146 réponses à ce sujet

[Lukas Trevelyan]

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.

 

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.

 

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

So much win.

[Gamemako]

Bards and assassins fit into the lore very well.

Bards and assassins are not "rogues", they're bards and assassins. Rogues do not exist in lore. There is no group or style associated with rogues, as that would make absolutely no sense with human nobles and Dalish elves sharing a common style. It is a gameplay element.

[LaughingWolf]

I just want to wield a single sword like a rapier and act like a pirate!

[metatheurgist]

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

Totally agree! High 5, chest bump, let's make it happen bro!

[Sylvius the Mad]

Bards and assassins fit into the lore very well.

Bards could be warriors. And Assassins could be warriors or mages.

[SolNebula]

I hope cross-bows are not a Varric exclusive would love to use that instead of the bow for my rogue

[AlanC9]

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.

 

So "combat" meant "physical combat with no magic except for enchanted weapons"? OK.

 

I'm still not clear what you're pushing here. You really want to go back to AD&D rogues?

[AlanC9]

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

 

 

Why stop there? Let's go classless.

[Iakus]

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.)

I think the point is supposed to be that fighters are supposed to...fight.

[Joseph Warrick]

Was Bruce Lee a rogue? You know that thing he did with the sticks.

[Gamemako]

Why stop there? Let's go classless.

Well, mages and non-mages are fundamentally different in lore. You can't really overcome that without opening magic to all in the storyline or ham-handedly forcing every player character and companion involved to be mages or non-mages. Even if you could, you have to deal with the other issues with making everyone classless in a party-based game.

[Magdalena11]

I can see a woodsman/scout/ranger dual wielding a hand-ax and dagger or two axes easily.  

[saMoorai]

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.

I can see a Warrior using a Staff as a melee weapon, and an Arcane Archer is one of my favorite things in Fantasy settings.

[Puppy Love]

I will admit to wanting a melee option that's not dual wielding though.  Never been a fan of it.

[TheUnum]

I just wanted to know if any weapons other than daggers and bows have been announced yet I'm guessing not?

[Gamemako]

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

Very Garrett-like, specifically.

I can see a Warrior using a Staff as a melee weapon, and an Arcane Archer is one of my favorite things in Fantasy settings.

Warrior using staff is usually a fantasy monk. In truth, they were rare on a battlefield; simply adding a spear head produced a superior weapon. Most of the time, they were used as improvised weapons, such as the famous Okinawan use of the bo when metal weapons were outlawed. It's a fairly practical self-defense weapon, and even modestly effective against armor at least insofar as being able to disable an attacker and escape, but not really something you'd take to war unless you were really poor.

As for arcane archers, it's more that they make no sense in the Dragon Age setting where mages can conjure bolts from their hands or staves at little or no cost. You would have to completely eliminate that in order to make any sense of it. I suppose if you really wanted, you could morph staves into spears or glaives and make all spells cost mana, thereby making archery relevant to mages. Without that, though... yeah, just kinda silly.

[Hrungr]

I'd love to see a few sickle options...

 

 

[metatheurgist]

I'm still not clear what you're pushing here. You really want to go back to AD&D rogues?

  

I think the point is supposed to be that fighters are supposed to...fight.

 

^ If rogues are not a viable class in action games, they should change the game, not the warrior.

[Urazz]

Strangely, Blunt weapons were all bandits wielded in Oblivion.

Note that is bandits, not the rogue class.  Bandits in rpgs aren't rogues and in general are pretty blunt about robbing people.  Rogues in general are about dexterity and stealth.

 

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

If you are going by Garrett in the Thief franchise for this reasoning, then it's to knock someone unconscious and in general you are sneaking around a lot in that game.  Are you telling me you see rogues killing people with maces, warhammers, and such things in combat.

 

If rogues weren't all about precision strikes on vital spots, then why is the Rogue's main stat dexterity, which is about hand/eye coordination?

[Shadow Fox]

^ If rogues are not a viable class in action games, they should change the game, not the warrior.

It wasn't about making Rogues viable it was making them distinct from Warriors which DA2 did.

[Rawgrim]

Note that is bandits, not the rogue class.  Bandits in rpgs aren't rogues and in general are pretty blunt about robbing people.  Rogues in general are about dexterity and stealth.

 

If you are going by Garrett in the Thief franchise for this reasoning, then it's to knock someone unconscious and in general you are sneaking around a lot in that game.  Are you telling me you see rogues killing people with maces, warhammers, and such things in combat.

 

If rogues weren't all about precision strikes on vital spots, then why is the Rogue's main stat dexterity, which is about hand/eye coordination?

 

 

Bandits, pick-pockets, swashbucklers, brigands, robbers, thieves, people who crack safes. All of those falls under the "rogue" description.

 

Seen plenty rogues use light-maces, clubs, and whatever else in fantasy games and d&d. Its about that particular character's choice in weapon, really, and what kind of a rogue he or she is. Its perfectly possible to create a rogue that sucks at sneaking, but excells at intimidation and lock-picking.

 

Rogues arn't all about vital spots. They are all about skills that tend to be outside the law. How they fight is up to the player (usually). A high intelligence score is more important to a rogue than dexterity, in d&d, really. But again: its about how you chose to create the character.

[Rawgrim]

Bards and assassins are not "rogues", they're bards and assassins. Rogues do not exist in lore. There is no group or style associated with rogues, as that would make absolutely no sense with human nobles and Dalish elves sharing a common style. It is a gameplay element.

 

Jarvia, the carta, etc. Very much a rogue group.

[DeathScepter]

Rogues can be roleplay in different ways. Bandits are no less of a Rogue as the Duelist type Rogue or the Sneaky Rogue. Rules bending is the key with Rogues including keen understanding politics to fighting Dirty to stealth. The Way I do see it, Rogues are a compliment to the Warrior in that they take on a problem. 

 

Tying to DAO's origins

 

 

Dalish Elf: Favoring Rogue due to their hunting skills and overall feel

 

Human Noble: Either way, I do the Cousland be bit of a rogue due to that He might get the throne and it takes a keen mind to understand politics. His brother is more of the Military arm of the Highever.

 

Dwarf Noble: Warrior due to you are expected to a military leader quite soon.

 

Dwarf Common: Rogue due to criminal Lifestyle and having to deal with the Cartas

 

Mage: Mage

 

City Elf: Rogue to take what you can to life.

 

I do hope my point comes across that Rogues does have its uses within the Game. Sidenote: Rogues and Warriors are supposed to be the "normal" guys within Thedas.

[AlanC9]

^ If rogues are not a viable class in action games, they should change the game, not the warrior.

What warrior change are you talking about? Have we been talking about DW warriors the whole time and I didn't know it?

I think the point is supposed to be that fighters are supposed to...fight.

I wasn't aware they couldn't.