102 réponses à ce sujet

[Shadow Fox]

Impracticality or as you used the word impraticability how?     A properly trained beserker could easily be taught from young to wield 2 heavy axes in each hand or a nimble warrior to use 2 swords.... shall we go through lore on this one?

 

DA:O to start had many dual wielded warriors,  Dungeons and Dragons that started a lot of this type of fantasy game genre with its table top definitly had dual wielding warriors.  Heck, making a dual axe dwarven beserker was almost standard and that includes all these newer editions.  Everquest had them, World of warcraft has them, Diablo has them, Im pretty sure in our actual real world history you could find many examples of guys considered warriors that dual wielded medium to heavy weapons.  Go to an ancient war museum and I know the local one I has shows examples of heavy armor combatants using 2 weapons.  So where is the idea that a properly trained warrior would never use 2 weapons?

 

That aside it does come down options and if ME 3 again says anything about Bioware's dedication to MP its that Kits will come as wide and varied as the ideas of the programmers themselves.

Because outside of dueling dual wielding especially something as big and unwieldly as a longsword is tantamount to committing suicide hence why no one who wasn't desperate actually used it on the battlefield.

 

And that doesn't make it practical or viable any more than Red Sonja and Xena make bikini or boob armor practical or viable and if I go to a museum I'd probably see 6 ft tall greatswords and oversized armor doesn't mean they actually saw combat.

 

Regardless I don't have an issue with people liking DW warriors and wanting them I do however take issue with:

 

1. People insisting as a "master of combat" a warrior would use it implying it's a viable style for anyone who isn't desperate and untrained to use in actual battle and not just Rule of Cool.

 

2. People denying DW and Archer warriors and rogues played identically. 

 

3. People insisting rogues should once again be relegated to walking lockpicks.

[dekarserverbot]

You can outfit Rogues in heavy armor if you really wanted in this game, right?

And these new Rogues aren't backstab based, am I correct?

It's not the same, but it's approachable.

my avatar is a rogue, and god forgive him if he backstabs even once...  If BSN was still on you could see that he wears Daisycutter in one hand and Vigilance in the other. Too bad new rogues are such useless sissies that can only wear weapons made for farmers, damsels and bartenders.

[Skaden]

Because outside of dueling dual wielding especially something as big and unwieldly as a longsword is tantamount to committing suicide hence why no one who wasn't desperate actually used it on the battlefield.

 

And that doesn't make it practical or viable any more than Red Sonja and Xena make bikini or boob armor practical or viable and if I go to a museum I'd probably see 6 ft tall greatswords and oversized armor doesn't mean they actually saw combat.

 

Regardless I don't have an issue with people liking DW warriors and wanting them I do however take issue with:

 

1. People insisting as a "master of combat" a warrior would use it implying it's a viable style for anyone who isn't desperate and untrained to use in actual battle and not just Rule of Cool.

 

2. People denying DW and Archer warriors and rogues played identically. 

 

3. People insisting rogues should once again be relegated to walking lockpicks.

 

1. It has already been established as a viable style in DA universe, play DA:O and meet Duncan or fight the Arishok in DA2, imposing notions of what is or isn't practical in the real world is irrelevant when discussing a fantasy game where people can shoot lightning from their fingertips

 

2. The only way dw rogues and dw warriors played identically was if the player chose to build a rogue for frontline combat rather than utilizing their numerous skills which emphasized stealth and backstabs, not tanking or frontline dps

 

3. What are you talking about? Rogues haven't lost any combat styles since DA:O, in addition to their many out of combat skills, while warriors have had theirs cut in half and replaced with nothing

[Lebanese Dude]

1. It has already been established as a viable style in DA universe, play DA:O and meet Duncan or fight the Arishok in DA2, imposing notions of what is or isn't practical in the real world is irrelevant when discussing a fantasy game where people can shoot lightning from their fingertips

2. The only way dw rogues and dw warriors played identically was if the player chose to build a rogue for frontline combat rather than utilizing their numerous skills which emphasized stealth and backstabs, not tanking or frontline dps

3. What are you talking about? Rogues haven't lost any combat styles since DA:O, in addition to their many out of combat skills, while warriors have had theirs cut in half and replaced with nothing

1. Duncan and Arishok are classified as rogues.

2. Irrelevant. A rogue could be a stealthy backstab or a frontline berserker (hint: pump strength, pick dueling and legionnaire), while the warrior could only be a frontline damager. So rogues had more options for the same thing.

