159 réponses à ce sujet

[Gtdef]

Going on google does take away the guesswork of "should i bring him or her" but it really takes away from the immersion. and even if it is alot of lesser value loot, money is hard to come by (you can never get enough  ) and it always will be the question of "what if" or what it could be...

 

I disagree about money. With stone prisoner and warden's keep dlc I can get about 800 gold in a DAO playthrough. That's way more than enough. I doubt that the net gold gain from chests is more than 40-50 gold for the 4 mains quests. It doesn't really worth it imo. Truth is I always bring a rogue with me cause I like the bard buffs but after the first 1-2 main quests, I don't even open the chests.

 

As for what it could be, in DAO the best weapon you can really get is the Crow Dagger. But there are too many of them laying around ^^. Also you may get lucky with the gemstones and get some few extra gold. For DA2 you can't get anything that a vendor doesn't sell. I'm pretty sure that they use the same rng rules.

[Sidney]

Really it is less about looitng of what is almost 100% trash it is just that in order to do so the process of swapping to another party member when you are not a rogue is a minor PiTA. Either let anyone open locks or else have the rogue automatically do it.

[Elite Midget]

 

Because both bash and open lock magic are used as resources. Not everyone can bash a door. If it has protection then only very strong attacks can bash it, plus you can't bash metal doors. And open lock, is used in a system where you have to prepare spells. It's limited. Your version of bash and open lock are limitless. Convenient. Not the same.

 

Bringing a rogue spec'ed to unlock is managing resources. Lose something, gain something. Even if it's cliche and tiring, it serves a purpose. Having every class getting through locks and disarming traps serves nothing. Only makes the whole "locked" concept pointless.

 

Bringing a mage with you gives you better control. Bringing a warrior gives more meat to protect the squishies. Bringing a rogue with you increases monetary gain and allows you to disarm traps. And if you wish to, you can bring a rogue later to backtrack.

 

 

 

 

You can beat DAO and DA2 without having rogue and opening locks. I can't really see why the comparison is relevant. You compare 2 different things. Beating the game is the point, opening the locks is optional. If you want a quest reward, you do the quest. You don't complain that quests are limiting cause you can't get gear.

 

And as I pointed out in the post you quoted, you don't get punished at all in DA2, unless your definition of "punishment" is having to bring a rogue in 4 areas that later become inaccessible, and the game forces a rogue on you for 3 of them.

 

Your only valid point is the xp, but it's pretty small in comparison.

Your point? You can beat the game without ever bringing a Warrior or Mage.

 

Point is that if you don't bring a Rogue ALL THE TIME you will be denied a lot of Experience, Coin, Items, Ingredients, materials, and the such which DOES effect the game a great deal as a party that has a Rogue all the time in it completely and utterly surpasses a party that has a Mage or warrior 24/7. A Rogue being needed, due to how much of a reward they grant, is very restricting yo the party structure. Especially in multiple playthroughs.

[Roar Hilmarsen]

Really it is less about looitng of what is almost 100% trash it is just that in order to do so the process of swapping to another party member when you are not a rogue is a minor PiTA. Either let anyone open locks or else have the rogue automatically do it.

Yes and people are always bringing up that you can just take a rogue and run through the earlier accessed content, but thats not 100 % true, since some areas are locked forever and just the fact that you HAVE to go back to a place (and DA:i is going to be HUGE) is very, VERY annoying.

[Roar Hilmarsen]

I disagree about money. With stone prisoner and warden's keep dlc I can get about 800 gold in a DAO playthrough. That's way more than enough. I doubt that the net gold gain from chests is more than 40-50 gold for the 4 mains quests. It doesn't really worth it imo. Truth is I always bring a rogue with me cause I like the bard buffs but after the first 1-2 main quests, I don't even open the chests.

 

As for what it could be, in DAO the best weapon you can really get is the Crow Dagger. But there are too many of them laying around ^^. Also you may get lucky with the gemstones and get some few extra gold. For DA2 you can't get anything that a vendor doesn't sell. I'm pretty sure that they use the same rng rules.

