335 réponses à ce sujet

[Cainhurst Crow]

Mr.House wrote...

I would in fact love a one handed skill tree personally.

This.

Let's have some awesome single sword action folks, no more giant claymores for me. Be like fencers, or saber fencers, or lightsaber weilders.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 26 septembre 2013 - 11:38 .

[Ryzaki]

Mr.House wrote...

I would in fact love a one handed skill tree personally.

Like a rapier? That'd be interesting.

[AresKeith]

SergeantSnookie wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Tbh, I always felt rogue should get a third weapon skill after warriros get DW and archery/crossbows back

Perhaps just make Duelist a base Rogue skill tree but tune it for...well, dueling. One handed weapon in one hand, nothing in the other.

By weapon skill I mean sickle and chain, not an actual skill tree :S

[Mr.House]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

I would in fact love a one handed skill tree personally.

Like, just a sword with no shield?

Yes. Hence I said skill tree, as in make talents just for using one 1H sword.

[AresKeith]

Ryzaki wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

I would in fact love a one handed skill tree personally.

Like a rapier? That'd be interesting.

I'd be fine with a rapier or sickle and chain 

[David7204]

If we're back to claiming, 'realism,' then rapiers are not realistic in the slightest.

[sandalisthemaker]

Mr.House wrote...

I would in fact love a one handed skill tree personally.

TBH I got kind of excited when I saw Cassandra in the Game Informer artwork because it looked like she was only carrying a sword.  Was hopeful we would be able to play with just a sword this time.

[cjones91]

Mr.House wrote...

I would in fact love a one handed skill tree personally.

Me too,they could make it so you have greater speed and attack power buty our defenses and flank are more vulnerable.

[Cainhurst Crow]

If warriors have to be melee only, than rogues have to be range only.

And mages will have no direct offensive capabilities at all, only stat manipulations and buffs/debuffs.

For fairness.

[Wulfram]

Are there that many dual wield warrior character concepts that couldn't be executed with a rogue? I mean, if you don't like the sneaky thief thing you can always not pick those talents.

Lack of tank skills, maybe, but dual wielding seems an odd choice for a tank anyway, and DA2 rogues could be made pretty tough and even given some threat skills.

Particularly since it seems like in DA:I we'll be able to stick our rogues in something that looks like reasonably heavy armour.

[Mr.House]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

If warriors have to be melee only, than rogues have to be range only.

And mages will have no direct offensive capabilities at all, only stat manipulations and buffs/debuffs.

For fairness.

I can forsee the tears.

[Ryzaki]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

If warriors have to be melee only, than rogues have to be range only.

And mages will have no direct offensive capabilities at all, only stat manipulations and buffs/debuffs.

For fairness.

Heh yes force rogues to all use bows.  they can still stealth (it's just an excuse to get out of melee range now).

I love that idea.

Though nooo don't take away my dps mages. D: 

[Cainhurst Crow]

David7204 wrote...

If we're back to claiming, 'realism,' then rapiers are not realistic in the slightest.

And arming swords?

[Ryzaki]

Wulfram wrote...

Are there that many dual wield warrior character concepts that couldn't be executed with a rogue? I mean, if you don't like the sneaky thief thing you can always not pick those talents.

Lack of tank skills, maybe, but dual wielding seems an odd choice for a tank anyway, and DA2 rogues could be made pretty tough and even given some threat skills.

Particularly since it seems like in DA:I we'll be able to stick our rogues in something that looks like reasonably heavy armour.

You trade off damage for survivability. Not a lot of it but yeah. Less spikey damage as well.

But the DA2 rogues being tough and given threat skills are more a issue of them being ridculous (high damage, stealth, traps, aggro control, high defense) than dual wielding warrior being a bad idea.

Even if warriors aren't given dual wielding or archery DA2 rogues need to be toned the heck down.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 26 septembre 2013 - 11:46 .

[Mr.House]

Archery was way too OP in DA2.

[Plaintiff]

Ryzaki wrote...
What new skill tress do warriors have? The vanguard ones? You do realize rogues have new skill tress as well right? That they can also control aggro thanks to the Armistice and Goad abilities?

Yes. I realize all of that. Which is why I am saying that DA2 is more fair to the classes than DA:O. Because now they all have an equal number of skill trees.

And you don't think that applies with warrior companions? 

Of course it applies. I'm not a hypocrite. I do not care that rogues in DA:O are denied specific options for development that warriors get. I care that rogues in DA:O get less options overall.

In DAO I assume? You do realize rogues got an extra skill tree as well right?

It wasn't an "extra" tree, they still had two less than warriors do. The warrior-specific tree had half as many skills as the rogue-specific tree, but they were vastly overcompensated by sword/board and two-hander skill trees. 

