335 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

Plaintiff wrote...
Yes, that was always my argument. What they allow you to do doesn't matter.

All four stealth skills in DA:O combined give the Rogue the ability to do one thing. Go into stealth mode.

Meanwhile, any branch from the warrior's extra weapon trees gives them four distinct abilities.

Warriors in DA:O get more variety, period.

Oh good thx for telling me discussing this with you further is pointless.

[Steelcan]

Ryzaki wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
Yes, that was always my argument. What they allow you to do doesn't matter.

All four stealth skills in DA:O combined give the Rogue the ability to do one thing. Go into stealth mode.

Meanwhile, any branch from the warrior's extra weapon trees gives them four distinct abilities.

Warriors in DA:O get more variety, period.

Oh good thx for telling me discussing this with you further is pointless.

You were expecting something else?

[Ryzaki]

Steelcan wrote...

You were expecting something else?

I kind of was at least expecting the acknolwedgment of pigeonholing a class into melee combat was a bad idea when every other class was able to fight at both melee and ranged distance but I suppose that was too much to ask for.

(that and the devs designed fights where the enemies started at a distance and stayed there as though everyone WAS capable of going between ranged and melee combat).

It's stupid when one class is forced to shove a thumb up their ass because a flying boss decided to fly off and there's nothing you can do about it.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 27 septembre 2013 - 01:02 .

[Plaintiff]

Ryzaki wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Plus there is a distinction between rogues and warriors in game. Ask Isabela to teach you duelist as a warrior she flat out says you lack finesee or grace or something.

Meanwhile with Alistair and a rogue he'll say you lack the discipline. (Forgot what Oghren tells a rogue).

That's not actually an acknowledgement of your class. It's how they clumsily step around the fact that the specialization limitations make no sense.

So...them saying you lack the grace to learn a specialization is not acknowledging that you're not the class that can learn said specialization? 

No, it's not.

Since "class" is metagame information, there's no way the characters can possibly know it. "Lacking grace" has nothing to do with being a warrior. A warrior can be extremely graceful, there's no reason why they shouldn't be.

Likewise, a rogue is just a "dishonest or unprincipled" man. It has nothing to do with being able to dual-wield, having finesse or lacking discipline.

What the game is acutally doing is making assumptions about the kind of person your character is. It's a very important difference.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 27 septembre 2013 - 01:02 .

[Ryzaki]

Except via the devs say so. If they say warriors in their world aren't graceful that's how it is.

Just like saying how rogues lack discipline in their game universe that's how it is.

If you want your character to be graceful...play a rogue.

All games make assumptions about your character. Minor assumptions such as that aren't to me some horrible feat.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 27 septembre 2013 - 01:03 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

Plaintiff wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

So basically to you because warriors have 2HD weapons and S&S that excuses rogues having dual wielding and archery, having aggro control abilities, stealth and lockpicking/trap disarming in DA2? alright then so I know further discussion is pointless.

You're just counting skills and ignoring what those skills actually allow you to do and calling it even.

Yes, that was always my argument. What they allow you to do doesn't matter.

All four stealth skills in DA:O combined give the Rogue the ability to do one thing. Go into stealth mode.

Meanwhile, any branch from the warrior's extra weapon trees gives them four distinct abilities.

Warriors in DA:O get more variety, period.

All the warriors abilities do is either boost damage or raise defense, and possibly get more enemies to attack you by being a distraction. It's not like warriors are walking around with some great array of diverse talents while rogues only have stealth.

[Plaintiff]

Ryzaki wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

You were expecting something else?

I kind of was at least expecting the acknolwedgment of pigeonholing a class into melee combat was a bad idea when every other class was able to fight at both melee and ranged distance but I suppose that was too much to ask for.

(that and the devs designed fights where the enemies started at a distance and stayed there as though everyone WAS capable of going between ranged and melee combat).

It's stupid when one class is forced to shove a thumb up their ass because a flying boss decided to fly off and there's nothing you can do about it.

I have no problem with warriors being given a ranged skill tree, this is something you imagined.

But I want to know what skill tree is being cut to make room for it, or alternatively, what skill tree rogues and mages are getting.

[Plaintiff]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Likewise, a rogue is just a "dishonest or unprincipled" man. It has nothing to do with being able to dual-wield, having finesse or lacking discipline.

Sheesh, someone hates rogues.

On the contrary, "rogue" is generally my avourite class in any rpg, and I have no problem with my characters being dishonest on occasion.

[Ryzaki]

Considering rogues and mages can already fight at a range why would they need another tree?

Modifié par Ryzaki, 27 septembre 2013 - 01:07 .

[Steelcan]

Ryzaki wrote...

Considering rogues and mages can already right at a range why would they need another tree?

Do I really need to post more Amon/Equalist stuff?

[Plaintiff]

Ryzaki wrote...

Except via the devs say so. If they say warriors in their world aren't graceful that's how it is.

Just like saying how rogues lack discipline in their game universe that's how it is.

But they never did say that. They said your character specifically lacks discipline, or finesse, or whatever. It was not a sweeping statement about all "warriors" or all "rogues".

