76 réponses à ce sujet

[Gtdef]

And here goes again, the I WANT DW thread.

 

Forget warrior for a moment.

 

Why would you even want to make rogue as he was in DAO? He is perfect in DA2. Tbh I didn't like it at first because I thought it was too straight forward and needed Aveline, but when I gave it a try recently I was amazed. I actually do triple rogue nightmare runs. Isabela and Varric spamming fatiguing fog and chameleons breath and party becomes immortal.

 

Why would anyone want to revert it back to the idiotic "walk behind the enemy, backstab him, repeat, and don't use active skills because they suck while having 150 defense and being virtually untouchable". I played a DAO Nightmare run with rogue to make a perfect save for DA2 and I was bored out of my mind halfway into the game. At first without the gear and the impossibly high defense rating it was a challenge. Then I got double haste, enough +crit dmg, and 2 crushing prisons. Lol. Just prison the elites and backstab the grunts. By the time I reach the Archdemon I was drooling and my voice had a cartoonish feel.

 

I actually like how people here say that rogue could just get strength and wear massive or other dumb things like that. Rogue has 100% evasion with duelist and about 60 dexterity. He doesn't need massive armor. Truth is that Bioware didn't even bother with rogue class. Just designed Warrior, and then took warrior combat trees and added a few bullshit skills like 4 points stealth and 4 points disarm traps and made rogue. So rogue ended up being overpowered and broken as fk. Haha.

[Sylvius the Mad]

So, what is the value in allowing them to equip a shield, as this thread seems to advocate?

Roleplaying.

 

I had a Rogue in DAO who used a shield.  He did it to maximise his defense, without any regard for his attack.  He was a coward, and refused to learn any offensive talents.  During combat, he tended to hide in the back while the party did all the work.  And if he did face an opponent, his objective was to cower and wait to be rescued.

 

Being able to equip a shield was good for that.  In fact, DAO did one better by allowing him to carry a shield and NO WEAPON.

 

That character was the most satisfying character I have played in a CRPG in quite some time.  I loved that guy.

 

Restrictions (like not allowing characters to equip gear they can't use effectively) don't add anything to the game.  No one gains anything from not being able to do that.  So why would anyone want it?

[Elhanan]

Most of my Dwarven Rogues in DAO were thugs; wore heavy armor, used bows and melee weapons interchangeably, etc. I did not have to sneak behind the enemy unless I was scouting, and was able to walk thru spiders and their Overwhelms with relative ease. The game allowed the Player to choose what defined the character; not the game mechanics or other Players stereotyping the class.

 

In DAO, my fave class was Rogue due to the versatility.

 

In DA2, it was the Mage that offered me the most versatile nature, as the Spell trees were improved, and there were lots of spells from which to choose. The Rogues came in second, but all my Rogues were almost exactly the same, and that does not seem to be a good thing, IMO.

[The Night Haunter]

Roleplaying.

 

I had a Rogue in DAO who used a shield.  He did it to maximise his defense, without any regard for his attack.  He was a coward, and refused to learn any offensive talents.  During combat, he tended to hide in the back while the party did all the work.  And if he did face an opponent, his objective was to cower and wait to be rescued.

 

Being able to equip a shield was good for that.  In fact, DAO did one better by allowing him to carry a shield and NO WEAPON.

 

That character was the most satisfying character I have played in a CRPG in quite some time.  I loved that guy.

 

Restrictions (like not allowing characters to equip gear they can't use effectively) don't add anything to the game.  No one gains anything from not being able to do that.  So why would anyone want it?

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not, but that's certainly one of the most unique characters I've ever heard of!

[Sylvius the Mad]

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not, but that's certainly one of the most unique characters I've ever heard of!

Unique characters are exactly what roleplaying games should allow.

If I said it, it is almost certainly not sarcasm.

[Fallstar]

Yes, removing unnecessary class restrictions on gear would be a good thing.

[Mockingword]

Roleplaying.

 

I had a Rogue in DAO who used a shield.  He did it to maximise his defense, without any regard for his attack.  He was a coward, and refused to learn any offensive talents.  During combat, he tended to hide in the back while the party did all the work.  And if he did face an opponent, his objective was to cower and wait to be rescued.

 

Being able to equip a shield was good for that.  In fact, DAO did one better by allowing him to carry a shield and NO WEAPON.

