is pretty much inexistent since it offers no real advantage. And that the end of my rant, since i dont really care much either way, just pointing out the sweet irony
Retour en haut