175 réponses à ce sujet

[Redwolf Skydragon]

1. Warriors and Mages being able to open locked chests. I mean really; a Warrior that can't just break open the meager chest or a Mage that can't just open it with magic. It's annoying to be limited to always having to have a rouge in the party (despite how useful they are in combat), just so I can open a chest that might or might not give me junk anyway. I was thinking something similiar to SW:KOTOR and SW: KOTOR2, where you can attack the locked annoyance to break it open, but at the cost of damaging the items.

2. I bet you are gonna laugh at this, but I don't care. I want the the Talkative Man, from the Hanged Man in Dragon Age 2, to be put in Dragon Age Inquisition. And, as if this request wasn't silly enough, I want him to be more handsome!! I mean, come on guys, that was one of the saddest things about the game was hearing him wish to be more handsome. It was just a simple wish that I feel he deserves for being so awesome. Maybe give him a story or minor quest explaining how he got more handsome? I was thinking that he went into the sewers during the end-game and came across the Mirror of Transformation. Don't ask me how he got in, that's not for me to decide. I just want him to get his wish of being more handsome along with a good explanation of how it happened. Maybe have him have changed his fortune and became a noble because of his improved looks. He would have a name now, instead of Talkative Man, so the player wouldn't be able to recognize him. Then, have some sort of quest involving him and during it (or at the start/end) he reveals that he is actually the Talkative Man, but in a subtle manner; not a direct declaration.

Anyway, I'd like to see these things in DA:I
You can agree with me or not, they're just somewhat minor things that I think would improve the experience. Always been a fan of characters like M'aiq the Liar; it's the little things that improve the game to me. Like having the added romance (though I wish it could go a little deeper, but again, not for me to decide.) just makes the game that much for enjoyable.


READ THIS PART BEFORE POSTING.

I apologize that I was not clear in my suggestion as to what the real problem is. Though I have stated it more clearly on page 3 (as well as stating my reasons for the particular suggestion stated in #1). But I will save you the reading.

The actual suggestion is that Warriors and Mages also have class specific out-of-combat activities/ways to obtain what the other 2 classes cannot. I do not find it fair that only Rogues have any viable use outside of combat. I would like to see Mages and Warriors have their own things that only they can do, when outside of combat. My suggestion in #1 is simply for the fact that it keeps Rogues viable to have in the party, but also allows other classes a way to open locked chests.

Now, I would suggest you go read through the thread to gain more of an understanding of what is being discussed, as well as what ideas have already been presented. Make your opinion/judgement based on what the thread has become; not what it has started as.

Modifié par Redwolf Skydragon, 13 septembre 2013 - 04:36 .

[MKDAWUSS]

I don't think the Talkative Man is the sort who gets out a whole lot.

[Eveangaline]

Only if rogues get tanking and healing abilities equal to warriors and mages.

[ScarMK]

I don't know about you, but I can easily carry rouge in a pocket. I'm not limited at all.

[Taleroth]

YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME

[Redwolf Skydragon]

ScarMK wrote...

I don't know about you, but I can easily carry rouge in a pocket. I'm not limited at all.

You never wanted to have 3 mages and 1 warrior? Have all the buffs split between the mages while they call down Fire Storms and Tempest's while the warrior keeps the enemies attention? You never wanted 3 warriors and a 1 Mage, having the enemies constantly changing targets so they aren't as effective while the warriors buff one another while the mage buffs them as well? No?! You never wanted two warriors and two mages, where the warriors take the front lines holding aggro (threat, w/e) and dealing damage, while the mages focus on damaging the groups and/or the higher ranked enemies? None of this have you ever thought of wanting to do?!

[Redwolf Skydragon]

MKDAWUSS wrote...

I don't think the Talkative Man is the sort who gets out a whole lot.

Being more handsome can change a person you know? Builds up confidence and whatnot. Instead of being some "Talkative Man" in a bar he could become a very influencial philosopher. But, again, just an idea that I'd like to see happen, though I don't hold out too much hope.

[Reofeir]

Well, why should you get the ability to open locks if you want three warriors? Rogues benefits start getting smaller and smaller if you take away from them. I can say yes, give them the ability to knock open doors. But leave locked chests to the professionals.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Dude stop talking about make-up. This is a serious forum for serious business.

[mupp3tz]

*Stamp of Approval*

This is actually why I play a rogue on my first run because I don't want to have a potentially annoying companion solely for chests. Yeah, yeah.. I get it's a rogue thing but argh. Could we maybe even have.. I don't know.. lock picks to buy?