 

That character was the most satisfying character I have played in a CRPG in quite some time.  I loved that guy.

 

Restrictions (like not allowing characters to equip gear they can't use effectively) don't add anything to the game.  No one gains anything from not being able to do that.  So why would anyone want it?

Was your character also stupid? So gob-smackingly dumb that he couldn't learn how to properly use the shield he carried around with him for the year or so over which the events of DA:O take place? Did he understand that a tool you don't know how to use might as well be in the hands of your enemy?

 

Restrictions like not allowing me to learn the skills associated with gear I'm able to equip don't add anything to the game either. So the classes should either be rigidly defined (including the weapons you can equip), or they should all have the same freedom of choice. And then if you want to roleplay a dummy, you can just not put points in the skills that you don't want to. Problem solved

[Mockingword]

Yes, removing unnecessary class restrictions on gear would be a good thing.

None of the restrictions are "necessary", it's a conscious design decision.

[ioannisdenton]

NO. stop it. rpgs are changing. for the better. Dragon age too.

[sunnydxmen]

compared to the duel wielding skill set in Origins, the rogue doesn't have any good attacks for crowds control in DA:2 (except for those bombs skills the rogue can throw) and bringing back the old settings would allow the rogue to instantly switch between weapon sets without going to the menu.

 

I would also like the old class specializations, don't know why the arcane warrior was removed in DA:2 but with the improved combat mechanics in DA:2 it would look a lot better.

 

arcane warrior been replace knight enchanter for mage.

[Sylvius the Mad]

None of the restrictions are "necessary", it's a conscious design decision.

A bad one.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Was your character also stupid? So gob-smackingly dumb that he couldn't learn how to properly use the shield he carried around with him for the year or so over which the events of DA:O take place? Did he understand that a tool you don't know how to use might as well be in the hands of your enemy?

Restrictions like not allowing me to learn the skills associated with gear I'm able to equip don't add anything to the game either. So the classes should either be rigidly defined (including the weapons you can equip), or they should all have the same freedom of choice. And then if you want to roleplay a dummy, you can just not put points in the skills that you don't want to. Problem solved

He did know how to use it. He derived the same statistical benefit from it that an Arcane Warrior would have. It improved him in a way he deemed relevant. That he wanted to do it is literally all the justification I should need.

Would it be better if he could have learned some other shield-related skills? Yes. But that we don't get that second part is no reason to reject the first part.

The only class distinction that makes any sense in Thedas is mage vs non-mage. No other distinctions are warranted.

[Shadow Fox]

Roleplaying.

 

I had a Rogue in DAO who used a shield.  He did it to maximise his defense, without any regard for his attack.  He was a coward, and refused to learn any offensive talents.  During combat, he tended to hide in the back while the party did all the work.  And if he did face an opponent, his objective was to cower and wait to be rescued.

 

Being able to equip a shield was good for that.  In fact, DAO did one better by allowing him to carry a shield and NO WEAPON.

 

That character was the most satisfying character I have played in a CRPG in quite some time.  I loved that guy.

 

Restrictions (like not allowing characters to equip gear they can't use effectively) don't add anything to the game.  No one gains anything from not being able to do that.  So why would anyone want it?

I get a more enjoyable game then Origins because:

 

Classes aren't boring and generic and actually have effort put in them.

 

The Rogue's actually a viable class.and not just a walking lockpick.

 

So your statement is false right there.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I get a more enjoyable game then Origins because:

Classes aren't boring and generic and actually have effort put in them.

The Rogue's actually a viable class.and not just a walking lockpick.

So your statement is false right there.

Not at all. Those ends were acheived by adding ffeatures, not taking them away. You may well have enjoyed DA2's Rogues more, but you did so because of the things they could do (as you've just said), not because of the things they couldn't.

[philippe willaume]

And here goes again, the I WANT DW thread.

 

Forget warrior for a moment.

 

Why would you even want to make rogue as he was in DAO? He is perfect in DA2. Tbh I didn't like it at first because I thought it was too straight forward and needed Aveline, but when I gave it a try recently I was amazed. I actually do triple rogue nightmare runs. Isabela and Varric spamming fatiguing fog and chameleons breath and party becomes immortal.