But just visa versa, if its NOT importain (for you obviously, it is for me) then why not allow everyone to open locks and doors anyways??

[Realmzmaster]

Let's do away with all locked doors or chests. If a game is going to give every class the ability to open doors or chests there is no point in having them.

 

Let every chest and door of importance have guards. The rogue can use stealth abilities to neutralize the guards without rising an alarm unless detected. The warrior can use warrior abilities to take out the guards but there is a possibility of alarming the entire area of the party's presence. The mage can use spells like sleep to disable the guards providing the guards fail the mental resistance check.

 

That way no class will miss the chance to collect items from behind doors or in chests.

[Icy Magebane]

Let's do away with all locked doors or chests. If a game is going to give every class the ability to open doors or chests there is no point in having them.

 

Let every chest and door of importance have guards. The rogue can use stealth abilities to neutralize the guards without rising an alarm unless detected. The warrior can use warrior abilities to take out the guards but there is a possibility of alarming the entire area of the party's presence. The mage can use spells like sleep to disable the guards providing the guards fail the mental resistance check.

 

That way no class will miss the chance to collect items from behind doors or in chests.

That's fine if it means I don't have to have a rogue in my party.  Honestly, if you're willing to go this far you may as well accept the logic of a fireball or the butt end of a battleaxe destroying a locked wooden door.  It's much simpler to just give all classes some means of opening chests and doors...  heck, I don't even mind if you have a few reinforced, magically warded chests/doors, that only a master thief can reasonably break into.  However, ignoring logic in favor of an arbitrary game mechanic that only exists to inflate the importance of rogues is taking it too far.

[Gtdef]

Your point? You can beat the game without ever bringing a Warrior or Mage.

 

Point is that if you don't bring a Rogue ALL THE TIME you will be denied a lot of Experience, Coin, Items, Ingredients, materials, and the such which DOES effect the game a great deal as a party that has a Rogue all the time in it completely and utterly surpasses a party that has a Mage or warrior 24/7. A Rogue being needed, due to how much of a reward they grant, is very restricting yo the party structure. Especially in multiple playthroughs.

 

No you won't. You will be denied some trivialities. It doesn't utterly surpass anything. You have the option to backtrack and a party without rogue companions is way stronger than one with them. There are 2 encounters with a lot of traps in the game. They net about 500-600 experience. Just keep some runes and give them to mages, atta boy.

 

I already posted how "important" rewards you get from bringing a rogue in the 4 main quests. At best is 10-12 gold per main quest. The vast majority of gold, you get from weapon drops.

 

Also my point is that you are comparing different things to make a point. And you are exaggerating the usefulness of opening locks by a lot. 

 

 

 

But just visa versa, if its NOT importain (for you obviously, it is for me) then why not allow everyone to open locks and doors anyways??

 

If everyone can do it why have it in the game? I explained earlier than limiting it becomes a resource. It's something that you don't need to do. If you feel so strongly about it bring a rogue or backtrack.

[Sylvius the Mad]

No, what breaks the game is Rogues being MANDATORY and the player being SEVERELY punished for not having a Rogue in their party all the time. Furthermore unlocking things via other methods than lock-picking isn't anywhere near game breaking.

I wouldn't describe missing out on those chests as a severe punishment, but let's set that aside.  Let's assume missing out on the chests is a severe punishment.

 

How about we add in similar penalties for not having other classes around?  If you don't have a mage when you pass through an area, you don't notice the magical anomaly that grants some sort of relevantly similar opportunity.  Would that be better?

 

Is your complaint that some party constructions miss out on content, or that only Rogues have this problem?

[Realmzmaster]

That's fine if it means I don't have to have a rogue in my party.  Honestly, if you're willing to go this far you may as well accept the logic of a fireball or the butt end of a battleaxe destroying a locked wooden door.  It's much simpler to just give all classes some means of opening chests and doors...  heck, I don't even mind if you have a few reinforced, magically warded chests/doors, that only a master thief can reasonably break into.  However, ignoring logic in favor of an arbitrary game mechanic that only exists to inflate the importance of rogues is taking it too far.

