175 réponses à ce sujet

[Allan Schumacher]

I am on my phone but will respond to the larger post when i return from the orthodontist.

[Beerfish]

Here is my plea, I just want one class. I want a mage that can wear plate armor, wield a two handed sword, pick all locks, cast all heal spells and offensive spells, hide in shadows, disarm and set traps, be able to use sword and shield, two handed weapon or dual wiled ogres.

I'm really starting to despise these I want every thing threads. You have to TRAIN to be able to be a mage, or a rogue or a fighter. You have to make it your lifes work. Go to the local lockshop and open a safe, it must be easy right?

As for the talkative man, he got in the way and was boring pretty quickly.

[Redwolf Skydragon]

It seems as if a lot of people aren't even bothering to read through the whole forum/posts/thread. Thus, they are missing the main point that is being made and what this really is about. Perhaps it is my own fault for being vague and trusting everyone would read through all the posts so they have an idea of where the discussion is at.

Everyone is seems to simply be reading just a little bit, then commenting that they feel Rogues should be the only class to pick locks as it makes them special. If you wish to be complacent and compliant that only Rogues have "any" viable use outside of combat; if you truly believe that there is nothing at all that can be done to make Warriors and Mages more appealing to have outside of combat; if you honestly think such things, so be it. You heard the words, but not the plea.

As I have stated before, I am a primary stealth class user. I never have a problem getting into locked chests. But that does not mean that I cannot recognize that the out-of-combat gameplay is tilted into the Rogues favor. Everyone seems to think my idea is a definite, solid thing. That I don't want anything but what had been stated. This is not true and is baseless.

Instead of simply posting that you do not like the idea that I have posted, perhaps you can go back and read my super long post that I made, explaining what I truly wanted more clearly, as well as why I chose the idea that I did. After you have gained an understanding, then come down and submit a post of helpful critique and/or offer your own idea own how the scale can be tipped back to the center, in regards to out-of-combat play. I do want want this thread to become filled with just people complaining about the first posted idea and stating reasons why. I did not ask a question and say "explain". I offered a suggestion to be discussed and molded into something truly unique and great.

[AmRMa]

A non-issue for me I like to play rogues (or mages) and usually have two in my party. Also beginning of games usually have low level items in chests but it does slightly bug me when I am playing a mage that I can't open the chest when I haven't recruited a rogue yet.

[mupp3tz]

OP, curious to see what you think of my suggestion in the previous page. Would you feel that is fair or makes sense?

As for people not bothering to read the whole thread, I would suggest just editing the first post with the additional clarification as most people will just read the first couple of posts, look for the Bioware one, and then respond.

[Redwolf Skydragon]

Beerfish wrote...

Here is my plea, I just want one class. I want a mage that can wear plate armor, wield a two handed sword, pick all locks, cast all heal spells and offensive spells, hide in shadows, disarm and set traps, be able to use sword and shield, two handed weapon or dual wiled ogres.

I'm really starting to despise these I want every thing threads. You have to TRAIN to be able to be a mage, or a rogue or a fighter. You have to make it your lifes work. Go to the local lockshop and open a safe, it must be easy right?

As for the talkative man, he got in the way and was boring pretty quickly.

You want all that? Go play TES. I'm sure you could find or make a mod for "dual wiled orges".

Yes, you must train. That is the whole point. Why can a Mage who has had extensive training in Magic, who can summon demons, call down lightning and fire, and can even make a person explode; not be able to break open a chest? Why cannot a Warrior, with their absurd amount of strength and fortitude to resist being knocked down by things like ogres or dragons, not just break the stupid little chest open? But because they have to exercise so much power to do something, the item has a chance to be damaged. Whereas a Rogue does it with finese and skill so that they can get the item with no fear of the item breaking.

By stating "boring pretty quickly" you are admitting to the fact that, for a short time at least, you found him interesting. It is not his fault that he can only walk along a pre-determined path and have to say the same thing over and over, that is his programming. That is all he knows. And I must admit, I am curious how he managed to get in your way when all he does is walk around and sometimes speak. Must be quite hindering to the Champion to have to deal with such people.

