51 réponses à ce sujet

[Master Warder Z_]

If you can believe it, I'm actually talking about Dragon Age 2 :>

 

Eh okay so it wasn't as "badly" broken in DA 2.

 

Still though.

[The Baconer]

Eh okay so it wasn't as "badly" broken in DA 2.

 

Still though.

 

Most uninformed people complained about Blood Magic in DA2 being too weak post-patch.

 

But then they didn't know about using the concentrated essence of your manliness to smite your enemies (Grave Robber). Don't be hatin'.

[themageguy]

Sounds like you would do well with a rogue/ tempest or a two handed warrior with Reaver spec.

[Icy Magebane]

Rogues have a backstab attack... what better way to quickly get into the action than to teleport?

[Boudicae]

I like being mobile and being right in the action with these types of RPGS, in Witcher I was always focusing on swordsmanship and vigor and stuff first and mage second. In Dark Souls 2 I was the Swordsman. In Mordor I really like to play Ranger vs. Wraith most of the time. 
 
So.... I ask. What is the best class for me in DA3????

Hmm I dunno, I usually prefer to play mage type classes, but in The Witcher 2 I really liked the swordsmanship tree much better. I'll probably play a mage first in DAI, but 2-handed warrior looks pretty fun too.

[Arvaarad]

Yup, but then you realize you want to be able to take a hit and go warrior

The few times I've rolled a warrior, for completeness' sake, I always end up regretting it terribly. If I'm not going to be slinging magic, I at least want to be fighting with daggers, because daggers are more fun to fight with (IRL) than swords. Close range fighting is a whole different mind game than the slow, distant poking of swords.

[SerCambria358]

The few times I've rolled a warrior, for completeness' sake, I always end up regretting it terribly. If I'm not going to be slinging magic, I at least want to be fighting with daggers, because daggers are more fun to fight with (IRL) than swords. Close range fighting is a whole different mind game than the slow, distant poking of swords.

 

So you've been in real fights with both swords and daggers? So when have swords only been used for "poking", since when could you not get up close with swords? Since when was it established that daggers are objectively "more fun" then swords in real life?

 

Im confused

[Arvaarad]

So you've been in real fights with both swords and daggers? So when have swords only been used for "poking", since when could you not get up close with swords?

Yep, I trained with swords and daggers for several years, in a setting that aimed for a close approximation to medieval fighting styles.

The thing with swords is that they're incredibly slow and clumsy if your opponent "closes" with you (moves closer than your comfortable distance with a sword). I personally find daggers more fun. The fights are faster, they require more movement/balance, and there's a huge intimidation factor that comes from invading a swordfighter's personal space.

[SerCambria358]

Yep, I trained with swords and daggers for several years, in a setting that aimed for a close approximation to medieval fighting styles.

The thing with swords is that they're incredibly slow and clumsy if your opponent "closes" with you (moves closer than your comfortable distance with a sword). I personally find daggers more fun. The fights are faster, they require more movement/balance, and there's a huge intimidation factor that comes from invading a swordfighter's personal space.

Im sorry but im gonna have to call bs on that. If you trained several years with both weapons you wouldnt have called swords slow and clumsy because....they arent at all. FIrst of all, labelling all swords as slow and clumsy is much too broad of a statement, its like saying "all cars are bad at drag races". Someone who has trained for years would know this. Second of all swords in almost all their forms were the complete opposite of clumsy, being balanced for specific roles and incorporated with very complex fighting techniques. Third of all, their are swords designed specifically for close "in your face" combat , and even if we're speaking about the longsword, there are techniques specifically for grappling if it comes that close. 

 

Fights with swords and daggers are just as fast as one another, it depends on who the participants are. If anything the amount of techniques you can pull of with a sword far surpasses daggers meaning they are the ones that require far more movement/balance.

 

I dont mean to be a smartass but literally everything you said is factually false, so i dont see how youve trained for that amount of time and dont know these things

[xelander]

Yep, I trained with swords and daggers for several years, in a setting that aimed for a close approximation to medieval fighting styles.