 

Why would anyone want to revert it back to the idiotic "walk behind the enemy, backstab him, repeat, and don't use active skills because they suck while having 150 defense and being virtually untouchable". I played a DAO Nightmare run with rogue to make a perfect save for DA2 and I was bored out of my mind halfway into the game. At first without the gear and the impossibly high defense rating it was a challenge. Then I got double haste, enough +crit dmg, and 2 crushing prisons. Lol. Just prison the elites and backstab the grunts. By the time I reach the Archdemon I was drooling and my voice had a cartoonish feel.

 

I actually like how people here say that rogue could just get strength and wear massive or other dumb things like that. Rogue has 100% evasion with duelist and about 60 dexterity. He doesn't need massive armor. Truth is that Bioware didn't even bother with rogue class. Just designed Warrior, and then took warrior combat trees and added a few bullshit skills like 4 points stealth and 4 points disarm traps and made rogue. So rogue ended up being overpowered and broken as fk. Haha.

 

well you understand that you are taking the same argument and the same logic as the proponent of the point you dispute.

ie the rogue is this and not really that hence it is wrong to say it is "that".

 

The thing is a rogues is this and that according to who you speak to , and really since it is a role playing game, one should really be able to play something close to the version of the rogue he wants.

Be it a sneaky backstaby rogue or stealthy unarmored/lightly armored dual wielding combattant, that is kind the point of RPG.

 

and yes there might be a bit of feature and flavour overlapping with a Dueal wielding lightly armored warrior and a lightly armoured dual wielding rogue. and so what.

 

Was DA:0 just a broken as DA:2 in terms of uber-build and nightmare mode being more like a mildly unpleasant dream, yes it was. The strong point of DA:0 was that whatever build you wanted to role play was viable (with the use of tactics, traps and magic), the price for that was the uberness of any class build maximization.

(not mentioning group with more that one mages). now to be fair, DA:2 was about class buil maximization and you have a very restricted possibility to play anything deviating from the path of uberness (unless we take 30 minutes of slug-kite-gulp as nauseam as Role Playing

 

phil

[philippe willaume]

I get a more enjoyable game then Origins because:

 

Classes aren't boring and generic and actually have effort put in them.

 

The Rogue's actually a viable class.and not just a walking lockpick.

 

So your statement is false right there.

well i got a more enjoyable game out of origin because:

class were generic enough so i could role play what i wanted. (ie i put the effort making viable and specific to what I want).

In short that came from the build being generic enough to allow versatility  of a given build to be efficient enough for your build  adapt to the encounter and make it viable.

yes the way the game was designed helped by giving option to recon, use a refused echelon placement and used magic, trap and environment to funnel and manage the opposition.

The net result is that if you wanted to you could crate a Liliana build to be viable enough to do emergency tanking wilst being a good enough rogue archer.

 

for me the rogue and the warrior are utterly boring to play in DA:2 because once I have picked up a build I keep pressing the same cool down in the same order for the fracking duration of the 3 acts and on the top of that it is not really the character i wanted to play and i had much less tactical freedom in what i could accomplish

 

Silvius point is with a DA:O type of class set up (ie not necessarily the actual DA:0 setup)

you can build something close to DA:2 rogue and I can build my DA:O rogue and the game play gives us option to make it a viable and successful build

 

in a DA:2 type setup (save caveat as above)

if the rogue is not the rogue we like, we can get an apple in our moth because we are stuffed and ready to roast.

 

basically the more option a class is offering the more likely it is to be versatile in game play and the closer to what the want to play people will get. ie in a a RPG a restrictive approach to class design can only be counter-productive.

 

phil

[DisturbedJim83]

At some point you have to accept being told No !

Giving a Rogue the abilities of a Warrior makes the Rogue pointless 

Giving a Warrior the abilities of a Rogue reduces the rogue to a "walking lock pick"

Suppose BW caved in to this silly demand at what point will Sylvius and other uber roleplayers cease with these endless demands of "give me demand X cos roleplaying"

 

BW have decided on a direction so either accept it of find another franchise.

[Gtdef]

well you understand that you are taking the same argument and the same logic as the proponent of the point you dispute.

ie the rogue is this and not really that hence it is wrong to say it is "that".

 

The thing is a rogues is this and that according to who you speak to , and really since it is a role playing game, one should really be able to play something close to the version of the rogue he wants.

Be it a sneaky backstaby rogue or stealthy unarmored/lightly armored dual wielding combattant, that is kind the point of RPG.