 

I stated in a post before that I am fine with bashing doors/locks and using spells to open doors/locks as long as there is a penalty for doing so. If a chest contains fragile items then breaking the lock on the chest by force should cause a percentage chance that the fragile contents break. The more sturdier contents will remain, but the only thing left of the fragile items will be shards.

 

The same with a knock or open lock spell there should be a chance of failure. If the chest is warded, the percentage of failure increases with the difference in levels between the warder and the one trying to open the chest with a spell. There is also the possibility of setting off a trap if the chest/door/lock is trapped.

 

If the door/chest/lock is trapped then the trap should go off if the warrior attempts to bash open the door.

If the warrior bashes open a door the sound should alert any guards in the area to come and investigate. 

 

If the rogue does not have sufficient skill then the chest cannot be opened or it is jammed. There is a chance a trapped chest will be set off.

 

Otherwise eliminate the need for locked chests and doors, that way people can skip the rogue since that appears to be the point of this thread. 

[Realmzmaster]

That's fine if it means I don't have to have a rogue in my party.  Honestly, if you're willing to go this far you may as well accept the logic of a fireball or the butt end of a battleaxe destroying a locked wooden door.  It's much simpler to just give all classes some means of opening chests and doors...  heck, I don't even mind if you have a few reinforced, magically warded chests/doors, that only a master thief can reasonably break into.  However, ignoring logic in favor of an arbitrary game mechanic that only exists to inflate the importance of rogues is taking it too far.

 

So if Bioware puts in a condition where only mages could see and access certain magical anomalies and any objects that were contained within would that be okay? Because that would require a mage be in the party at all times to see the anomalies and content or require backtracking. 

[SardaukarElite]

How about we add in similar penalties for not having other classes around?  If you don't have a mage when you pass through an area, you don't notice the magical anomaly that grants some sort of relevantly similar opportunity.  Would that be better?

 

 

Which seems to be what they are doing, or similar. I approve.

 

---

 

If they had a working stealth system, lockpicking could be silent, allowing you to get the jump on foes in the next room. Other classes wouldn't be limited, but bringing a lockpicker would add another tactical option.

[Mirrman70]

Has anybody mentioned that quest in DA2 where the only way to completely prove that the templar kid is demon free is to bring along Anders or Merrill?

[Icy Magebane]

I stated in a post before that I am fine with bashing doors/locks and using spells to open doors/locks as long as there is a penalty for doing so. If a chest contains fragile items then breaking the lock on the chest by force should cause a percentage chance that the fragile contents break. The more sturdier contents will remain, but the only thing left of the fragile items will be shards.

 

-snip-

IMO your suggestion here is ideal... I was only saying that removing locked containers entirely and replacing them with guards was going too far.  The idea behind locked areas and chests is sound, but when every alternative to lockpicking is simply ignored, it starts getting unrealistic (yes, I just used that word after proposing tossing a fireball or two...).  Guards are a good idea for restricted areas, of course, but not chests that have been sitting in an ancient ruin for a few hundred years.

 

So if Bioware puts in a condition where only mages could see and access certain magical anomalies and any objects that were contained within would that be okay? Because that would require a mage be in the party at all times to see the anomalies and content or require backtracking. 

I don't know if that second post was actually a meant for me, but I don't agree with any system that forces us to use characters of a specific class to solve a problem that could be solved by other classes.  It's that simple.  If there's no other way to spot these anomalies, fine, but does it really have to be that way?  How about, instead, we hire a scholar to research some means of detecting them without needing a mage on hand?  A talisman perhaps?  A short quest to gather components for its creation?   If we're going to arbitrarily include invisible magical anomalies then we may as well come up with an alternative way of dealing with them... otherwise I don't see how it would add anything to the game.  It just makes mages more important for no legitimate reason.

 

Of course, this is really just a problem caused by the DA series' tendency to severely limit our options for earning gold and exp.  It probably won't matter too much since DA:I seems to be taking a different approach, but you never know...  Like I said before, if I don't need to worry about scraping up every possible coin because I bought a high-priced amulet and then found one with slightly higher stats a few towns over, then I don't really care what's in the chests.  There's no limit on how many wolves I can kill to earn exp towards the level cap?  The exp from chests becomes meaningless to me.  Etc...

