138 réponses à ce sujet

[Mirrman70]

but what about stats one the weapons? if they allow mages to wield a sword they would probably have to make some that are more geared towards something like an arcane warrior. that means more weapons and and armor and the like for the devs to make. that doesn't sound like they would want to jump all over that when they could have weapons restricted by class.

[Sidney]

Rawgrim wrote...

If a character is strong enough to lift a weapon, he should be able to equip it. Simple as that.

Again, no one is arguing mages can't pick up a weapon because of a lack of stength. You likely can pick up a sword, I'd equally bet you haven't clue one in the world how to use it and even with my limited skills I'd murderize you with ease. If a character lacks any familiarity with a weapon it does them no good to equip the darn thing. It woulodn't hurt me to let you equip the thing under those conditions but in game terms...why bother and why let it bother you?

[Eternal Phoenix]

Mirrman70 wrote...

but what about stats one the weapons? if they allow mages to wield a sword they would probably have to make some that are more geared towards something like an arcane warrior. that means more weapons and and armor and the like for the devs to make. that doesn't sound like they would want to jump all over that when they could have weapons restricted by class.

Not really.

Again, look at Dragon's Dogma.

My mystic knight could wield a sword/mace, a shield and a staff (although I went with the mace/shield combination) and cast spells. The difference was that the mystic knight never reaches the same level of expertise as the fighter or mage.

The mystic knight never unlocks the final tier melee attacks of the fighter and their spells are significantly weaker to a mage's. However they turn into a class that can combine melee and magic attacks as seen with their Sky Rapture ability or the Great Cannon which conjures magical orbs which require the character to hit them. They have unique augments too and other unique abilities (and IMO it's the best class in the game).

It's not a question of resources. Capcom, with a much smaller budget, created a game with 9 classes which were all unique in an open world. Bioware is an AAA developer so scripting it so that a mage can wield a god damn sword and program in a few unique melee/magic abilities shouldn't take them years especially since they've done it before. Seriously have a little bit more faith in them. They're not second-rate developers.

[Mirrman70]

Elton John is dead wrote...

Mirrman70 wrote...

but what about stats one the weapons? if they allow mages to wield a sword they would probably have to make some that are more geared towards something like an arcane warrior. that means more weapons and and armor and the like for the devs to make. that doesn't sound like they would want to jump all over that when they could have weapons restricted by class.

Not really.

Again, look at Dragon's Dogma.

My mystic knight could wield a sword/mace, a shield and a staff (although I went with the mace/shield combination) and cast spells. The difference was that the mystic knight never reaches the same level of expertise as the fighter or mage.

The mystic knight never unlocks the final tier melee attacks of the fighter and their spells are significantly weaker to a mage's. However they turn into a class that can combine melee and magic attacks as seen with their Sky Rapture ability or the Great Cannon which conjures magical orbs which require the character to hit them. They have unique augments too and other unique abilities (and IMO it's the best class in the game).

It's not a question of resources. Capcom, with a much smaller budget, created a game with 9 classes which were all unique in an open world. Bioware is an AAA developer so scripting it so that a mage can wield a god damn sword and program in a few unique melee/magic abilities shouldn't take them years especially since they've done it before. Seriously have a little bit more faith in them. They're not second-rate developers.

you completely ignored what i said about creating armor and weapons that are suitable for this cross-class hybridization. even the mages in dragon age: origins with arcane warrior and the like didn't have much in the way of armor geared towards a mage in heavy armor wielding a sword. it's not about lore or common sense. it's about integrating the class/specialization into the entire game and making it so it's not just a non-squishy mage.  I personally think it would be likely that you get a more advanced templar class than an arcane warrior class. maybe add some of the fade warrior concepts too the templar, maybe a few more damage attacks. a warrior with magic (templar/fade warrior) than an arcane warrior.

[themageguy]

senorbluez88 wrote...

Hmm. Creating a new class based on lore friendly tevinter battlemages (similar to arcane warrior) and basically having the armor restrict mana usage by imposing fatigue proportionate to the armor type. This I like. Doesn't have to be an "arcane warrior" specialization per se, just one that allows mages to don armor, melee weapons and use spells more suited to close combat. Flame blast, mind blast, cone of cold..etc.

i always imagined a revamped battlemage spec like this. Only holding a staff and sword like gandalf.
have a miasma aura to weaken foes around you, hand of winter spell to hold them in place whilst you go Inquisitor on them.

Modifié par themageguy, 14 décembre 2013 - 08:49 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Abraham_uk wrote...

Dragon Age series is about party interactions. So classes and specialisations are important for story, role playing and character. Each character has their own identity. No character is meant to be good at everything. They are supposed to complement each other.