3. Warriors were able to do everything a rogue could. By separating their combat styles, they are able to make each class feel more unique and deeper in scope. You can totally still play a frontline berserking dual wield "warrior", but the only difference is that you can't wear heavy-ass armor.

[Shadow Fox]

1. It has already been established as a viable style in DA universe, play DA:O and meet Duncan or fight the Arishok in DA2, imposing notions of what is or isn't practical in the real world is irrelevant when discussing a fantasy game where people can shoot lightning from their fingertips

 

2. The only way dw rogues and dw warriors played identically was if the player chose to build a rogue for frontline combat rather than utilizing their numerous skills which emphasized stealth and backstabs, not tanking or frontline dps

 

3. What are you talking about? Rogues haven't lost any combat styles since DA:O, in addition to their many out of combat skills, while warriors have had theirs cut in half and replaced with nothing

1. Duncan was a rogue and the Arishok is still debated and this is like saying Morrigan and Isabella's outfits are viable because they don't die in one hit from a sword or arrow to the gut or that charging a mage or dragon in full plate is a good idea instead of the game simply ignoring reality because Rule of Cool.

 

2. "You're playing it wrong" is and will always be a poor argument in regards to cloned skillsets face it they're identical.

 

3.  The only reason to use a rogue in your party in origins was to pick locks DA2 and DAI have thankfully made the rogue a just as viable but distinct class from the warrior and that's called balancing the classes.

[Lebanese Dude]

^

Posted the same thing at the same time lol

[Paul E Dangerously]

1. Duncan and Arishok are classified as rogues.

2. Irrelevant. A rogue could be a stealthy backstab or a frontline berserker (hint: pump strength, pick dueling and legionnaire), while the warrior could only be a frontline damager. So rogues had more options for the same thing.

3. Warriors were able to do everything a rogue could. By separating their combat styles, they are able to make each class feel more unique and deeper in scope. You can totally still play a frontline berserking dual wield "warrior", but the only difference is that you can't wear heavy-ass armor.

 

Warrior Archer.

 

And honestly, weapon skills are only one of each class's ability trees, as of DA2-DAI. It's not like DAO where you had four full trees per weapon style (w/Awakening).

 

You could do dual-wield warriors easily as you would rogues, because they would have access to different talents outside the DW tree. As of DA2, Rogues had sabotage, scoundrel, specialist, and subterfuge, none of which warriors would have even if they were able to dual wield.

[Stiler]

Activate Song of Courage x2 > Activate Dueling > Activate Momentum > Activate Tainted Blade > Activate Haste > Activate Rally> set companions on hold position= Make a warrior cry with envy as you solo an entire battlefield.

 

No the only way they played differently is if you actually played them differently by not using half the skill tree as a rogue mechanics and animations wise they are identical.

 

Only if they didn't share the same skills,animations and mechanics.

 

 

1. Rally is a warrior skill and haste is mage, why you list those? How do they pertain to rogues being the same as warriors?

2. Where's your CC?

3. Where's your AOE?

 

Rogues were far more useful with cunning instead of strength,  a lot of their skills throughout rogue and the specializations benefited from stealth/backstabs.

 

Throwing rogues into plate armour, pumping strength over cunning, they still will not be as good as the warrior is at that nor will they have hte defense of the warriors.