[Roar Hilmarsen]

Ok, so far i can summarize short for you, i want one or a few solutions to the lockpicking issue. 

 

one:  remove the locks entirely from the game.

two: have everyone be able to open it (via their own skill and requirement, a puzzle (optional), guards/traps/triggerevent

 

 

 

things i dont want to se: requirement for a single class - even if it is the class i enjoy playing, it is not fair towards the two other classes IE having ONLY warriors be able to bash locks and mages and rogues not able to. or having a mage detect hidden objects and the warrior or rogue not. 

i dont wanna se overly complicated a simple issue. (dont want the game to revolve around frekin chests, fix this to finally get to your +wisdom dagger :'( )

i dont wanna lose Loot because one skill is better then the other (same as earlier issue in my opinion, just a lesser extent of it). - tho i am open for it to get broken and be able to fix it for a penny (without it losing sell reward - aka fix = use it on my characters, sell it be able to get same amount of loot as before without fixing it)

 

 

Also note that the people voting against the universal lockpicking seems to be in favor of having rogues beeing unique to that role due to the fact that they fith the "Lockpicking" trait. and that the value of the chestcontent is minor. 

 

to this i wanna say that i agree that a rogue most certainly is fithing to that role but, still feel like its a trait everyone should be able to learn, or atleast an alternativ

 

when it comes to the money issue, i feel like the gold im missing out on and the "useless" items im also missing out on is something i MISS OUT ON! i want to explore and unlock everything i come across without beeing removed the option of bringing certain group members and combos of groupmembers. It is still value and if that value is 10 gold, then the rogue will always be worth 10gold more then a warrior, which is NOT fair to a warrior. ive stated before, when you bring a rogue OVER a warrior it should be because the playstyle fiths you better and his / Her abilities makes the encounter play out differently in such a way that you your self, feel like it goes better. the tactics should differ which resaults in a different experiance. while traveling it should not add more then his/her persona to the conversations. otherwise you will have to windows out of game, find out were you need a rogue, waste a whole lot of time bringing them back and forth to pick up loot which should be accessable (not usable, but accessable) to everyone (its a game), and its just a annoying experiance overall. if you wanna run 2 warriors 2 mages, and you have to go back to camp everytime you find a chest to pick up a rogue, or just having them forced to be there when you really dont want it, for ones own reasons is just lame. - in lack of better words.

[Elite Midget]

Lockpicking really needs a look at.

 

Reminds me of the Mage Origin where Lily mentions that a Locked Door should be nothing to a Mage.

 

Yet there's no Unlock Spell for Mages, or them to simply open it based upon their Magic stat, thus Doors and chests that are locked aren't "nothing" to Mages, kinda sad isn't it? Even the characters don't see Locked Doors/Chests as a barrier to those with magic but that didn't translate into gameplay.

 

 

I wouldn't describe missing out on those chests as a severe punishment, but let's set that aside.  Let's assume missing out on the chests is a severe punishment.

 

How about we add in similar penalties for not having other classes around?  If you don't have a mage when you pass through an area, you don't notice the magical anomaly that grants some sort of relevantly similar opportunity.  Would that be better?

 

Is your complaint that some party constructions miss out on content, or that only Rogues have this problem?

No, that's overly complicating the issue and punishing players for not always having a Warrior, Mage and Rogue type in their party 24/7 ergo making the problem even larger than it currently is here you need a Rogue type 24/7.

[RustyW]

Isn't one of biowares key things, that your choices 'mean' something? So if you do not pick a Rogue, then tough, if you are not a Rogue tough, you can not open that chest/door.

What would be unfair, if by not having that option is having a massive advantage over other who do have a rogue, from the posts I have seen it does not suggest that is the case. Bioware surely can not be that blind to know if they have created an unbalanced game in favour of rogues.

I am sure they know what they are doing?

p.s I am going warrior.