In short:

Solo games are about one character doing everything. So if a character can't do something it is frustrating.

Party games are about a team doing everything. So if one character can't do something another party member will be able to (as long as you were smart enough to bring a balanced party).

You're missing the point.  A party-based game encourages specialisation of character builds, as multiple characters can complement each other.  As such, there's no need to enforce specialisation in the way that class-restrictions do.

[philippe willaume]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In DAO, your Rogue could be your full-time tank. A dex-tank in DAO was probably the most effective style of tank (the best one was probably a heavily armoured dagger&shield warrior dex-tank). But you could also just avoid tanking altogether.

However, I do the a point to having sub-optimal game options.

If it's not possible to make a sub-optimal character - if every character permitted by the rules of the game world is capable - then what makes my character special?

I am not sure we disagree by sub-optimal I meant really un-viable/un-usable. 
in fact I think we are saying the same thing just from a different stand point. 

I.e. in the example is used.  the rogue or the mage that was tanking would be less efficient that a warrior doing the same thing.

i.e. since it would either use more stamina (less lasting power) and have longer cool-dow (i.e. slower talent rotation) but they would still be viable because for the purpose of the action the effect (slowing opposition and armour/defence bonus) is the exactly the same.
So the action/build can be relied upon to achieve what the player want.
You could have further differentiation with upgrade or talent synergy to add more class flavour/tactics.

If every skill/talents/perks is designed like that, each character becomes more versatile both in build and for in game  tactics.

Phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 14 décembre 2013 - 11:13 .

[Eternal Phoenix]

Mirrman70 wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...

Mirrman70 wrote...

but what about stats one the weapons? if they allow mages to wield a sword they would probably have to make some that are more geared towards something like an arcane warrior. that means more weapons and and armor and the like for the devs to make. that doesn't sound like they would want to jump all over that when they could have weapons restricted by class.

Not really.

Again, look at Dragon's Dogma.

My mystic knight could wield a sword/mace, a shield and a staff (although I went with the mace/shield combination) and cast spells. The difference was that the mystic knight never reaches the same level of expertise as the fighter or mage.

The mystic knight never unlocks the final tier melee attacks of the fighter and their spells are significantly weaker to a mage's. However they turn into a class that can combine melee and magic attacks as seen with their Sky Rapture ability or the Great Cannon which conjures magical orbs which require the character to hit them. They have unique augments too and other unique abilities (and IMO it's the best class in the game).

It's not a question of resources. Capcom, with a much smaller budget, created a game with 9 classes which were all unique in an open world. Bioware is an AAA developer so scripting it so that a mage can wield a god damn sword and program in a few unique melee/magic abilities shouldn't take them years especially since they've done it before. Seriously have a little bit more faith in them. They're not second-rate developers.

you completely ignored what i said about creating armor and weapons that are suitable for this cross-class hybridization. even the mages in dragon age: origins with arcane warrior and the like didn't have much in the way of armor geared towards a mage in heavy armor wielding a sword. it's not about lore or common sense. it's about integrating the class/specialization into the entire game and making it so it's not just a non-squishy mage.  I personally think it would be likely that you get a more advanced templar class than an arcane warrior class. maybe add some of the fade warrior concepts too the templar, maybe a few more damage attacks. a warrior with magic (templar/fade warrior) than an arcane warrior.

What are you talking about?

If your mage has enough strength then he can equip heavy armor in both DA games and in Origins he could wield a greatsword too with the right statistics. No new weapons or armor need to be created. You're still ignoring the examples provided by both me and another user two pages back. So I'll quote it.

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.

The mage with an Arcane Warrior wouldn't just be a "non-squishy mage" class. They'd have their own abilities in the Arcane Warrior spec and will also be able to wield a sword if they invest the statistics in it at the sacrifice of more powerful spells. The mage who doesn't go this route will be more squishy but they'd have more powerful spells.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 14 décembre 2013 - 11:16 .

[philippe willaume]

Sidney wrote...

Anomaly- wrote...

I found being restricted to only optimal options in DA2 very stagnant and unnecessary. If other options are made more viable (within reason), that can only be a good thing. It doesn't even need to be optimal. If a mage runs out of mana or an enemy is immune to magic, what's stopping said mage from pulling out a sword and swinging away? I just see no reason not to allow it.