 

and yes there might be a bit of feature and flavour overlapping with a Dueal wielding lightly armored warrior and a lightly armoured dual wielding rogue. and so what.

 

Was DA:0 just a broken as DA:2 in terms of uber-build and nightmare mode being more like a mildly unpleasant dream, yes it was. The strong point of DA:0 was that whatever build you wanted to role play was viable (with the use of tactics, traps and magic), the price for that was the uberness of any class build maximization.

(not mentioning group with more that one mages). now to be fair, DA:2 was about class buil maximization and you have a very restricted possibility to play anything deviating from the path of uberness (unless we take 30 minutes of slug-kite-gulp as nauseam as Role Playing

 

phil

 

 

I agree with you about the roleplaying part, but understand that asking for a class to be reverted back to a state where it's bland and exploitable is different than asking for less weapon restrictions so we can have more roleplaying options. My post is meant to explain the reasons why a player who enjoys the technical part more than the roleplaying part wouldn't want the DAI rogue to have anything to do with DAO one. Sure some may like it, but anyone can see how superior the DA2 rogue is and why this design should be picked for DAI.

 

Also like it or not, all the DA games penalize the player too much when he does something that his class doesn't support. Going for a heavy strength rogue build in DAO may be "viable" on lower difficulties, but it does less than half the damage of the dagger build and has way less defenses even with heavier armor. For me this means that the team has a very specific way of designing the combat of the game and restricting weapons is perfectly logical since that way they can focus better on balancing and animations.

 

For your example about 2 kinds of rogues, I don't understand why you can't do this on DA2. Is it the lack of swords and you don't like holding shorter weapons? Actually the talents of DA2 allow you to make more fleshed out stealther or duelist than DAO. It may not have swords, but it does have axes (need dlc for that thought). So other than the aesthetics of holding "daggers" (more like shortswords but w/e), your example has better representation in DA2.

 

As I've said on other threads, I actually hope that they will allow people to make their character hold any weapon they like. It doesn't have to change the way the class does damage, or even support it with different skill trees. Most people just want their warrior to hold two swords so he can look cool. If there was an option like "hide helmet" that changes the 2hander to look like 2 swords, I think most people would be pleased. It would be a silly fix and it will probably break immersion but personally I wouldn't care too much about it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

At some point you have to accept being told No !

Giving a Rogue the abilities of a Warrior makes the Rogue pointless 

Giving a Warrior the abilities of a Rogue reduces the rogue to a "walking lock pick"

Suppose BW caved in to this silly demand at what point will Sylvius and other uber roleplayers cease with these endless demands of "give me demand X cos roleplaying"

 

BW have decided on a direction so either accept it of find another franchise.

I want people to know that a class-based system is not the only way to build these games.  I want people to know that classes don't need to be tied to combat roles.  Otherwise, gamers will begin to assume that all classes have pre-defined combat roles, and that's bad for roleplaying, and it's bad for replayability.

 

Why should a class be restricted to a specific playstyle?  In DAO, Rogues made very effective tanks.  Warriors made very effective archers.  Mages excelled at a whole lot of things.

 

I would like more options, not fewer.

 

And no, I don't need to accept BioWare's direction.  I'm aware of BioWare's chosen direction, but I've been happy to tell them - for the past 15 years or so - when they've made decisions with which I disagree.  Ideally, I'd like to see them make a game that takes all the best parts of BG, NWN, KotOR, DAO, and ME and puts them together.  But that requires that we not forget what the good parts of those older games were, even when BioWare hasn't used some of those systems in over a decade.

[DaySeeker]

Rogues were close to useless in DAO.  The rogue skills they had were hard to use effectively.  If we are going to delete all difference between classes then why even have them?  If you want a warrior don't call it a rogue. I will say again, Dragon Age is a party based system.  One does not need a character that can do anything.  It's also story based, so role-playing a coward would be strange and dissonant with the rest of the dialogue and story itself.  I want my game to workand my build to be successful whole game.  Opening everything up is chaos.  I would rather have classes that are separate and independent of each other, so when playing I see and feel a difference.  DA2 was a vast improvment in that I felt successful in each class and each one was a different type of play.  My rogue- felt rougish and not like a wimpy fighter.  

