138 réponses à ce sujet

[philippe willaume]

like Wulfram i don't see the point of having sub-optimal game options.

IE if a mage or a rogue is going to use a long sword or a two handed sword, let make sure that it is a viable and satisfying option.

Unless the benefits an bonuses from each class is relative and not absolute as it is now, dumping point in no directing attribute will be crippling.

The skills and attribue need to use weapons or Armour could be the result of magic and a specific magic school.
so the mage can still pump point in magic and sword and armour is just a magic school like any other.

@jncicesp
well the point of martial arts, before the samaurai still need to eat in peace time (aka Tokugawa area) so we nee to fragments arts as possible, was to have a generic set of tactics and principle demontrated and trained under a main discipline (long sword or wrestling in Europe) and the rest of the weapon were just simple adds on that explains the part where type of weapons behave differently.
So yes the idea was precisely to pick up any weapon and be good at it.

Phil

[Eurypterid]

Rubios wrote...

There's absolutely no reason for all mages to be skinny.

Exactly. As much of a fan as I am of D&D, this is one of the things that really bugs me and is (IMO) directly attributable to D&D: the perception that all mages are physically weak and fragile.

[Ryzaki]

I could see legendary magical weapons being class resistant. Maybe have it so the legendary sword just refuses to be wielded by anyone other than warriors or the magic staff is worthless to anyone that isn't a mage and so on.

But yeah everyone should be able to use normal weapons of any type.

[The Flying Grey Warden]

So how are warriors/rogues going to use staffs?

[Nharia1]

The Flying Grey Warden wrote...

So how are warriors/rogues going to use staffs?

quarter staff maybe?

[Eurypterid]

The Flying Grey Warden wrote...

So how are warriors/rogues going to use staffs?

As a bludgeoning weapon, but they can't activate any magic with them.

[The Flying Grey Warden]

So what are the melee stats of these things going to be? Useless? Effective? What? And how are mage characters going to use melee staffs and magic? Or will they not have the option?

Warriors being able to use bows and daggers is fine and all, rogues with sword and shield and two handed swords are strange but I can dig it I guess. Mages though, they don't seem able to effectively use any other weapon but staffs.

So will mages be retooled to be able to switch between melee and magic? Or jsut be stuck with one or the other while everyone else gets nice stuff?

Just rambling. All for the idea actually, but I just can't see it being implemented, well, fairly or in a balanced way.

[Fredward]

But rogues backstabbing with a claymore would look silly.

[wizardryforever]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

But rogues backstabbing with a claymore would look silly.

Yeah, that's why most games with a backstab/sneak attack mechanic prohibit them on two-handed weapons.  Logistically, it really doesn't make any sense.  In the Elder Scrolls games, sneak attacking with a two-hander gives no bonus, unlike every other weapon type.  And of course, some games are even more restrictive, not allowing backstabs with two weapons, or with bows, or even with anything other than a single dagger.  Dragon Age isn't that restrictive at least, but it's close.

[Plaintiff]

I don't see the point in letting mages wield swords if you're jut gonna gimp them for doing it.

If you're going to remove weapon restrictions, then everyone should be able to wield any weapon perfectly capably, as long as they put points in the skill.

[Orkfaeller]

My second character in DA:O used to be a (blood)mage who would "fight" with a ritual knife / dagger,

I dont see any legit reason why this shouldnt be possible.

[The Flying Grey Warden]

TBH I would rather every class just get more weapons, then have the weapon restriction removed.

Allow for further unique gameplay styles instead of just having the limited 5 and calling it done.

[Nharia1]

The Flying Grey Warden wrote...

TBH I would rather every class just get more weapons, then have the weapon restriction removed.

Allow for further unique gameplay styles instead of just having the limited 5 and calling it done.

Like adding in polearms perhaps? OoO And more crossbows!

[The Flying Grey Warden]

Polearms/Spears, Nunchucks/Kusarigama, Spellbooks/Wands, etc.

Modifié par The Flying Grey Warden, 09 décembre 2013 - 11:46 .

[Eternal Phoenix]

Rubios wrote...

Kaiser Arian wrote...

I agree with this Idea, but..
I'm a skinny mage and I can fight with this?

Do you even lift?

There's absolutely no reason for all mages to be skinny.

Exactly especially if they've invested points in strength.

My mage in DA2 could wear heavy armor but apparently couldn't pick up a god damn longsword.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

IMO, there should be no restrictions to weapons & armors...

BUT

Warriors should have talents that allow them to make better use of weapons overall as well as armors and defense..

Rogues should have talents that allow them to swing weapons faster and inflict crits more frequently

Mages should have talents that allow them to synergize with holding a weapon in one hand and spell on the other...

Modifié par The Sin, 10 décembre 2013 - 01:50 .

[TK514]

I have no trouble with Mages using swords, bows, daggers, spears catapults, golems or whatever else they figure they can pick up. As a result, however, they should have zero weapon based magic attacks, no weapon abilities, and do only white damage on swing. But hey, if you want to sacrifice your magical power and mana pool to wear that heavy armor and run around with a sword, go for it. I completely support your right to gimp your characters and be as ineffectual as you want.

Edit:  Lest you readers feel I am being unfair to warriors and rogues, I totally support both having the ability to pick up a staff and use it like the big stick it is.