Isn't the point that it is about effetiveness. Yes they can pick up a sword and swing it but that is a long, long, long way from being able to use it in any meaningful sense. I mean I can pick up a gun and point and click but shooting someone under combat conditions is a wholly different thing. I guess you can argue that you should still be able to swing the sword even with a 0% chance of hitting something but at that point you might as well argue that the game should let you pick up a rock and throw it at things because that could really hurt soemthing as well or break chairs to create clubs (thanks you Jade Empire).

I  thing you need to see the discussion about creating a mage or a rogue could  train in fencing in his spare time.
This is not really about trying something you are not proeficient with.

With over simplification, it is kind of about  instead of taking a new spell tree the mage could pick up a weapon tree.
and the difficulty to make that happens is more in realtive class worth/relevance and game mechnic, so that classes/builds are not uber or not un-viable.
Phil

[philippe willaume]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Normally I would say yes, but honestly from a practical standpoint, outside of say making optimized builds for characters like a dex-warrior with a knife,what is the point?

If anything, give more weapon specializations to classes instead of removing restrictions. Instead of two, how about four, and with the way skill trees and specializations works, you can increase diversification if you add more trees in.

Having skills actually be affected by stats, instead of just completely stand alone moves that are in the Skill Tree, is the solution to this.

Since stats, however, affect nothing but the gear you wear, the HP/mana you have and your ability to hit/crit, it does, in fact, seem pointless.

Which is why more holistic build systems are inherently more slanted towards customizability. Systems where stats drive everything, including combat and non-combat skills as well as equipment limitations, allow for an inherently more diverse amount of builds. 

In the DA system, where your stats do nothing more than increase your damage output or your ability to equip gear, with a few extra points spread out to make your character have more HP or mana, then it seems almost perfunctionary. There will be an uber build. It will be (extremely) sub-optimal to chase much of anything else, including weapon loadout and stats. 

And that is why the "DPS max build" menatliy of power leveling is so flawed. If that mentality can be applied to your system across the board, then your system is, inherently, limited in the number of builds anyone would logically pursue. Which basically leaves RP reasons alone to consider lifting weapon restrictions. Which makes it a hard argument to sell. When, in reality, a more holistic system that provides a more realistic balance between all stats, skills and builds is the real solution for opening the doors of multiple viable builds, for any reason.

amhen

[Abraham_uk]

Why are people talking about D&D as if there were only 3 classes?

Warrior
Thief
Mage


What about

Cleric
Paladin
Druid
Bard
Monk
Barbarian


Not to mention the specialized types of mages, clerics, warriors, thieves.
In addition there were options to dual class.


Dungeons and Dragons series actually had loads of options for classes.

Modifié par Abraham_uk, 14 décembre 2013 - 11:54 .

[Wulfram]

Solo games have very different balance issues - being a jack of all trades is much more valuable then.  And of course Geralt can't be unbalanced if he's just being compared to Geralt

Guild wars is an interesting example, but it's also very different from DA.  It doesn't have specialists, really - every character is an allrounder.  And it's way of attaching abilities to weapons is crucial here - it means there is no issue of having to have different animations for all the different weapons.  Perhaps more importantly, if gives a clear gameplay purpose to the feature, which doesn't exist in DA without a pretty major adjustment to the way the game works.

[philippe willaume]

Abraham_uk wrote...

Why are people talking about D&D as if there were only 3 classes?

Warrior
Thief
Mage


What about

Cleric
Paladin
Druid
Bard
Monk
Barbarian


Not to mention the specialized types of mages, clerics, warriors, thieves.
In addition there were options to dual class.


Dungeons and Dragons series actually had loads of options for classes.

Because that the one we have in DA series.

Classes or even build are not really the problem. It is about the per-equation of play through diversity, relative effectiveness and role playing.
Because those class are very generic, people have a different view of what the typical class member should be.
Havingplenty of "classes/build" or very few classes with different talent/perks is exactly the same thing.

Some guy will want to play  a mage à la peter jackson Gandalf some other will want to play a Dragonlance Raistlin.

For some a rogue is WH war wyche for some other is Regis from Icewindale.

For some a warrior should be a tank for other it should be a juggernaught of destruction like Achilles in Troy.

and of course you have people who think that each class should a proportion of each.

The point of role playing is to play the character as per what ever your definition is. 

It could be argued that the more build, the more narrow and specialised they are, and hence the gameplay becomes cycling the cool down in the same order and kitting, regardless of the opposition (like my experience of DA:2)But I  think some that some games like SW:tor or the Witcher manage a fair bit of in play and build diversity so i would not say it is inherent to the design.
ie my geralt is not very likley to be built as your geralt

Your DD exemple, clearly shows that hybrid build effectiveness can be preserved. in your case is by having access to specific hybrid class talents that are designed to be on the par with straight class talents.