[DisturbedJim83]

I want people to know that a class-based system is not the only way to build these games.  I want people to know that classes don't need to be tied to combat roles.  Otherwise, gamers will begin to assume that all classes have pre-defined combat roles, and that's bad for roleplaying, and it's bad for replayability.

 

Why should a class be restricted to a specific playstyle?  In DAO, Rogues made very effective tanks.  Warriors made very effective archers.  Mages excelled at a whole lot of things.

 

I would like more options, not fewer.

 

And no, I don't need to accept BioWare's direction.  I'm aware of BioWare's chosen direction, but I've been happy to tell them - for the past 15 years or so - when they've made decisions with which I disagree.  Ideally, I'd like to see them make a game that takes all the best parts of BG, NWN, KotOR, DAO, and ME and puts them together.  But that requires that we not forget what the good parts of those older games were, even when BioWare hasn't used some of those systems in over a decade.

Erm sorry to burst your bubble but:

1) Its Bioware's game not your's so yes you do have to accept it

2) Its Bioware IP so yes you do have to accept their direction

3) Did I forget to mention that as Holders of said IP the final decision on direction is Bioware's and at no point are they required to even acknowledge your demand.

 

That's not the main issue though here Sylvius, the issue is this you are choosing to RP outside of "established parameters" your expecting and demanding BG well sorry but this is not BG its DA and the way it works is there are 3 Classes Warrior, Rogue and Mage and what your "demanding" is that Warrior and Rogue be "melted" into 1 class.

 

There are many valid reasons for have 3 "distinct" classes like balancing so that the game is neither too easy or too difficult.

What your doing is equivalent to a child stomping their foot on the floor while wailing " I don't care why, I want, I must have, YOU WILL GIVE!"

If you can't RP within the limits of the game then that's your problem because as IRL you can't always have your cake and eat it.

 

Until such time as you gain control of the Franchise you have 2 choices:

1) Accept the direction the owners take that franchise in

2)Vote with your wallet and move on to something else

 

Again sorry to be blunt but this tired old donkey of a topic has been flogged over and over since they days when DA2 was released its highly unlikely that they will return to the system you propose and asking for it in DAI this late in development is preposterous so why bother asking ? 

[Ribosome]

I don't know if I'm in the minority or not, but I enjoyed warrior significantly more in DA2 compared to origins. Take this with a grain of salt, but I feel like not a lot of people actually used archer warriors....the specs just didn't seem to support that playstyle at all. It felt superfluous. 

 

I personally never cared about rogues either way. 

[Mykel54]

I enjoyed rogues in DAO way more than warriors, particularly when dual wielding. My dwarf rogue wore medium armor and a sword + dagger, and fought mostly like a warrior would, except going behind the enemy for backstabs.

 

In DA2, rogues suddenly starting fighting like flying ninjas so i had to play a warrior to somewhat reduce the sillyness level.

 

After seeing in DAI a PC rogue jumping forward, i have little hope that Bioware will go back to the more down to earth and realistic animations.

[Pistolized]

There are multitudes of different fighting styles, but they are represented by only three classes.  The specializations help broaden them, but restrictions leaves a lot of options off the table.

 

For example, people usually think of assassin, bard, and thief when they think "Rogue."  But I say a Rogue can be more like a Three-Musketeer type of fighter (and more).  Wearing bright colors, swinging through windows, disarming opponents, providing support, yelling: "Hey look at me!" before running back to a tight corridor.  No stealth, no backstabbing, just flair and talent.  That would require a mix of 'strength,' 'dexterity,' and 'cunning' ideally.  And it would allow light/medium armors, shields, and many non-dagger weapon options.

 

The same can be said for Warriors and Mages.  Sure, a Mage will probably never be able to effectively wield anything more than a shortsword or small-shield, but they "might" learn some techniques in the things that they can use (at the expense of magical training).  I mean; the "Arcane-Warrior" already exists and doesn't bother anybody, so why not the other two classes?

 

Even if it won't specifically happen in this game, I believe this in theory, and I don't understand why people think the classes must be railroaded.  

[Mirrman70]

I am an adamant opponent of the Arcane Warrior, because OP. if you mix Arcane Warrior with Blood Mage you can be an unstoppable force of destruction. However the other 2 classes don't have specializations that create nearly as much OPness. I hope that Knight enchanter isn't so much a warrior mage as a CQC mage. like floating magical swords made of fire or something.