The thing with swords is that they're incredibly slow and clumsy if your opponent "closes" with you (moves closer than your comfortable distance with a sword). I personally find daggers more fun. The fights are faster, they require more movement/balance, and there's a huge intimidation factor that comes from invading a swordfighter's personal space.

 

Keyword in this whole post.

 

Besides, if you don't train for all fighting distances, you're setting up yourself to fail.

 

EDIT: Please show me how you close the distance against a rapier while you have a dagger in unarmored fight. Unless you mean you like dual wielding daggers in full plate?

[SerCambria358]

Keyword in this whole post.

 

Besides, if you don't train for all fighting distances, you're setting up yourself to fail.

 

EDIT: Please show me how you close the distance against a rapier while you have a dagger in unarmored fight. Unless you mean you like dual wielding daggers in full plate?

Trust me when i say this and i mean this in a non offensive way towards the person you're replying to. 

 

Everything they said was false

[Vox Draco]

Hmmm .. I think its difficult to already decide on the "best" class now before you have actually felt what's the combat really like.

 

I mean in DAO I loved Warriors, occasionally played a Rogue and still struggle to get through the game with at least one mage (never finished the game with one after so many years)

 

In DA2 its totally different...Warriors feel so "powerless" to me in that, while rogue with backstabbing, flask-kicking and what-not feels so agile and alive, it became my favorite...followed by the mage, who also feels way more in the action and powerful in DA2 than in DAO...

 

So...I actually plan (for the first time ever) to start DAI with a Mage ... but if this will be the best decision? Impossible to tell before release? Not much help to you, OP, heh?

[xelander]

 

Everything he said was false

 

"Yes..."

 

The counterpoint to the Arishok.

[Master Warder Z_]

I actually got a bit of schooling in swordplay back in my youth and while I never really got acknowledged as anything special.

I was ranked third seat in the club.

We had everything from fencing to Cantonese Foil, Saber, Bushido, and French free form dueling represented.

During that time I was instructed that all blades had their utility based on durability, weight, length, and style. Styles and forms differ immensely across cultures but some things remain the same.

Namely if you are engaging the enemy you use the tool appropriate to your own style of swordplay.

[SerCambria358]

I actually got a bit of schooling in swordplay back in my youth and while I never really got acknowledged as anything special.

I was ranked third seat in the club.

We had everything from fencing to Cantonese Foil, Saber, Bushido, and French free form dueling represented.

During that time I was instructed that all blades had their utility based on durability, weight, length, and style. Styles and forms differ immensely across cultures but some things remain the same.

Namely if you are engaging the enemy you use the tool appropriate to your own style of swordplay.

Exactly, thats why i was so taken back when the person above claimed that "swords are slow and clumsy" when 1.)there are so many types of swords, to make such a blanket statement isnt legitimate, and 2.)They arent slow at all nor clumsy, even the largest of swords, greatswords, were very complex in the way they were used requiring a separate field of schooling to learn how to use the weapon.

[Master Warder Z_]

I prefer saber myself personally.

Drawing swords and Arming swords specifically.

Not as flashy as some styles but to me it was fairly effective, it made use of my natural height and build.

Not to mention it's just as much about as precision as it is strength.

No real counter to it beyond just being better.

It also allows elbow and knee usage I did enjoy that

[Reptillius]

I am of a somewhat small build and light frame over all but have ambidexterity in my favor.  I was rather suited for dual wield tactics when I had a lot more mobility than I do now.  I still could find many useful in's for sword fighting.   The heavier weight of a sword was sometimes useful in "grapple" situations because of better leverage options.

[karushna5]

Im sorry but im gonna have to call bs on that. If you trained several years with both weapons you wouldnt have called swords slow and clumsy because....they arent at all. FIrst of all, labelling all swords as slow and clumsy is much too broad of a statement, its like saying "all cars are bad at drag races". Someone who has trained for years would know this. Second of all swords in almost all their forms were the complete opposite of clumsy, being balanced for specific roles and incorporated with very complex fighting techniques. Third of all, their are swords designed specifically for close "in your face" combat , and even if we're speaking about the longsword, there are techniques specifically for grappling if it comes that close. 
 
