146 réponses à ce sujet

[Gamemako]

Why not?

Exactly the question I've been asking.

..it's time to go back to the design board.

It's never time to leave the design board. Always strive to improve, if not for now, then for the future.

[badboy64]

I will stick with daggers for my rogue. I like speed and agility with my rogues and carrying light weapons do just nicely.

[Araceil]

I still want a single straight sword style for rogues... or katanas. Those will do as well. 

[TheLastSuperSaiyan87]

I wish warriors could dual wield again like in Origins, I hate two handed weapons and I'm not a fan of a weapon and shield either  

[The Night Haunter]

One pair... that you had to buy... with real world money.

Actually there was at least one single axe you could find! 

 

However, what I find most silly is that axe can't be used by warriors. And warrior's axes (single handed) can't be used by rogues. There must be a class key slot on the weapon so it doesn't activate for anyone of the opposite class.

Wait a minute...

[Puppy Love]

Fish, we can use fish.  Is like a sap, we use it to knock out opponents so we can question them later.  Once we're done with that, we have dinner.  The fish, not the prisoners.

[The Night Haunter]

Fish, we can use fish.  Is like a sap, we use it to knock out opponents so we can question them later.  Once we're done with that, we have dinner.  The fish, not the prisoners.

Damn! Roasted Templar sounded so good tonight...

[Puppy Love]

Damn! Roasted Templar sounded so good tonight...

 

There's a fish called the Monk Fish, I know it's not quite the same, but will it do?

[The Night Haunter]

There's a fish called the Monk Fish, I know it's not quite the same, but will it do?

Close enough. Tasty white monk flesh here I come!

[Rawgrim]

Hopefully they can at least hold a greatsword this time. Its up to the player what kind of weapon his own character should use, after all. Being forced to play as ninja\gummi-bear again would suck.

[Puppy Love]

Rogue + Two handed sword....  Sorry I don't see it.  Never seen anything even similar to that description.  Is a weapon pretty much counter to everything about how rogues fight.

 

However, if it's what you want I suppose.  I just don't imagine them making rogue based talents to support it...

 

I once played a dwarf rogue with a great halberd so I'm not really one to argue about this...

[Rawgrim]

Rogue + Two handed sword....  Sorry I don't see it.  Never seen anything even similar to that description.  Is a weapon pretty much counter to everything about how rogues fight.

 

However, if it's what you want I suppose.  I just don't imagine them making rogue based talents to support it...

 

I once played a dwarf rogue with a great halberd so I'm not really one to argue about this...

 

No its not. That depends fully on the type of rogue you are playing. Conan used a greatsword plenty during his rogue\thief years. Robin Hood uses a longsword as often as he uses his bow. Plenty of famous ones not using just daggers.

 

The game doesn't need to have talents to support it, though. Just the possebility of wielding the various weapons.

[metatheurgist]

Because rogue combat is more about dexterity and aiming for vital points if you want a lore reason.  Blunt weapons and axes generally don't facilitate that kind of combat style since they do tend to be a bit heavier at one end and not nearly as balanced as daggers and one handed swords.

Rogue combat used to be about sneaking up on people and smacking them from behind, because rogues weren't supposed to get in combat. The whirling blender rogue only came about because action games.

Buckler shield talent tree for rogues (for anyone interested, buckler shields work different than standard full cover shields in combat so it wouldn't be a warrioresque talent).

All combat is domain of the warrior. Otherwise they shouldn't be called warriors. They should be called dabblers, or dilettantes or specialists.

[AlanC9]

Rogue combat used to be about sneaking up on people and smacking them from behind, because rogues weren't supposed to get in combat. The whirling blender rogue only came about because action games.

I dunno. A D&D 3.0 rogue can get that yummy SA damage in other ways besides sneaking up on people and smacking them from behind. They're meant to fight. I never thought the AD&D class balance worked all that well anyway. (Can't speak for other class-based systems since when my group abandoned AD&D we went to classless systems. Of course, once you've dumped class systems "rogue" isn't meaningful anymore.)

And "all combat is the domain of the warrior"? Wizards blowing people up isn't "combat"? Monks smacking people upside the head isn't "combat"? Do you maybe mean just a particular kind of combat? (I don't mean to imply agreement with rogues getting shield talent trees; I'd have to see an actual proposition first.)

[Deflagratio]

Blunt weapons are not for rogues

 

Strangely, Blunt weapons were all bandits wielded in Oblivion.

 

 

Personally I don't think class is defined by weapon, but by fighting style... To that effect I don't like class restricted weapons. I think you can get a lot of mileage out of atypical weapon-class mixes, like some people mention with Oberyn Martell. A rogue by all accounts, from poison usage, focus on mobility and precision strikes, yet uses a weapon not typically associated with the Rogue identity.