[Redwolf Skydragon]

Jaulen wrote...

Me?
Nope.

I'd rather have three rogues and a warrior.

Mages can go jump in a lake. 
(although I usually side with them over the Templars....they can go jump in a fire)


And as someone who likes to play as a rogue....I don't like the idea of giving non-rogues rogue-like abilities. That's the point of a class.
I could potentially get behind maybe allowing a warrior to bash a chest/door open......with a potential for damaging the loot (making some nice item potentially worthless).......or a warrior/mage combo where a mage freezes a lock and a warrior bashes the lock to break it for higher level locks....but a mage able to open a locked item themselves? No. They are already so overpowered why make then even more godlike?

"They are already so overpowered why make them even more godlike?"

Do you not think it would add to the story? :DPeople are afraid of mages potential to become an abomination, yes, but surely that is not the only thing that bothers them. Would this not set some people (the player) to question the idea of Mages without supervision? I can see your idea though. Having a Mage and a Warrior combo, but not usable on the higher level chests.

[Redwolf Skydragon]

Ziggeh wrote...

Redwolf Skydragon wrote...

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.

What you have here is confusion between "game" and "simulation". 

The chests in this instance are intended not as a simulation of a treasure bearing box, but as a gameplay rogue based bonus.

And so your question is really either: "Why a warrior can't have a gameplay rogue based bonus?" - To which the answer is in the question or "Why isn't the game more of a simulation?" - To which the answer is essentially developer preference.

I must disagree. My question is not "Why a warrior can't have a gameplay rogue based bonus?" It is why do only the rogues have an out-of-combat game based bonus?

[Redwolf Skydragon]

M U P P 3 T Z wrote...

It could something be as simple as requiring mages (magic) and warriors (strength) to have higher attribute checks in order to open escalating types of chests/doors, whereas a rogue (cunning) is capable of meeting the minimums for each type earlier. This would still maintain the rogue's status as master lockpicker, while also not locking warriors and mages out of lower-medium level locks earlier on and higher level ones only at a sacrifice to points in willpower and constitution.. while a rogue can maintain levels of good cunning and dexterity and still access high level checks.

Of course that is going by past games where rogues have a distinguishable out of combat advantage that can't be mitigated by potions with mages and.. well, warriors don't have anything do they? Someone correct me if I'm wrong on that.

Also, with the footage of Cassandra shield bashing a door.. different classes might have out of combat perks we don't know about yet. And if they are up to par with rogue's unique chest/door abilities, then perhaps my suggestion is unecesssary. 

I would also suggest a fix to the chests so that they actually give worthwhile equipment.. so that having a rogue still has a great advantage.

/

Yes, that brings up an interesting point as well. Nowhere near has everything been released. It is perhaps possible that each class already has something unique about them and we just don't know it yet. But I would rather err on the side of caution and still put the idea out there, while it is still being developed, rather than sit on my hands hoping. (That was for everyone not specifically directed at you.)

As to regards to your suggestion: Yea, that was somewhat mentioned in a previous post. The poster stated they could see a Warrior or Mage being able to force open a simple lock (with a chance of ruining the item within) but that he/she did not feel it would be right to be possible for the higher leveled chests. I concured with their assessment and suggested that then the chance of the item breaking is increased significantly as the rank of the chest increases, as well as needing a certain amount of points in an attribute. Also stated that the Master levels could be Rogue only under the fact that perhaps if it's a Master level lock, then it is far sturdier than a Warrior could possibly hope to break and is magic resistant against Mages. But yes, I am glad that someone else has come to that conclusion.

[Redwolf Skydragon]

M U P P 3 T Z wrote...

OP, curious to see what you think of my suggestion in the previous page. Would you feel that is fair or makes sense?

As for people not bothering to read the whole thread, I would suggest just editing the first post with the additional clarification as most people will just read the first couple of posts, look for the Bioware one, and then respond.

Yes, perhaps you are right. I went and changed the starting topic. Hopefully that helps people, though it is a shame to think they wouldn't read through the whole thread.

And yep, read through it and posted a reply.