Fights with swords and daggers are just as fast as one another, it depends on who the participants are. If anything the amount of techniques you can pull of with a sword far surpasses daggers meaning they are the ones that require far more movement/balance.
 
I dont mean to be a smartass but literally everything you said is factually false, so i dont see how youve trained for that amount of time and dont know these things

He said he trained with a specific type of sword, obviously not rapiers, and other types of swords were not part of his training. As someone who did train with rapiers for a year, there are schools and schools of fighting with that weapon. Someone wouldnt just study "swords" he did specific medieval styles, which while not as clumsy as they are sometimes depicted, but are more heavy than others. Thats like someone saying I had a dog with a curly tail and it never wagged it, and someone else saying they are lying because some dogs wag their tail. And yes, swords do have a certain reach. They are less usefull when within that area closer to you, as there is less room to swing and for heavier swords, less momentum to hit hard.

Many sword users only had another weapon, usually a knife, if someone did get that close. i knew one person who was practiced with knives, and it is incredibly fast, and incredibly close. It requires being well within a swords reach, which does not make the sword useless, but certainly inhibits its effectiveness. In a dark ally, a knifefighter is going to win, in a broad field it is all about how quickly you can close, and if they have a shield to push you off. Also, 2 handers really are slower, they hit like a ton of bricks, but if a knifefighter closed, they have a longer reach, and it would be pretty hard to beat them. Also, the knife fighter has a bit more stamina, since they only have a knife which is fairly small, but a sword fighter has a several lb weapon, not heavy, but a slight drag that gives an edge to the knifefighter when it comes to endurance.

It just doesnt make logical sense to say a usual medieval blade was as quick as a knife, which is smaller, relies almost solely on quickness and requires less momentum. While the medieval blade is much more dangerous because it has strength and momentum behind the swings, while also hurting the opponent in a much wider area, and keeping them back(I mean there is a reason some swords were specifically made at certain lengths to use against opponents weapons.) it isnt as quick.

Tons of stuff are on the swordfighters side, but I think you are counting all swords, against one type of knifefighter, knife fighting has just as many techniques as a single given sword. The exception is probably the rapier, because it is faster, there is a reason people wanted a faster sword like the rapier afterall, but it must hit certain points, and is not as useful at hurting the opponent in broad strokes like other swords so finesse was more important, also it is THE dueling weapon outside pistols, because it is so quick as it requires mobility over strength and is much more capable of making moves back and forth against each other. I prefer swords, all swords, over knives, but I think not giving the knife the edge in regards to mobility is disregarding both weapons and how they work, and calling someone a liar over it is completely letting bias take over.

[Panda]

Rogue with daggers if you don't mind being squishy but 2 hand warrior if you do.

[Arvaarad]

He said he trained with a specific type of sword, obviously not rapiers, and other types of swords were not part of his training. As someone who did train with rapiers for a year, there are schools and schools of fighting with that weapon. Someone wouldnt just study "swords" he did specific medieval styles, which while not as clumsy as they are sometimes depicted, but are more heavy than others. Thats like someone saying I had a dog with a curly tail and it never wagged it, and someone else saying they are lying because some dogs wag their tail. And yes, swords do have a certain reach. They are less usefull when within that area closer to you, as there is less room to swing and for heavier swords, less momentum to hit hard.

Many sword users only had another weapon, usually a knife, if someone did get that close. i knew one person who was practiced with knives, and it is incredibly fast, and incredibly close. It requires being well within a swords reach, which does not make the sword useless, but certainly inhibits its effectiveness. In a dark ally, a knifefighter is going to win, in a broad field it is all about how quickly you can close, and if they have a shield to push you off. Also, 2 handers really are slower, they hit like a ton of bricks, but if a knifefighter closed, they have a longer reach, and it would be pretty hard to beat them. Also, the knife fighter has a bit more stamina, since they only have a knife which is fairly small, but a sword fighter has a several lb weapon, not heavy, but a slight drag that gives an edge to the knifefighter when it comes to endurance.