Modifié par M U P P 3 T Z, 13 septembre 2013 - 06:10 .

[Redwolf Skydragon]

Eveangaline wrote...

Only if rogues get tanking and healing abilities equal to warriors and mages.

....Cause you know that fits in with what a rouge is, it's not absurd at all -.- A warrior should be able to break open a stupid chest. I mean honestly, come on. And a mage should be able either melt or ice over then break a stupid little lock. There is no good reason why being able to open chests at a cost of a chance of breaking w/e was in it, is not possible for a Mage or Warrior. It fits.

A rouge being a tank goes against all lore in anything ever made that can be taken seriously. Healing; possible they could have a self heal or two. But nothing as strong/effective. The healing part depends on your classification of a rouge. The only definition of a rouge that could be a tank is "Rouge Warrior" which is a type of warrior in the class warrior, not of the class rouge.

[Redwolf Skydragon]

Taleroth wrote...

YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME

Or am I?! o.O

[Dio Demon]

I say without a reasonable doubt I find the defendant guilty! Now to read the post...

The point of having 3 classes is to ensure that they each have their usefulness, their own sets of abilities if we take away lockpicking from 'rouges' they effectively become less useful. There has to be a utility balance within class.

Also locked chests are optional loot content, don't want to take a 'rouge' you don't get the loot.

Lastly why did BioWare replace Rogue with Rouge? I don't wanna be the makeup class!

[Redwolf Skydragon]

Zenor wrote...

Well, why should you get the ability to open locks if you want three warriors? Rogues benefits start getting smaller and smaller if you take away from them. I can say yes, give them the ability to knock open doors. But leave locked chests to the professionals.

The ability of a Rouge is to inflict massive damage to a single target. They are focused on Critical Hit and Critical chance. (Which I am sure you already knew). The benefit of having a rouge is for this fact. A rouge's primary focus (in a team of warriors and mages) would be to focus on the higher threat targets while they (the target) is focused on a different party member (hopefully the warrior). A rouge's primary objective is to neutralize threats. They should focus on enemy mages and the highest rank of enemy that is in the battle. The benefit is great when dealing with stronger enemies. Their talents are not to be taken lightly. But I should have the choice to refuse entry of a rouge into my team, and still be able to unlock things. The whole purpose of mentioning that the items inside have a chance to break if any class besides a rouge unlocks a chest, is solely because rouges can do it with finese and ease without resorting to barbaric means. So the other classes should get a penalty for doing what a rouge should. But it should still be an option, at least imo.

[Redwolf Skydragon]

I do apologize to everyone for using "Rouge" over "Rogue" I do not know what it is that I played/read in the past, but it was ingrained in my mind as being spelled "rouge". This isn't the first, nor do I believe it will be the last, time that I spell the color red instead of an actual class.

[Redwolf Skydragon]

and it's scary that two people so far seem to have knowledge of a makeup called "rouge"...I, for one, did not know that.

[Redwolf Skydragon]

Crazy Eyed One wrote...

I say without a reasonable doubt I find the defendant guilty! Now to read the post...

The point of having 3 classes is to ensure that they each have their usefulness, their own sets of abilities if we take away lockpicking from 'rouges' they effectively become less useful. There has to be a utility balance within class.

Also locked chests are optional loot content, don't want to take a 'rouge' you don't get the loot.

Lastly why did BioWare replace Rogue with Rouge? I don't wanna be the makeup class!

I never said to take it away. I simply said that Warriors and Mages should be able to open locked chests at the cost of having a chance of breaking the items within. I thought it was naturally understood that "Rogues" (see, I spelled it right that time) would keep their abilities to open chests and would be a far better choice for unlocking them. But you should still have a choice to not have a "Rogue" (two for two) in the party, but still unlock (well, break open) chests.

[Redwolf Skydragon]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Dude stop talking about make-up. This is a serious forum for serious business.

I apologize, I was unaware of a make-up called "Rouge". I merely believed myself to be talking about the color red. (See above posts for another apology related to my misspelling.)

Modifié par Redwolf Skydragon, 13 septembre 2013 - 06:32 .

[Redwolf Skydragon]

M U P P 3 T Z wrote...

*Stamp of Approval*

This is actually why I play a rogue on my first run because I don't want to have a potentially annoying companion solely for chests. Yeah, yeah.. I get it's a rogue thing but argh. Could we maybe even have.. I don't know.. lock picks to buy?

That could work too. However, I think it might upset people more that a warrior or mage could easily get items out of a chest by just paying money (game money/gold/currency/sovereigns..w/e). Might be more of a softer landing if instead they have to resort to more barbaric means to open a chest, thus possibly destroying/damaging the desired items.