 

On top of the warriors CC abilites with reaver/berserker, the warrior had health regen and lifesteal, which allowed him to be even more durable and a much better toe to toe front line fighter then a rogue.

 

 

I do not get why so many rogue fans do not want warrior sto have dual wield swords or any kind of "fast" attack focused skill tree.

 

You can keep the daggers, warriors get swords, make the skills different, warriors get cc/sustain dmg, rogues get quick burst dmg but don't have as much defense.

 

The talents and everything could be different, yet so many rogue fans get bent out of shape over those of us who liked the warriors wanting to have a class that we had already and enjoyed.

 

ON top of all this rogues get a lot of utility that warriors do not get. So you want to have as much if not more dmg/combat abilities as the warrior and also have a whole other side.

 

What do warriors get? All warriors are is tanks or offense, they get no utility skills or uses.

[In Exile]

And I'm arguing against the particular gameplay contrivance that creates rigid and arbitrary weapon restrictions which have become significantly more prominent since DA:O, and have limited the scope of player agency within combat.

 

Well, you can make the argument it's not fun, sure, but it has nothing to do with lore or believeability. Personally I don't see the allure of a d/w warrior vs. any other type of warrior, but to each their own. 

[Stiler]

1. Duncan was a rogue and the Arishok is still debated and this is like saying Morrigan and Isabella's outfits are viable because they don't die in one hit from a sword or arrow to the gut or that charging a mage or dragon in full plate is a good idea instead of the game simply ignoring reality because Rule of Cool.

 

2. "You're playing it wrong" is and will always be a poor argument in regards to cloned skillsets face it they're identical.

 

3.  The only reason to use a rogue in your party in origins was to pick locks DA2 and DAI have thankfully made the rogue a just as viable but distinct class from the warrior and that's called balancing the classes.

 

The only reason? Rogues did plenty of dmg in Origins. 

 

Rogue with backstab was one of the highest single-target dps classes in the game.

 

What makes you think they weren't viable or just lockpicking machines? They had plenty of dmg on top of having the most utility then any other class.

 

 

Apart from all of this, I do not get why anyone is really arguing against more open weapon options, for any classes.

 

Having more player freedom to build and shape your character, how is that less fun?

 

If Warriors could dual wield, how does that impact YOUR game or your character? You can still play a rogue, no one is stopping you.

[In Exile]

The only reason? Rogues did plenty of dmg in Origins. 

 

Rogue with backstab was one of the highest single-target dps classes in the game.

 

What makes you think they weren't viable or just lockpicking machines? They had plenty of dmg on top of having the most utility then any other class.

 

Rogues weren't worth it just on the effort it took to micromanage that backstab alone. The opportunity cost was micromanaging a nuker mage, which was just superior in every respect to a rogue (esp. if you went unlimited caster via SM/BM). 

[10K]

Rogues are better played as archers anyway. So I have no problem if BW ever bring back duel-wield warrior.

[Lebanese Dude]

Warrior Archer.

And honestly, weapon skills are only one of each class's ability trees, as of DA2-DAI. It's not like DAO where you had four full trees per weapon style (w/Awakening).

You could do dual-wield warriors easily as you would rogues, because they would have access to different talents outside the DW tree. As of DA2, Rogues had sabotage, scoundrel, specialist, and subterfuge, none of which warriors would have even if they were able to dual wield.

We're discussing dual wield here.

Archery is an even weaker point, as archer rogues and warriors play the exact same way.

The main difference is specializations, in which the rogue ones are more thematically and mechanically appropriate

[wright1978]

I certainly miss the dual wielding warrior option. Really hope it is returned at some point in the future.

[Lebanese Dude]

May I ask why people are fixating on warriors?

Only armor type and specializations are different. In DAI, rogues are now capable of wearing heavier armors. Specializations have been reworked, and are quite thematically appropriate with their class.

Just play a rogue as a warrior would. A tempest certainly qualifies.

In DAO I pumped strength and dexterity, equipped heavy armor, and made my rogue a super DW badass. You can too.