It just doesnt make logical sense to say a usual medieval blade was as quick as a knife, which is smaller, relies almost solely on quickness and requires less momentum. While the medieval blade is much more dangerous because it has strength and momentum behind the swings, while also hurting the opponent in a much wider area, and keeping them back(I mean there is a reason some swords were specifically made at certain lengths to use against opponents weapons.) it isnt as quick.

Tons of stuff are on the swordfighters side, but I think you are counting all swords, against one type of knifefighter, knife fighting has just as many techniques as a single given sword. The exception is probably the rapier, because it is faster, there is a reason people wanted a faster sword like the rapier afterall, but it must hit certain points, and is not as useful at hurting the opponent in broad strokes like other swords so finesse was more important, also it is THE dueling weapon outside pistols, because it is so quick as it requires mobility over strength and is much more capable of making moves back and forth against each other. I prefer swords, all swords, over knives, but I think not giving the knife the edge in regards to mobility is disregarding both weapons and how they work, and calling someone a liar over it is completely letting bias take over.

Yep, it mostly has to do with the limitations of human arms.

If I'm fighting with a sword, even a quick rapier, and my opponent is incredibly close (close enough my sword points behind them unless I draw my arm back), there's not a whole lot I can do until I increase the distance between us. Increasing distance is much harder than closing distance; there could be a rock behind me, and it's just a less natural leg movement. About the best I can do is try to rotate away from their daggers, then step back (to my opponent's left or right), but it's a tossup whether I'll be pincushioned on the way. Until I finish widening the gap, my weapon is hobbled, but theirs have full range of motion.

Conversely, while closing distance, a dagger fighter just needs to get the sword out of the way for a short time, because they know that once they've closed, the swordfighter is going to have trouble answering. Swords are also easier to parry away than daggers because they're longer. They take more time to disengage from a parry and resume fighting.

But a lot of it is psychological too. Swordfighters spend a lot of time fighting other swordfighters, so they have no reason to expect a close. If their opponent also has a sword, neither fighter gains any benefit from closing the gap past the comfortable range for swords. When a dagger fighter gets in their face, it can throw them off. Obviously this is less of an issue in Thedas, where warriors fight rogues all the time, but it does contribute to the fun of using daggers (at least for me) in real life.

[Icy Magebane]

Well, Rogues are more mobile than Warriors in Dragon Age, so that's what I'd go with... 

 

Two handed weapons seem to have very slow attack speed in DA:I, but Warriors won't have the benefits of Haste and the Berserker spec speed boost to compensate for that.  The Reaver speed boost on kill may have returned, but we don't know for sure...  Based on the videos, Warriors look flashy (much of that comes from the fire rune on the PC's sword...), but no matter what weapons they are using they have been shown as lumbering brutes and not very action-oriented at all.  After seeing a couple videos featuring Cole or Sera, there is just no comparison.... the rogues are clearly more agile.  I think that Scythe may have even been replaced by a running charge... that seems to be the case based on some comments in the Twitch video and the fact that the old Scythe has never been seen in any demo thus far...  That was the 2 handed Warrior's best option for barreling into a crowd of enemies to unleash righteous (or unholy) fury, but if that's gone, the class just got a whole lot less fun by my estimation... :/

 

Tbh Warriors don't even seem to be able to take that much additional damage.  Even on Normal difficulty, a single crossbow bolt form a hostile dwarf took about 20-25% of the Warrior Inquisitor's health in the Twitch gameplay demo.  I predict that Warriors will spend a great deal of time combat rolling to avoid getting hit or blocking to build up "Guard," but since they are so slow, it'll mostly just be a lot of standing around and blocking.  Perhaps they can break up the monotony by shouting Taunts at enemies, since that also raises Guard...  Taking direct health damage is going to be much more penalizing in DA:I than in either of the previous games, so it probably won't matter as much if one character has a few HP more than another...

 

Rogues don't need to block... they can teleport (backstab/fallback plan), disappear (stealth), and combat roll... The class is built around evasion, not blocking, counter-attacking after a block, or relying on "Guard."  Based on the videos, I think it's the best class for mobility... even more so than a mage with Fade Step, since Rogues can teleport and combat roll.