The problem in DA, like in aD&D is that as long as, you have incremental level and attributes that have an absolute and direct effect of statistics drivingthe char performance in the game.  
Even if you could chose any talent/skill/perks, you will always fall behind the curve if you do not invest in the driving characteristics. This is what is limiting both various play options in the same play through and the viability
of non standard builds

Certain elements in the game and character design for DA:0 made if possible for sub-optimal builds to be very viable,So even if the limitation were there, it is possible to make it happen.

phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 14 décembre 2013 - 01:14 .

[Mornmagor]

If you want class restrictions, where's my cleric then?

Options, good thing in RPGs.

Modifié par Kuroi Kishin, 14 décembre 2013 - 01:28 .

[Sidney]

philippe willaume wrote...

Sidney wrote...

Anomaly- wrote...

I found being restricted to only optimal options in DA2 very stagnant and unnecessary. If other options are made more viable (within reason), that can only be a good thing. It doesn't even need to be optimal. If a mage runs out of mana or an enemy is immune to magic, what's stopping said mage from pulling out a sword and swinging away? I just see no reason not to allow it.

Isn't the point that it is about effetiveness. Yes they can pick up a sword and swing it but that is a long, long, long way from being able to use it in any meaningful sense. I mean I can pick up a gun and point and click but shooting someone under combat conditions is a wholly different thing. I guess you can argue that you should still be able to swing the sword even with a 0% chance of hitting something but at that point you might as well argue that the game should let you pick up a rock and throw it at things because that could really hurt soemthing as well or break chairs to create clubs (thanks you Jade Empire).

I  thing you need to see the discussion about creating a mage or a rogue could  train in fencing in his spare time.
This is not really about trying something you are not proeficient with.

With over simplification, it is kind of about  instead of taking a new spell tree the mage could pick up a weapon tree.
and the difficulty to make that happens is more in realtive class worth/relevance and game mechnic, so that classes/builds are not uber or not un-viable.
Phil

I have no issue with weapon specialization being required. If you have weapons and each one requires effort to use (as reflected in expended skill points) I have zero issues with a mage doing that. Maybe i am having horrible senior moment here but I do not recall anything like that in DA* so my assumption there was that mages were not trained and thus not wielders. In something like BG2 where you had weapons specializations it does make no sense to exclude mages from weapons of any kind.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Abraham_uk wrote...

Why are people talking about D&D as if there were only 3 classes?

Ignorance... or they may find D&D inferior. <_<

[Nharia1]

Kaiser Arian wrote...

Abraham_uk wrote...

Why are people talking about D&D as if there were only 3 classes?

Ignorance... or they may find D&D inferior. <_<

both of those are sacralige! HEATHENS! BLASPHIMERS !

[Pyce]

I see people asking "what would a rogue do with a staff"? Well if we are talking about D&D rogues. I loved to spec my rogues with plenty of UMD. Thats right, a rogue that is crafty enough to pick any lock and sneak up on people in broad day light. Can sometimes use magical devices with a failure rate. Think cunning stat in DA. A rogue might not be able to fully understand magic but can use some magical objects to a lesser degree.
Also It's easy to sneak attack with a two-hander for rogues. Imagine sneaking up to an unaware person behind them and lofting off their head with a two-hander or plowing it into their back!

[Anomaly-]

Sidney wrote...
Again, no one is arguing mages can't pick up a weapon because of a lack of stength. You likely can pick up a sword, I'd equally bet you haven't clue one in the world how to use it and even with my limited skills I'd murderize you with ease. If a character lacks any familiarity with a weapon it does them no good to equip the darn thing. It woulodn't hurt me to let you equip the thing under those conditions but in game terms...why bother and why let it bother you?

You're assuming that using a particular type of weapon requires a skill investment. To the best of my knowledge, that hasn't been the case in either game. The talents available have basically been added bonuses within weapon types, but nothing that actually grants the use of a certain weapon. The only requirement for equipping a certain weapon has been attribute related, so if a mage has the strength to wield a sword, and the dexterity to hit with it, why would they be unable to hit anyone with it?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Anomaly- wrote...

You're assuming that using a particular type of weapon requires a skill investment. To the best of my knowledge, that hasn't been the case in either game. The talents available have basically been added bonuses within weapon types, but nothing that actually grants the use of a certain weapon. The only requirement for equipping a certain weapon has been attribute related, so if a mage has the strength to wield a sword, and the dexterity to hit with it, why would they be unable to hit anyone with it?

Exactly.  We could do it in DAO, and it didn't break the game.