[sandalisthemaker]

Warriors do have a way of opening things this time around. They can bash through doors/gates instead of picking locks. But people flipped a **** and complained that it wasn't "realistic."
I thought it was fine, and am glad that warriors and presumably mages will have useful abilities outside of combat.

[Redwolf Skydragon]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I am on my phone but will respond to the larger post when i return from the orthodontist.

I don't care how old I get, I still don't like places like the Dentist or Orthodontist. D:

Come back safe. D:

[Redwolf Skydragon]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Warriors do have a way of opening things this time around. They can bash through doors/gates instead of picking locks. But people flipped a **** and complained that it wasn't "realistic."
I thought it was fine, and am glad that warriors and presumably mages will have useful abilities outside of combat.

Firstly I must say this. Your ID is profound. I mean, Maker, what if it's true?! Anyway, moving on.

But yea, that is what I stated a few posts up. We do not have all the information as to what is possible and what isn't. But I would rather bring the subject up now, while it is still possible to possibly include it, than wait for the information to be released (Where it might then be too late to add if it wasn't).

[Argetfalcon]

And female qunari LI

[JamieCOTC]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I can't really answer definitively (or even really speculatively) on what we'll be doing for DAI, as that is outside of my coverage, but it did lead me to a question.

If all classes have the ability to unlock locked items, is there much value in even having locked chests?

Yes.

Locked or not there was almost always an anticipation in opening chests in DA:O. In DA2 almost everything was junk ... literally so there was rarely any anticipation.

There are two mods that allow any class to open chests in DA:O. One is lock bash and the other a spell for mages. Lock bash actually has a small chance of destroying the contents of the chest.  So, maybe you don't want to chance it until your warrior gets to a higher level. It also can smash in doors which is fun. Open luck spell is tiered like the Rogue unlock skill, so you have to spend skill points to get it that could be allocated for something else. And even though I played a mage w/ open lock spell, I still used Leliana quite a bit to give her the experience. Having these mods just means I don't have to have Leliana or Zev in the party even though I usually do. It simply adds another choice.

[Redwolf Skydragon]

Deflagratio wrote...

As a series about Party Dynamics, I feel that giving Warriors or Mages a distincitly "Rogue" ability undermines that.

I'm probably in a minority, but I really like the idea of perhaps needing to take a character I don't like because they fill out a role of tactical and strategic necessity. For Example: Wynne the Spirit Healer in Origins.

I noticed that I did not reply to your post, and that others have not as well. I apologize.

No, taking someone you don't like along with you because of their potential in tactics and strategy; it adds the the experience. I agree with you there. But - not for something as common as a locked chest. Now, I know they're not that common. What I mean to say is something that is not very profound. I mean, come on. Chests are everywhere, and they rarely ever contain that great of an item. I shouldn't need to take someone I don't want to just because I want to open a chest. I can understand if it was something more important, like I saw someone mention magical barriers that only a Mage could remove (Merrill anyone?), but just for simple items within a chest, no. I don't see the need or appeal of that. Now if chests started containg some actual awesome gear or a giant pile of currency, well... I would put such chests as Master level locks. (Which has been stated that only Rogues can open Master level locked chests, while the other ranks can possibly be opened by the Warrior or Mage.) I just know people will bring up "randomized loot" and thus it isn't possible to lock chests like this, as you don't know what's in there. Again, I have no programming knowledge, but I would think you could put a if/then kind-of code in for chests. If item of ____ rarity/rank is in chest, then Chest=Master Level lock. I don't know, I'd think it could be possible to do.

But no, I disagree that I must take someone/some class, just so I can open a chest. Greater things? Like taking them because of their ability to heal (as you mentioned Wynne)? Yes, I agree. (But I must also point out that in DA2 if a member was needed to be in the party for a quest, it told you so and made it so they could not be removed.)

[Allan Schumacher]

Anyways, here goes.

What is the point of a locked chest, if a rogue can open it?

It
is even stated in DA2, among one of the loading screens: "Rogues are
the only class that can unlock locked chests you may have on your
travels. So, having a Rogue in your party is a near essentiality."

Does the loading screen actually say "having a a Rogue in your party is a near essentiality?"