[SerCambria358]

He said he trained with a specific type of sword, obviously not rapiers, and other types of swords were not part of his training. As someone who did train with rapiers for a year, there are schools and schools of fighting with that weapon. Someone wouldnt just study "swords" he did specific medieval styles, which while not as clumsy as they are sometimes depicted, but are more heavy than others. Thats like someone saying I had a dog with a curly tail and it never wagged it, and someone else saying they are lying because some dogs wag their tail. And yes, swords do have a certain reach. They are less usefull when within that area closer to you, as there is less room to swing and for heavier swords, less momentum to hit hard.

Many sword users only had another weapon, usually a knife, if someone did get that close. i knew one person who was practiced with knives, and it is incredibly fast, and incredibly close. It requires being well within a swords reach, which does not make the sword useless, but certainly inhibits its effectiveness. In a dark ally, a knifefighter is going to win, in a broad field it is all about how quickly you can close, and if they have a shield to push you off. Also, 2 handers really are slower, they hit like a ton of bricks, but if a knifefighter closed, they have a longer reach, and it would be pretty hard to beat them. Also, the knife fighter has a bit more stamina, since they only have a knife which is fairly small, but a sword fighter has a several lb weapon, not heavy, but a slight drag that gives an edge to the knifefighter when it comes to endurance.

It just doesnt make logical sense to say a usual medieval blade was as quick as a knife, which is smaller, relies almost solely on quickness and requires less momentum. While the medieval blade is much more dangerous because it has strength and momentum behind the swings, while also hurting the opponent in a much wider area, and keeping them back(I mean there is a reason some swords were specifically made at certain lengths to use against opponents weapons.) it isnt as quick.

Tons of stuff are on the swordfighters side, but I think you are counting all swords, against one type of knifefighter, knife fighting has just as many techniques as a single given sword. The exception is probably the rapier, because it is faster, there is a reason people wanted a faster sword like the rapier afterall, but it must hit certain points, and is not as useful at hurting the opponent in broad strokes like other swords so finesse was more important, also it is THE dueling weapon outside pistols, because it is so quick as it requires mobility over strength and is much more capable of making moves back and forth against each other. I prefer swords, all swords, over knives, but I think not giving the knife the edge in regards to mobility is disregarding both weapons and how they work, and calling someone a liar over it is completely letting bias take over.

You're mistaking "speed" as something that is part of the weapon. "Speed" is entirely dependent on how fast the fighter can take their weapon and strike the target, so while you may be a able to wave a dagger somewhat faster you have really only one range to strike them which is face to face. With a sword (longsword) you have multiple ranges you can strike them from meaning closing the distance for a strike is faster for the sword user.

 

As for this alley scenario, how big is the alley way? The only way i see a dagger user winning outright is if it were by surprise or if the dagger wielder was literally grappling range making the sword completely useless but thats a hard feat in itself assuming both fighters in the scenario are equally skilled. The average greatsword weighed about 8lbs, the average longword was 2-4, trust me the weight is not enough for it to be much a hindrance, look up some sword practitioners go full speed and consider how fast thats going plus the reach of the weapon.

 

Daggers main advantage was its size and maneuverability when in close grappling styled combat, its speed means next to nothing when someone can just stretch out their arm and stop you with a longer weapon. Wave the blade of a knife as fast as you can but as long as a longsword is outstretched towards you, it means nothing.

 

And no knives do not have as many techniques as a sword. The sword has physically much more to work with than than knives, its like trying to say boxing has just as many techniques as MMA. Knives have a size limitation for one range, swords have long range, mid range, close range, and grappling techniques, techniques for armored opponents, techniques for using the entire handle as a weapon, the list goes on. As for the rapier arguement, the reason people wanted rapiers  was because armor was virtually gone so they didnt need broad weapons, they just needed a weapon that was good at killing unarmored opponents, which the rapier was fantastic at, it wasnt because it outmatched all other weapons or because people favored quickeness and finesse, it is solely because it was in the time wear armor was pretty much obsolete which required a sword that didnt need to worry about metal on metal contact, you just thrust it at the opponent and it ran them through with no resistance due to its needle like blade

[SerCambria358]

Yep, it mostly has to do with the limitations of human arms.