Any character from any class could equip any (non-staff) weapon, as long as that character met that weapon's stat requirements.  There was even a quest that depended on this - in the Brecilian Forest, the Warden needed to fire a bow to complete one of the sidequests.  Even if the Warden was a Mage, he still needed to fire a bow to complete the quest.

And, if you'll recall, Arcane Warrior didn't help with bows.  Arcane Warrior only allowed you to use Magic in place of Strength, not Dexterity.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Remember the times in D&D where rogues were stealthy pick-pockets or thieves, assassins or duelists who could easily get thumped out from a barbarian or warrior? DA2 soon steered away from all that and overpowered them to the point where they might as well be the new warrior class.

D&D has class restrictions but they were good. Why? Because there were a variety of classes, prestige classes and packages. If I wanted a melee fighter who could cast magic I had the Ranger and I had the Cleric and Paladin for classes that were melee-orientated and could cast holy magic. If I want a Rogue who could use magic then I had the Bard.

D&D made all these classes feel unique. The Ranger wasn't just a "non-squishy mage" or a "full-blown warrior who could cast spells" and actually felt unique especially with their special perks with nature and their natural damage bonus against a racial enemy.

So people bringing D&D up: yeah, it allowed for far more character builds. DA2 felt very limited. As D&D proves, it's possible to make all these combinations and have them work and the restrictions of D&D work because there's more than three classes. At the very least I was able to give my mage a short sword still in D&D or just roll with The Ranger or Paladin instead.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 15 décembre 2013 - 09:08 .

[philippe willaume]

hello
yes but I would be tempted to say that it is was a DA:2 game design issue (and for different reason aD&D 3rd edition had some issues with the design for warrior)

Now it is true that that nowadays warriors are more seen as tanks and rogue as damage dealers, and in DA:2 having specialisations dropped made that even worse. and it made the build for each class not versatile enough and too restrictive. Basically each class came in a few un-mixable set of flavour.
i said un-mixable because it was either no real effect or was super optimal.
and of course making class abilities of something that every one can do makes things even more frustrating

Personally i am all in favour of having a wide range of possibility for each class and in a computer game it should not be an exclusive or it should be a matter of where between the two extreme you want to be.

The implication of that is talents/perks need to be more synergic and self sufficient.
You would select how much of a thieve or warrior rogue by how many talents/skills pertaining to each you pick. Provided of course that perks or talents have some use in the game.

[philippe willaume]

Anomaly- wrote...

Sidney wrote...
Again, no one is arguing mages can't pick up a weapon because of a lack of stength. You likely can pick up a sword, I'd equally bet you haven't clue one in the world how to use it and even with my limited skills I'd murderize you with ease. If a character lacks any familiarity with a weapon it does them no good to equip the darn thing. It woulodn't hurt me to let you equip the thing under those conditions but in game terms...why bother and why let it bother you?

You're assuming that using a particular type of weapon requires a skill investment. To the best of my knowledge, that hasn't been the case in either game. The talents available have basically been added bonuses within weapon types, but nothing that actually grants the use of a certain weapon. The only requirement for equipping a certain weapon has been attribute related, so if a mage has the strength to wield a sword, and the dexterity to hit with it, why would they be unable to hit anyone with it?

Well it's not that different, all you we do is change the interpretation/rationalisation of the level of abstraction that constitute the minimum requirements.
i.e. you need a minimum of skills to use a given weapon  effectively. and in game it is represented by having the stats requirement/having invested in the skill.

phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 15 décembre 2013 - 11:54 .

[Squire]

I agree, weapon/armour restrictions should be ability based, not class based.

The mage staff is different because it requires magic to function, but other than that, there's no reason why a rogue shouldn't be able to use a sword, or a fighter shouldn't be able to use two daggers.

[Eralrik]

I wouldn't mind if my Rogue could have the option to use a staff as many Rogue's are pretty successful with them. I wouldn't want my Rogue using heavy armor if so then stealth and any related abilities should be disabled till the appropriate armor is applied otherwise you wouldn't need warriors. I don't mind a Rogue being able to wield a Longsword and dagger or shortsword combo, though I prefer the lighting fast combo setups of 2 daggers or a shortsword and dagger combo.

I would like to see Duel wield brought back for Warriors they are after all masters of all weapons and the way's to use them effectively.

Mage's unless your going for Arcane Warrior where Heavy Armor, swords & shields come in to play I don't think they should be donning heavy plate and swords and hammer's they need to be light on their feet to be able to run and cast as they go. Mage's have defense spells and a slew of offensive spells that make a 1 man tank battalion scary enough to fight off drove's of enemy's. <I'm uber tired so what I type may not make sense, fair warning.>