In any case, for your question, the point of a rogue opening it is that it provides a degree of utility for that class.  They can provide something unique that another class cannot provide.

So, it is not by being mistaken that Warriors and Mages miss out on loot
within locked chests; it is because it is programmed that way. If you
do not wish to have a Rogue in your party, you are punished by not being
able to obtain loot from locked chests. It is your choice, yes. But it
is not your choice to miss out on loot, that is made for you. Warriors
do not have such a special purpose. Neither do mages. It is benefical to
have such classes within your party, but it is not "near essential".
You can go through the whole game without just Rogues and Mages or
Warriors and Rogues, and you would not be at a disadvantage in obatining
anything. Rogues have been made "special" by being able to be the only
ones capable of unlocking a chest or disarming a trap.

Is the solution necessarily to allow warriors/mages to open locks, or would it be better to provide some level of unique utility to each of those classes?

But no, I disagree that I must take someone/some class, just so I can
open a chest. Greater things? Like taking them because of their ability
to heal (as you mentioned Wynne)? Yes, I agree. (But I must also point
out that in DA2 if a member was needed to be in the party for a quest,
it told you so and made it so they could not be removed.)

What is considered okay to be separate, and what is not?

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 13 septembre 2013 - 06:59 .

[MewtwoJosh]

Redwolf Skydragon wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

Here is my plea, I just want one class. I want a mage that can wear plate armor, wield a two handed sword, pick all locks, cast all heal spells and offensive spells, hide in shadows, disarm and set traps, be able to use sword and shield, two handed weapon or dual wiled ogres.

I'm really starting to despise these I want every thing threads. You have to TRAIN to be able to be a mage, or a rogue or a fighter. You have to make it your lifes work. Go to the local lockshop and open a safe, it must be easy right?

As for the talkative man, he got in the way and was boring pretty quickly.

You want all that? Go play TES. I'm sure you could find or make a mod for "dual wiled orges".

Yes, you must train. That is the whole point. Why can a Mage who has had extensive training in Magic, who can summon demons, call down lightning and fire, and can even make a person explode; not be able to break open a chest? Why cannot a Warrior, with their absurd amount of strength and fortitude to resist being knocked down by things like ogres or dragons, not just break the stupid little chest open? But because they have to exercise so much power to do something, the item has a chance to be damaged. Whereas a Rogue does it with finese and skill so that they can get the item with no fear of the item breaking..
 

I completely agree. Rogues will still have value because they will always succeed if their skill is high enough. But i don't like always having to have a rogue to get loot. And maybe the broken items can be added up to make armor pieces or something.

[JamieCOTC]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Anyways, here goes.

What is the point of a locked chest, if a rogue can open it?

It
is even stated in DA2, among one of the loading screens: "Rogues are
the only class that can unlock locked chests you may have on your
travels. So, having a Rogue in your party is a near essentiality."

Does the loading screen actually say "having a a Rogue in your party is a near essentiality?"

In any case, for your question, the point of a rogue opening it is that it provides a degree of utility for that class.  They can provide something unique that another class cannot provide.

So, it is not by being mistaken that Warriors and Mages miss out on loot
within locked chests; it is because it is programmed that way. If you
do not wish to have a Rogue in your party, you are punished by not being
able to obtain loot from locked chests. It is your choice, yes. But it
is not your choice to miss out on loot, that is made for you. Warriors
do not have such a special purpose. Neither do mages. It is benefical to
have such classes within your party, but it is not "near essential".
You can go through the whole game without just Rogues and Mages or
Warriors and Rogues, and you would not be at a disadvantage in obatining
anything. Rogues have been made "special" by being able to be the only
ones capable of unlocking a chest or disarming a trap.

Is the solution necessarily to allow warriors/mages to open locks, or would it be better to provide some level of unique utility to each of those classes?

Warriors could bash open locked chests and doors and mages could open them magically or bash them open magically. A fire or frost spell on a chest or door should do something. Right?

[Eveangaline]

Beerfish wrote...

Here is my plea, I just want one class. I want a mage that can wear plate armor, wield a two handed sword, pick all locks, cast all heal spells and offensive spells, hide in shadows, disarm and set traps, be able to use sword and shield, two handed weapon or dual wiled ogres.