[wright1978]

May I ask why people are fixating on warriors?

Only armor type and specializations are different. In DAI, rogues are now capable of wearing heavier armors. Specializations have been reworked, and are quite thematically appropriate with their class.

Just play a rogue as a warrior would. A tempest certainly qualifies.

In DAO I pumped strength and dexterity, equipped heavy armor, and made my rogue a super DW badass. You can too.

 

I thought rogues were still barred from carrying long sword(s)

[Lebanese Dude]

I thought rogues were still barred from carrying long sword(s)

Ah...so its about wanting to dual wield full length swords,

No I don't think you can do that. The daggers can get as big as shortswords but not long swords,

In that case, I see why you would want warriors dual wielding. It certainly looks cool, if completely fantastic in practice. However, do you think this is worth implementing a whole new class subset for?

I don't know if it is.

Couldn't hurt to keep asking though.

[Hillbillyhat]

Duel wielding warriors are dead as they should be. Now giving the warrior the ability to use bows and crossbows isn't a terribly bad idea.

 

 

If duel wielding was ever put back in for warriors it would need to actually be vastly different from the rogue. In terms of combat animations and abilities. Putting it back revamped is almost as good as just not bringing it back.

[PillarBiter]

I have just heard about  DAI, and i remember playing DAO then quitting because of how different DA2 was. I want my Dual wield freaking warrior though. Is it in DAI if it isnt im not getting this game so someone please tell me yo. are Rogues at least other able to duel wield swords instead of those puny diggers?

 

Screw that, let me dual wield 2-handers. Now THAT is a sight to behold: a berserker dual wield 2-hander dwarf.

[Lebanese Dude]

Screw that, let me dual wield 2-handers. Now THAT is a sight to behold: a berserker dual wield 2-hander dwarf.

 

www.worldofwarcraft.com

 

[Parkimus]

Regardless I don't have an issue with people liking DW warriors and wanting them I do however take issue with:

 

1. People insisting as a "master of combat" a warrior would use it implying it's a viable style for anyone who isn't desperate and untrained to use in actual battle and not just Rule of Cool.

 

2. People denying DW and Archer warriors and rogues played identically. 

 

3. People insisting rogues should once again be relegated to walking lockpicks.

 

1) I know you're not addressing me in particular but I've personally never said it was a viable style IRL, and again, I think that's a moot argument in context of a fantasy game. I'll admit it again, as I have said in similar threads before: It was damn cool, and I want DW warrior back.

 

2) I kind of agree with you on this point since DW warriors and rogues could have been played identically in DA:O (though I'd argue it depended largely on how you built them, STR vs. CUN). I totally agree with you on the point about warrior and rogue archers. 

 

3) No one's advocating that they take dual-wielding away from rogues (or for them to be "relegated to walking lockpicks"). Some players (myself included, obviously) just want DW back for warriors. And I've also stated in an earlier post that I want more options for all classes (e.g. an option for rogues to wield one longsword, or for a mage to be able to carry an off-hand scroll/spellbook or whatever).

 

Again, just to be clear - I don't want the DW warrior to be a carbon copy of the DW rogue. I'm asking for, in some future Dragon Age game, for the return of the DW warrior but with its own unique talents and animations (rogues faster/dem crits/daggers, warriors use longswords or maces, etc./slower/dealing less damage than rogues but faster than other warrior subsets, just a few ideas). That way I think warriors and rogues can both DW while being distinct, so the "adding DW for warriors would be taking away from the uniqueness of the rogue" argument I've seen some people espouse (I know you haven't said this explicitly) isn't necessarily valid.

[Skaden]

1. Duncan was a rogue and the Arishok is still debated and this is like saying Morrigan and Isabella's outfits are viable because they don't die in one hit from a sword or arrow to the gut or that charging a mage or dragon in full plate is a good idea instead of the game simply ignoring reality because Rule of Cool.