Really? You're saying that a warrior has to be melee only (despite the fact that being melee only is a clear disadvantage in some fights making said character USELESS for a certain time?)

No, I'm saying that if you get to complain about warriors not having access to archery, then I get to complain about rogues not having access to shields.

Uh...that's not equal. Rogues can still stealth, and detect, disarm traps.

Stealth is in a rogue skill tree. Warriors get something else that Rogues do not.

Being able to detect traps is an automatic benefit in DA2, and I already said warriors should get something equivalent to that (which a whole extra skill tree is not). I have no option to not detect traps, if I am a Rogue, it's a side-effect of improving my primary stats.

All the warrior trees are directly combat related.

As are all the Rogue trees. As are all the mage trees. All the skills for all the classes in DA2 are directly related to combat.

In DA2, trap detection and lock-picking are not part of any skill tree, they develop automatically, even if I didn't want them to.

And I already said warriors should get an equivalent, something that would give them a specific function in exploration. Being able not knock down walls to access secret rooms would be equivalent. Being able to pull heavy levers would be equivalent. An extra combat skill tree is not.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 26 septembre 2013 - 11:52 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

Would anyone else like a longsword skill? Like, not a giant sword like two-handed swords in the game, but normal, non shield, swords.

Like the katana, or the...well, long sword. Something you can use in one or two hands that isn't massive and slow?

[Steelcan]

I don't know what the argument is about but I disagree with David

[Mr.House]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Would anyone else like a longsword skill? Like, not a giant sword like two-handed swords in the game, but normal, non shield, swords.

Like the katana, or the...well, long sword. Something you can use in one or two hands that isn't massive and slow?

Yes.

[Plaintiff]

Darth Brotarian wrote...
If warriors have to be melee only, than rogues have to be range only.

And mages will have no direct offensive capabilities at all, only stat manipulations and buffs/debuffs.

For fairness.

Fine. As long as every class has an equal number of skill trees, and an equal number of skills within those trees.

[Steelcan]

Plaintiff wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...
If warriors have to be melee only, than rogues have to be range only.

And mages will have no direct offensive capabilities at all, only stat manipulations and buffs/debuffs.

For fairness.

Fine. As long as every class has an equal number of skill trees, and an equal number of skills within those trees.

Why?

Warriors should be able to specialize more, there are more branches to the possibilities that a warrior can do.  Sword and Shield, 2h, one sword, double, archery.  It would make sense for them to have more options.

[Ryzaki]

Plaintiff wrote...
Yes. I realize all of that. Which is why I am saying that DA2 is more fair to the classes than DA:O.

And how exactly is it when DA2 has one class forced into melee only while the other gets its pick and can detect traps and disarm them along with chests (and get bonus xp for doing so)?

Of course it applies. I'm not a hypocrite. I do not care that rogues in DA:O are denied specific options for development that warriors get. I care that rogues in DA:O get less options overall.

How? 

You can still stealth, you can still disarm and open traps, you can still use sword and sheild (you just don't get any skills attached to it) The only thing they can't do is tank. (Just like warriors can't heal or stealth).

It wasn't an "extra" tree, they still had two less than warriors do. The warrior-specific tree had half as many skills as the rogue-specific tree, but they were vastly overcompensated by sword/board and two-hander skill trees.

And they had stealth to accomdate for that. As well as a boost for their lockpicking that warriors didn't get.

Also they still dealt more damage.

No, I'm saying that if you get to complain about warriors not having access to archery, then I get to complain about rogues not having access to shields.

You seem to have the impression that I *care* if rogues could use shields. I don't.

Being able to detect traps is an automatic benefit in DA2, and I already said warriors should get something equivalent to that (which a whole extra skill tree is not). I have no option to not detect traps, if I am a Rogue, it's a side-effect of improving my primary stats.

Which means your whole "their equal" is just garbage. They're not. Rogues have a out of combat benefit that warriors do not have. Whether you want it or not it's still there. As well as a combat benefit of being able to switch between melee or ranged combat at will.

Now if you don't mind that's one thing but saying it's more equal is garbage.

As are all the Rogue trees. As are all the mage trees. All the skills for all the classes in DA2 are directly related to combat.

In DA2, trap detection and lock-picking are not part of any skill tree, they develop automatically, even if I didn't want them to.

And I already said warriors should get an equivalent, something that would give them a specific function in exploration. Being able not knock down walls to access secret rooms would be equivalent. Being able to pull heavy levers would be equivalent. An extra combat skill tree is not.

Fair enough.

Yet they're still there and still provide a rogue with a benefit a warrior does not have.

Except they're already misbalanced. Rogues can have both melee or ranged combat. Warriors can not. Being able to knock down rocks will not fix that.