In fact, as far as the characters are concerned, a rogue is warrior. Being in the 'rogue' class does not prevent someone from being a legitimate soldier, and being in the 'warrior' class does not prevent a character from being a bandit or an assassin in terms of their actual career in the world.

The only class with any lore relevance at all is mage.

If you want your character to be graceful...play a rogue.

All games make assumptions about your character. Minor assumptions such as that aren't to me some horrible feat.

I didn't say it was horrible. I'm not placing any moral value on it at all. I don't care that they do it.

But it's not an actual acknowledgement of your class.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 27 septembre 2013 - 01:10 .

[Steelcan]

I demand dual wielding spells ala Skyrim

[Br3admax]

Plaintiff wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Likewise, a rogue is just a "dishonest or unprincipled" man. It has nothing to do with being able to dual-wield, having finesse or lacking discipline.

Sheesh, someone hates rogues.

On the contrary, "rogue" is generally my avourite class in any rpg, and I have no problem with my characters being dishonest on occasion.

It actually stims from calling the thief class a rogue, as its skills derive from less honorable traits. When they a rogue fights the dirty way, in essence. Nothing to do with dual weilding still, but it also has nothing to do with being dishonest. 

[Ryzaki]

Steelcan wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Considering rogues and mages can already right at a range why would they need another tree?

Do I really need to post more Amon/Equalist stuff?

I just don't get why the classes wouldn't be equal with this included.

Rogues have LOL damage and can detect traps. They have stealth, ridculous defense thanks to Dex = evasion and now they have damn aggro mananagment.

Mages have Great AOE damage, beautiful crowd control and can heal.

Warriors can tank (yay for being chewed on) Good damage (still inferior to rogue), Inferior to rogue aggro managment (which makes NO damn sense considering. If anything Armistice and Goad should be warrior abilities).

The only thing giving them more damage would do is give them more damage and allow them to be ranged damage dealers instead of just melee.  And they still wouldn't deal more damage than rogues.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 27 septembre 2013 - 01:12 .

[Steelcan]

Ryzaki wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Considering rogues and mages can already right at a range why would they need another tree?

Do I really need to post more Amon/Equalist stuff?

I just don't get why the classes wouldn't be equal with this included.

Rogues have LOL damage and can detect traps. They have stealth, ridculous defense thanks to Dex = evasion and now they have damn aggro mananagment.

Mages have Great AOE damage and can heal.

Warriors can tank (yay for being chewed on) Good damage (still inferior to rogue), Inferior to rogue aggro managment (which makes NO damn sense considering. If anything Armistice and Goad should be warrior abilities).

The only thing giving them more damage would do is give them more damage and allow them to be ranged damage dealers instead of just melee.  And they still wouldn't deal more damage than rogues.

[Plaintiff]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Likewise, a rogue is just a "dishonest or unprincipled" man. It has nothing to do with being able to dual-wield, having finesse or lacking discipline.

Sheesh, someone hates rogues.

On the contrary, "rogue" is generally my avourite class in any rpg, and I have no problem with my characters being dishonest on occasion.

Am I doing it wrong if I play a morally good rogue?

No. The whole point I am trying to make is that 'rogue' is a totally arbitrary metagame label that doesn't mean anything within the context of Dragon Age.

[lady_v23]

Yes please!

[Cainhurst Crow]

Plaintiff wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

You were expecting something else?

I kind of was at least expecting the acknolwedgment of pigeonholing a class into melee combat was a bad idea when every other class was able to fight at both melee and ranged distance but I suppose that was too much to ask for.

(that and the devs designed fights where the enemies started at a distance and stayed there as though everyone WAS capable of going between ranged and melee combat).

It's stupid when one class is forced to shove a thumb up their ass because a flying boss decided to fly off and there's nothing you can do about it.

I have no problem with warriors being given a ranged skill tree, this is something you imagined.

But I want to know what skill tree is being cut to make room for it, or alternatively, what skill tree rogues and mages are getting.

Defender, it's pretty damn useless outside of the boost in defense, and most of it's skills could easily go to either warmonger or battlemaster tree's without anyone even noticing.

[Ryzaki]

@Steelcan: *cries*

I need to watch the new avatar sometime. I saw like 1 episode of it.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 27 septembre 2013 - 01:14 .

[Steelcan]

Ryzaki wrote...

@Steelcan: *cries*

I need to watch the new avatar sometime. I saw like 1 episode of it.

Its pretty good, if you liked Last Airbender I can't recommend it enough.

[Steelcan]

Plaintiff wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Likewise, a rogue is just a "dishonest or unprincipled" man. It has nothing to do with being able to dual-wield, having finesse or lacking discipline.

Sheesh, someone hates rogues.

On the contrary, "rogue" is generally my avourite class in any rpg, and I have no problem with my characters being dishonest on occasion.

Am I doing it wrong if I play a morally good rogue?

No. The whole point I am trying to make is that 'rogue' is a totally arbitrary metagame label that doesn't mean anything within the context of Dragon Age.