You want skyrim?

[Sifr]

Redwolf Skydragon wrote...

I must disagree. My question is not "Why a warrior can't have a gameplay rogue based bonus?" It is why do only the rogues have an out-of-combat game based bonus?

Because rogues typically lack in-combat bonuses, at least until later in the game after you build them correctly? While a rogue can become a powerhouse, they never get anywhere near as powerful as warriors or mages can be in a fight?

The whole point of the rogue class is that they are the people who tend to be crazy prepared for everything, including lockpicking and disarming traps. If you want to get rid of that aspect, they might as well not be rogues at all.

Why else do you think that the Fighter, Thief, Mage archetype has become a staple of the genre?

[sandalisthemaker]

Eveangaline wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

Here is my plea, I just want one class. I want a mage that can wear plate armor, wield a two handed sword, pick all locks, cast all heal spells and offensive spells, hide in shadows, disarm and set traps, be able to use sword and shield, two handed weapon or dual wiled ogres.

You want skyrim?

He/she was sarcatically mocking the topic.

[hoorayforicecream]

JamieCOTC wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Is the solution necessarily to allow warriors/mages to open locks, or would it be better to provide some level of unique utility to each of those classes?

Warriors could bash open locked chests and doors and mages could open them magically or bash them open magically. A fire or frost spell on a chest or door should do something. Right?

I don't think you understood his question. It isn't "How can we explain warriors or mages opening locked chests and doors?" That part is easy. This is what he is asking:

Would you rather:

1. Allow warriors, rogues, and mages to all open locked chests and doors? If so, why bother having a locked state in the first place if all three classes can open them? How would you make a locked box/door something meaningful?

- or -

2. Allow only rogues to open locked chests and doors. Allow warriors and mages to use some class-specific ability to access other bits of exclusive content (e.g. a warrior can bend iron bars to open a cage, a mage can create an ice bridge in certain locations in order to reach a hidden cave, etc.)

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 13 septembre 2013 - 07:19 .

[Wulfram]

Best would be if there's some stuff that requires 1 of a class, some stuff that requires 2 of a class and some that requires 3 characters of the same class.

Otherwise all you're doing is creating a set party make up and punishing people who don't shape up. Which is lame.

[Redwolf Skydragon]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Anyways, here goes.

What is the point of a locked chest, if a rogue can open it?

It
is even stated in DA2, among one of the loading screens: "Rogues are
the only class that can unlock locked chests you may have on your
travels. So, having a Rogue in your party is a near essentiality."

Does the loading screen actually say "having a a Rogue in your party is a near essentiality?"

In any case, for your question, the point of a rogue opening it is that it provides a degree of utility for that class.  They can provide something unique that another class cannot provide.

So, it is not by being mistaken that Warriors and Mages miss out on loot
within locked chests; it is because it is programmed that way. If you
do not wish to have a Rogue in your party, you are punished by not being
able to obtain loot from locked chests. It is your choice, yes. But it
is not your choice to miss out on loot, that is made for you. Warriors
do not have such a special purpose. Neither do mages. It is benefical to
have such classes within your party, but it is not "near essential".
You can go through the whole game without just Rogues and Mages or
Warriors and Rogues, and you would not be at a disadvantage in obatining
anything. Rogues have been made "special" by being able to be the only
ones capable of unlocking a chest or disarming a trap.

Is the solution necessarily to allow warriors/mages to open locks, or would it be better to provide some level of unique utility to each of those classes?

But no, I disagree that I must take someone/some class, just so I can
open a chest. Greater things? Like taking them because of their ability
to heal (as you mentioned Wynne)? Yes, I agree. (But I must also point
out that in DA2 if a member was needed to be in the party for a quest,
it told you so and made it so they could not be removed.)

What is considered okay to be separate, and what is not?

I went through a lot of trouble getting this (traveling between Darktown and Lowtown over and over) -.- So please don't ban me for posting an outside link.

http://steamcommunit...s/?id=178169807

That is a screenshot to the loading screen saying Rogues are a near necessity.

Now, lemme go read what else it is you posted.