[metatheurgist]

Isn't one of biowares key things, that your choices 'mean' something? So if you do not pick a Rogue, then tough, if you are not a Rogue tough, you can not open that chest/door.

That is not a meaningful choice. It's (bad) arbitrary class design. Like saying Warriors (despite being the Masters of Combat) suddenly can't use bows or fight with 2 weapons.

[Magdalena11]

The way I view lock bash is that it rewards players for saying they shouldn't have to need certain skills to win.  They're right.  Without mages there would be no heal spell and without warriors a party is going to be at a disadvantage in combat.  If choosing to play without a rogue means the contents of a few chests is unabailable, I can't see why that's a game-breaking imbalance.

[Sidney]

The way I view lock bash is that it rewards players for saying they shouldn't have to need certain skills to win.  They're right.  Without mages there would be no heal spell and without warriors a party is going to be at a disadvantage in combat.  If choosing to play without a rogue means the contents of a few chests is unabailable, I can't see why that's a game-breaking imbalance.

 

 

Is the entire point of the rogue lockpicking though? That seems to be a weakness in the design if that is the sole reason you have them. In DAO that, to a large degree, was their sole value because short of lockpicking/traps they were just inferior warriors since they had the same combat skills - I took Leliana along because she had archery but I could have truned any of my warriors into archers to better effect. In DA2 they had a different and very valuable skillset that made them immensely useful as damagers so I might choose Isabella over Fenris for that purpose.

 

The loot in the chests is to me much less valuable than the insanely overvalued XP you get from disarming traps and opening chests - I totally change mny combat tactics with traps and take more hits than need be to "preserve" traps for disarming. Maybe that is the part of the answer warriors and mages can open chest but since it isn't a "skill" you get nothing for doing it that way,

[Icy Magebane]

The loot in the chests is to me much less valuable than the insanely overvalued XP you get from disarming traps and opening chests - I totally change mny combat tactics with traps and take more hits than need be to "preserve" traps for disarming. Maybe that is the part of the answer warriors and mages can open chest but since it isn't a "skill" you get nothing for doing it that way,

This was always one of my biggest objections.

[Doozerpindan]

I agree that each class should have its own unlocking ability/spell/talent/whatever.

 

I mean, I always play a rogue in DA games, but it would be nice to be able to pick locks with any class as I am a loot ****** and completionist/collector/hoarder when it comes to any game, especially RPGs.

 

Just please, for the love of god, don't turn lockpicking into some bullshit mini-game, because it is NEVER fun. Never.

[Lady Luminous]

I don't mind not being able to open things myself, but I want a rogue in the party who can open them. 

 

So if I miss recruiting Lelianna in Lothering (who has two skill points in lock-picking) and don't get to pick-up Zev until about a third through (who has no skill-points in thievery at all, which is as irritating as frick) then I basically miss opening chests for almost half the game, unless I buy tomes to give to Zev. 

 

It's just not fair that Zevran claims to be this amazing thief, and then has no skills to back up his claims. 

[Icy Magebane]

I don't mind not being able to pen things myself, but I want a rogue in the party who can open them. 

 

So if I miss recruiting Lelianna in Lothering (who has two skill points in lock-picking) and don't get to pick-up Zev until about a third through (who has no skill-points in thievery at all, which is as irritating as frick) then I basically miss opening chests for almsot half the game, unless I buy tomes to give to Zev. 

 

It's just not fair that Zevran claims to be this amazing thief, and then has no skills to back up his claims. 

lol... yes, I remember him specifically saying that he was "skilled at picking locks," but then when I hired him I find out he didn't have a single point invested in device mastery.  Eh... maybe I should have expected a shady guy like him to lie during his job interview. 

[Lady Luminous]

lol... yes, I remember him specifically saying that he was "skilled at picking locks," but then when I hired him I find out he didn't have a single point invested in device mastery.  Eh... maybe I should have expected a shady guy like him to lie during his job interview. 

 

And then if I go up to a chest he's all suave and "I can do that for you. *wink*" and I'm all "No you can't, you lying liar-face!"