 

2. "You're playing it wrong" is and will always be a poor argument in regards to cloned skillsets face it they're identical.

 

3.  The only reason to use a rogue in your party in origins was to pick locks DA2 and DAI have thankfully made the rogue a just as viable but distinct class from the warrior and that's called balancing the classes.

 

1. Duncan is classed as a warrior, when you fight him in the fade he uses s&b talents, and can anyone honestly buy that a guy who dual wields 2hdrs and favors the zerg rush is a rogue? And I don't understand this obsessive realism argument, so mages shouldn't exist because their abilities are "ignoring reality"? It's a fantasy game ffs

2. I wasn't saying that you're playing a rogue wrong if you spec them a certain way, only that any similarity between dw warrior and dw rogue is not in how they are designed but in how they are played, which is the player's choice, as it should be.

3. Weren't you just arguing earlier about how dw warrior was pointless because dw rogue was more effective? Now suddenly in this scenario they're relegated to walking lockpicks? DA2 added nothing meaningful to the rogue class (if anything it took away swords/axes), and do you really consider it "balancing classes" to remove half of the warrior weapon styles and replace them with nothing? So rogue's now have as many weapon styles as warriors plus their exclusive out of combat skills, yeah sounds real "balanced" 

[Suledin]

This is old and boring.

[Mornmagor]

Ah yeah, the usual arguments:

 

1) It's not realistic to have 2 large weapons.

 

- Yeah well it's not realistic to throw fireballs either, so why don't you start there?

 

2) It's not different than a Rogue.

 

- That is the fault of the combat system, or lack of imagination for ability design, or most frequently, lack of development time to make both classes have deep gameplay. You can have a Warrior and a Rogue dual wielding. Why are they the same?

 

Rogues could use fast attacks with poison coating on the weapons that have VARIOUS effects on your opponent, traps and stealth/assasination/backstab. They could have abilities that make them tumble and dodge/evade.

 

Warriors are mostly using their specialization, tailored to the dual wielding style, so a Reaver would enter their bloodthirst mode cleaving everything while taking damage to increase their own, and using magical/mystical abilities as well.

 

The ONLY same thing, would be the two weapons.

 

Also, why is it hard for people to understand that AESTHETICS, are important to people. Maybe i would like to wear heavy armor and go pick a battleaxe and a warhammer and smash everything in my way. No i can't, because Warriors should not play this way, says Bioware.

 

This is the problem, having someone dictating you how you will play, because distinction.

 

No, because Restriction, not distinction. Distinction exists anyway, restriction that is putting you in a box is bad. And it is bad because you play a game with 3 classes. 3, not 10. If you can't have the archetypes you want to play, then the combat system is poor, and customization is only partial.

 

In other words, business as usual. People are afraid their class will become suddenly worse in numbers or utility, so everything that resembles the fighting style must be axed in favor of distinction. Maybe stealthy playstyle, poisons, grenades, traps, assassinations, scouting, mingling and fast single target combat are not distinctive enough. What's distinctive are the 2 toothpicks, i guess.

 

This is an RPG. A role playing game, which means, you need to have options to play the character you envision and like. If you are restricted, because of the few classes and specializations that don't really change much the class archetype, you're gonna have people that don't really connect to their character, because it's not what they would create.

 

Seriously, Dragon Age is a great game series. BUT, its combat system and customization of your character is its weakest link. Thankfully, in this game, it is much better than before, but there is always room to improve.

 

P.S. The defining feature of Rogues, is everything except the type of weapon they use. There could be rogues with 2 handed katanas, or single hand only rapiers. What happened to them? Why do they only dual wield melee, and call it their style?

[Coverage]

 

In my current DA:O playthrough, I'm playing a warrior archer, and the dual-wield tree makes for a good secondary playstyle when I need/want to pull out the blades and go off-tank or melee.

 

It is an odd playstyle though, and I'm not really upset that it's gone.