 

Obviously at this stage of development there's not much point in going on about it. I'm sure some people want to see it only from their angle anyway, and ignore details like preserving class identities and roles within the gameplay, or having underdeveloped options available. For example, simply unlocking all weapon types to all classes, but Warriors still only get the abilities for Two-Handed weapons, weapon and shield, while Rogues still only get Ranged talents, dual daggers/weapons. It'd be trading one issue for another at that point.

 

Personally if I were to suggest a compromise, it would be to take out the weapon trees from classes and stick them in their own field, and apply attribute bonuses that put incentive towards smart builds (IE: Cunning, Dexterity, Strength for Blades. Strength, Vitality for Blunt). Of course, the downside is that's hard to balance without using techniques like Softcapping (Set points of diminishing returns, Dark Souls/II uses these a lot, which really compensates for the near unreachable levelcap and has the added effect of checking power creep without completely stifling progression)

[Stiler]

They really should just make weapons , like armor, something separate from classes.

 

The "Class" you pick should NOT determine the weapon or armour you can equip and use.

 

Your class should merely determine the abilities you can learn and the sub-classes you can unlock from there.

 

Weapon/armour talents should be separate and open to all imo.

 

If you want to make a warrior who uses a stave, go right ahead, if you want to play a one handed sword/shield rogue, go ahead. How well will it work? Well up to you,  but it should be the players choice imo not hte game telling them "you can't do that," especially when a game in the series already allowed for this in some ways (IE two dual wield rogues/warriors in DA:O).

 

I just really really miss my dual wielding warrior from DA:O, by far my favorite class and style of play, a front-line up in your face fighter that played NOTHING like a rogue, yet Bioware deems them too "similar" and has to "restrict" them in order to make them different? Makes no sense, if people wnat to play a rogue let them, if you want to play a dual wielding warrior let them, WHY DOES IT MATTER?

 

It just baffles me why some rpg mechanics have to be held back fromt he players when the entire base point of an rpg, the core factor that almost anyone can define an rpg as is to take a character and build/shape it to what YOU, the player, want it to be.

[Gamemako]

All combat is domain of the warrior. Otherwise they shouldn't be called warriors. They should be called dabblers, or dilettantes or specialists.

Isn't it a little silly that warriors are supposed to train for decades to learn to gracelessly bash each other on the head? In any case, the entire rogue distinction is remarkably silly in DA and has been since DA:O. If you look, the recently-released DA:I class descriptions are also identical for warriors and rogues. It's high time BioWare abandoned it entirely and rebuilt the system to offer greater freedom to players.

As for weaponry, I'd totally be game for all kinds of novel weapons, but I think feature creep takes over pretty quickly from the 5-6 styles we already have. I love katars as weapons, even if they are a bit out-of-place in many settings. Urumi are another thing I never see in games that would be ridiculously awesome to bring up, but getting the animations right would be hellish. And chakrams, too! Ancient weapons from that region don't get nearly enough love in gaming.

//EDIT:

If you want to make a warrior who uses a stave, go right ahead...

Staves are the one thing I have trouble with. They're a ranged weapon with staff bolts from mages, which makes them comparable to bows. A mage would never use a bow if he can do the same thing with a staff, and a warrior would never use a staff when he could use a weapon -- *dons sunglasses* -- with a point.

[metatheurgist]

And "all combat is the domain of the warrior"? Wizards blowing people up isn't "combat"? Monks smacking people upside the head isn't "combat"? Do you maybe mean just a particular kind of combat?

Absolutely! You can make a grenadier in D&D, there's even a feat for it. Fighters can also take improved unarmed strike and superior unarmed strike. What the fighter can't do is summon balls of fire and cloak himself in invisibility because that's magic or pass through walls and heal himself using his mind because that's some sort of Zen thing. But he can fight and use ranged weapons because he's a -wait for it- warrior.

[Burricho]

Rogue combat used to be about sneaking up on people and smacking them from behind, because rogues weren't supposed to get in combat. The whirling blender rogue only came about because action games.


All combat is domain of the warrior. Otherwise they shouldn't be called warriors. They should be called dabblers, or dilettantes or specialists.

Oh yeah, because DAO's stealth system was GREAT.

 

if warriors are the only one's who can fight somone, then warriors should be the only class. 

[Gamemako]

if warriors are the only one's who can fight somone, then warriors should be the only class.

I'm all for removing rogues. Seriously, off them. They make no sense anyway. Mages and warriors are all we need in lore.

[Vulpe]

Wit and charm

[mentos]

Rogues were boring as hell in DA2 the only reason I played one was because of the lockpicking skill but I have a feeling they'll give them a makeover in DA:I

[Rawgrim]

I'm all for removing rogues. Seriously, off them. They make no sense anyway. Mages and warriors are all we need in lore.

 

Bards and assassins fit into the lore very well.

[Rawgrim]

No I mean I just cannot picture any kind of rogue in any game with a blunt weapon. I automatically associate rogues with sharp weapons. Blunt weapons dont have the finesse of a blade. 

 

Clubbing someone down from behind is very very rogue-like.