If I'm fighting with a sword, even a quick rapier, and my opponent is incredibly close (close enough my sword points behind them unless I draw my arm back), there's not a whole lot I can do until I increase the distance between us. Increasing distance is much harder than closing distance; there could be a rock behind me, and it's just a less natural leg movement. About the best I can do is try to rotate away from their daggers, then step back (to my opponent's left or right), but it's a tossup whether I'll be pincushioned on the way. Until I finish widening the gap, my weapon is hobbled, but theirs have full range of motion.

Conversely, while closing distance, a dagger fighter just needs to get the sword out of the way for a short time, because they know that once they've closed, the swordfighter is going to have trouble answering. Swords are also easier to parry away than daggers because they're longer. They take more time to disengage from a parry and resume fighting.

But a lot of it is psychological too. Swordfighters spend a lot of time fighting other swordfighters, so they have no reason to expect a close. If their opponent also has a sword, neither fighter gains any benefit from closing the gap past the comfortable range for swords. When a dagger fighter gets in their face, it can throw them off. Obviously this is less of an issue in Thedas, where warriors fight rogues all the time, but it does contribute to the fun of using daggers (at least for me) in real life.

Yes you can, its called half-swording, look it up. There's also pulling your arm back as you just recommended and grappling with the sword

 

but since they're longer, that means it'll be harder to close distance and even when they do, their are still techniques for that moment

 

They do expect it all the stime, most people who carried a sword also carried a dagger for those grappling type scenarios because thats where it excels but you would only draw it once it got to that point (which happened a lot) but up until you're literally on top of one another you'd keep the sword out. 

 

Im not trying to dissuade you from a hobby or come off as a know it all its just that the info you've said was pretty much wrong maybe due to it being unspecified 

[HTTP 404]

Yep, I trained with swords and daggers for several years, in a setting that aimed for a close approximation to medieval fighting styles.

The thing with swords is that they're incredibly slow and clumsy if your opponent "closes" with you (moves closer than your comfortable distance with a sword). I personally find daggers more fun. The fights are faster, they require more movement/balance, and there's a huge intimidation factor that comes from invading a swordfighter's personal space.

 

I probably would choose boring old sword and board in real life.  I am a pretty big guy and quick.  Shield bash for the win I guess.

[Arvaarad]

Yes you can, its called half-swording, look it up. There's also pulling your arm back as you just recommended and grappling with the sword

 

but since they're longer, that means it'll be harder to close distance and even when they do, their are still techniques for that moment

 

They do expect it all the stime, most people who carried a sword also carried a dagger for those grappling type scenarios because thats where it excels but you would only draw it once it got to that point (which happened a lot) but up until you're literally on top of one another you'd keep the sword out. 

 

Im not trying to dissuade you from a hobby or come off as a know it all its just that the info you've said was pretty much wrong maybe due to it being unspecified 

 

I'll freely state that swords are better than daggers at full range, because objectively, they are. However, daggers are unquestionably more maneuverable at close range.

 

First off, pulling the arm back isn't something I'd recommend. It drastically lowers the accuracy of the sword and puts the fighter in an awkward position with less control. Opening the gap is generally the safest option.

 

And all of those options (drawing the hand back, opening the gap, switching to half-swording) take time to execute. They don't happen instantaneously. That's why swords are slower when you're fighting at very close range. To maneuver them into a position where they can threaten or block the opponent requires time. During that time, the dagger fighter is trying to stab the swordfighter silly.

 

The main thing that a dagger fighter needs to deal with is that moment of gap closing. Obviously the swordfighter really doesn't want to let the dagger fighter close, so it's an adrenaline-filled moment. The swordfighter will be trying their hardest to run me through while they still can. And I'm trying to get their sword out of the way for juuuuuust long enough to invade their personal space. But I enjoy that rush, that moment of tension before I'm past their sword, so daggers are my weapon of choice.

 

Now of course, sword + offhand dagger is superior to both daggers and swords, since it functions well at both ranges. When I had the option, I used sword+dagger over any other combination.

 

But if I had to choose one or the other, I'd pick daggers without hesitation.

 

I can fully understand why others might prefer a sword, but for me, daggers are more fun.