[Reofeir]

Redwolf Skydragon wrote...

Zenor wrote...

Well, why should you get the ability to open locks if you want three warriors? Rogues benefits start getting smaller and smaller if you take away from them. I can say yes, give them the ability to knock open doors. But leave locked chests to the professionals.

The ability of a Rouge is to inflict massive damage to a single target. They are focused on Critical Hit and Critical chance. (Which I am sure you already knew). The benefit of having a rouge is for this fact. A rouge's primary focus (in a team of warriors and mages) would be to focus on the higher threat targets while they (the target) is focused on a different party member (hopefully the warrior). A rouge's primary objective is to neutralize threats. They should focus on enemy mages and the highest rank of enemy that is in the battle. The benefit is great when dealing with stronger enemies. Their talents are not to be taken lightly. But I should have the choice to refuse entry of a rouge into my team, and still be able to unlock things. The whole purpose of mentioning that the items inside have a chance to break if any class besides a rouge unlocks a chest, is solely because rouges can do it with finese and ease without resorting to barbaric means. So the other classes should get a penalty for doing what a rouge should. But it should still be an option, at least imo.

I'd personally would only allow that for easier chests (the warrior opening chests with a chance of losing stuff in it). I'd expect barbaric methods not to work on expect/master locked chests. 

[Cainhurst Crow]

Redwolf Skydragon wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Dude stop talking about make-up. This is a serious forum for serious business.

I apologize, I was unaware of a make-up called "Rouge". I merely believed myself to be talking about the color red. (See above posts for another apology related to my misspelling.)

Just don't let this jibber jabber malarkey happen again, this place is for serious discussions.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go comment on the 1987th thread about qunari inquisistors having sex.

[Reofeir]

also a problem with this system though: People who reload saves. One can keep loading until they got everything from the chest or at least got the good items from the chest. That would mean that its pointless to carry rogues for chests if this was an option.

[Redwolf Skydragon]

Zenor wrote...

Redwolf Skydragon wrote...

Zenor wrote...

Well, why should you get the ability to open locks if you want three warriors? Rogues benefits start getting smaller and smaller if you take away from them. I can say yes, give them the ability to knock open doors. But leave locked chests to the professionals.

The ability of a Rouge is to inflict massive damage to a single target. They are focused on Critical Hit and Critical chance. (Which I am sure you already knew). The benefit of having a rouge is for this fact. A rouge's primary focus (in a team of warriors and mages) would be to focus on the higher threat targets while they (the target) is focused on a different party member (hopefully the warrior). A rouge's primary objective is to neutralize threats. They should focus on enemy mages and the highest rank of enemy that is in the battle. The benefit is great when dealing with stronger enemies. Their talents are not to be taken lightly. But I should have the choice to refuse entry of a rouge into my team, and still be able to unlock things. The whole purpose of mentioning that the items inside have a chance to break if any class besides a rouge unlocks a chest, is solely because rouges can do it with finese and ease without resorting to barbaric means. So the other classes should get a penalty for doing what a rouge should. But it should still be an option, at least imo.

I'd personally would only allow that for easier chests (the warrior opening chests with a chance of losing stuff in it). I'd expect barbaric methods not to work on expect/master locked chests. 

I can concede on the master levels. You would expect them to be a lot more complex and sturdy, even possibly magic resistant. Expert level locks hmm? I think I would make it two-fold chance to break the item, along with a higher stat being needed to even try to force open. Cause I still expect that a warrior could force it open with enough strength (power of the blow and whatnot) and that a mage would be able to open it if they had enough...skill in magic? If that the right word? Basically a higher Magic level. But it sounds weird if I say, "if they had higher magic." But I agree, more effort would have to be put in to open higher level locks and that rogues (almost got it wrong again) would have exculsivity to master leveled locks. Seeing as they are the ones who have actual knowledge of locks and thus know the tricks and whatnot; and by going on the fact that if something is a master level, it would have certain precautions in place to prevent it from being broken. To have it fit in with lore, have the lock magic resistant to anyone besides the owner; and have it be a non-traditional lock/chest that has no traditional lock and is made of material strong enough to prevent it from being broken by a mere mortal with a weapon. (Was going to say human, but seeing as the choice of race is back, it wouldn't quite work.) (Which I like, btw, BioWare; the race choice, not that it wouldn't quite work.)

[Redwolf Skydragon]

Miscellaneous Mind wrote...

No.

Your plea has fallen on deaf ears.

But you heard me! You aknowledged me!  So you must have heard me!