Modifié par TK514, 10 décembre 2013 - 05:26 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Plaintiff wrote...

I don't see the point in letting mages wield swords if you're jut gonna gimp them for doing it.

If you're going to remove weapon restrictions, then everyone should be able to wield any weapon perfectly capably, as long as they put points in the skill.

They would be "naturally" gimped.
They don't start with any proficiencies, while a warrior would start with hig proficiency.

In other words, any mage can wield a sword, but to do that effectively, they would have to put precious poitns into it - and they will never match a true warrior.

[Plaintiff]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I don't see the point in letting mages wield swords if you're jut gonna gimp them for doing it.

If you're going to remove weapon restrictions, then everyone should be able to wield any weapon perfectly capably, as long as they put points in the skill.

They would be "naturally" gimped.
They don't start with any proficiencies, while a warrior would start with hig proficiency.

In other words, any mage can wield a sword, but to do that effectively, they would have to put precious poitns into it - and they will never match a true warrior.

I don't see why a warrior should automatically have a higher proficiency for swords over any other kind of weapon. As people love to parrot whenever this issue comes up, "warrior" does not automatically equate to "melee" combat in real life. Technically, anyone who fights in war is a warrior.

[Mornmagor]

You don't restrict classes with weapons, when you only have 3 classes.

Put 10 classes and yeah, do it.

Seriously, i don't have many options in the first place, do i need to have a mage that only wields a staff?

This is like primal D&D with only base warrior, base rogue, base wizard all over again.

Can we evolve past that? It's getting boring in the year 2014.

People want more than a person that can OH! throw fire from their hands >.>

Even 3rd edtion D&D did it better.

Modifié par Kuroi Kishin, 10 décembre 2013 - 11:09 .

[Nharia1]

Rubios wrote...

Ah yes, reapers the "meele + magic playstyle is something unheard of and/or difficult to balance" thing.

Dragon's Dogma: Mystic Knight - 1H + Shield
--- Bonus: Magic Archer- Bow
Guild Wars 2: Guardian- 1H + shield / 2H sword / 2H hammer...
--- Bonus: Mesmer - 2H Sword / 1H and DW swords
--- Bonus: Elementalist - Daggers / Conjured weapons (bow, hammer, shield...)
Kingdoms of Amalur: Champion - Chakrams / 1H + shield / 2H / Daggers...
Skyrim: Whatever you want to build (1H + ice magic for example)
Souls: Whatever you want to build (pyromancy + any meele weapon for example)
Witcher: Geralt's combat is based around a meele + magic system.

...

Can we go past the basic D&D stuff already? It's almost 2014.

Ah but where would we be if we didnt have the basic D&D though?

[jncicesp]

philippe willaume wrote...

@jncicesp
well the point of martial arts, before the samaurai still need to eat in peace time (aka Tokugawa area) so we nee to fragments arts as possible, was to have a generic set of tactics and principle demontrated and trained under a main discipline (long sword or wrestling in Europe) and the rest of the weapon were just simple adds on that explains the part where type of weapons behave differently.
So yes the idea was precisely to pick up any weapon and be good at it.

Phil

At least in dragon age combat with daggers seem more quick and acrobatic, I dont think Ive seen anyone using a sword do a flip in regualr combat, so im going with practice makes perfect and in some type of war people arnt going to work on their weaker discipline.
In my line of thought  the class restrictions make sense.
 
and anyone practicing magic probably wouldnt  have a lot of skill with weapons aside from the staff

[philippe willaume]

jncicesp wrote...

philippe willaume wrote...

@jncicesp
well the point of martial arts, before the samaurai still need to eat in peace time (aka Tokugawa area) so we nee to fragments arts as possible, was to have a generic set of tactics and principle demontrated and trained under a main discipline (long sword or wrestling in Europe) and the rest of the weapon were just simple adds on that explains the part where type of weapons behave differently.
So yes the idea was precisely to pick up any weapon and be good at it.

Phil

At least in dragon age combat with daggers seem more quick and acrobatic, I dont think Ive seen anyone using a sword do a flip in regualr combat, so im going with practice makes perfect and in some type of war people arnt going to work on their weaker discipline.
In my line of thought  the class restrictions make sense.
 
and anyone practicing magic probably wouldnt  have a lot of skill with weapons aside from the staff

Hello

That's kind of missing the forest for the tree.

 If you can use a staff, you de facto can use a pole arm. Really in a "regular fight" plate+two handed weapon will beat no armour and 2 dagger or 2 short sword.
I grant you that I did no spar a shaolin monk but I did do a few wu-shu practitioner (and bouncing about usually stopped after they get done a few times). So back flip don't work either.

 So is the idea of a mage using a sword more ridiculous than daggers doing more damage than two handed weapon?
IE, I have still to see even a dagger/smachets cut a pig carcass in two, I have seen and done it with a sword.

 Don't get me wrong , I want class to be different both mechanically and visually and  whilst I would love classes to be much more versatile during the same play through play, I agree with you that animation that works with a dagger can look plain silly with one longsword and a dagger let alone with two longswords.

what I am trying to get at is that we can find a way to rationalise which ever way but really the differentiator is boils down to how the system is implemented. there is really no point of doing it if it is going to be gimped or look ridiculous.


phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 10 décembre 2013 - 11:22 .