145 réponses à ce sujet

[Kimarous]

If you wanted to create a barbarian, how could hawke be one if he lived in lothering? barbarians come from iced lands, from the deserts, the mountains, being a barbarian is not a combat class, is a way of life. You can't be one being born in a small town.

Because barbarians NEVER come from temperate zones like forests or plains or anything. It's not like Britain, France, and Germany were the traditional "barbarian" lands during Ancient Rome...

Also, Hawke just lived in Lothering. He wasn't neccessarily born, raised, and trained there. By that logic, Leliana and Sten were pureblooded Lothering natives as well, which is obviously wrong.

If you wanted to be a templar (which, well designed, would be a paladin-like class very differentiated from a regular warrior) how could you be living in a village, outside of your order?

Heaven forbid something deemed a "templar" fit anything besides your views!

PS: Go play the Assassin's Creed games.

If you wanted to create a necromancer,or a shaman, how could it be possible? you are a man living in a small town, how could you learn those arts? even the mage class for hawke should bring back story on how he is not chased by templar since he comes not from magi tower (and, BTW, I'd like to see how templars from kirkwall react in-game to a mage hawke, it would be weird if the talked to you as if you were some marrior or rogue not making comments on your aparent freedom from the circle)

...Denerim had a large clan of blood mages hidden inside it. Gaxkang was also hiding alone in Denerim. Wilhelm managed to live in the village of Honnleath undisturbed before his untimely demise. Morrigan herself described several instances of going into town and hiding her powers.

So, yeah. Hawke and his sister Bethany (a confirmed mage) could hang out in Lothering just fine.

All these classes could be added as sub-specializations for the other three classes, but they would not be as deep as a new class and certainly not fit the lore.

That's because you don't seem to understand the lore you are talking about.

Modifié par Kimarous, 30 juillet 2010 - 02:48 .

[Kritanakom]

What is a templar, besides a warrior who serves the church and gets special powers from that service?



Isn't it natural that he/she play similarly to a warrior, then?

[Daerog]

Well, I kind of like the tree branching that BW can do with DA. Pick a hero, pick a base class, and pick specializations based on that class. What BW should do is make specializations more than just 4 abilities and some comments here and there (you being a templar can be recognized by Ser Otto, Anders has a Blood Mage response). Maybe specializations within specializations or open new trees while closing others sort of deal.

I don't think anymore than three is needed in order to allow a vast amount of abilities that cover many fantasy favorites. You have the mage/magic base class, the heavy fighter base class, and the light fighter base class. They just need to make the specializations more meaningful/better somehow and not just add 4 new abilities every 7 levels or so.

[Daerog]

Kritanakom wrote...

What is a templar, besides a warrior who serves the church and gets special powers from that service?

Isn't it natural that he/she play similarly to a warrior, then?

A templar could just be a monk that handles scrolls and books and not a fighter at all. Traditionally, a templar is a religious warrior with the term being connected with the Knights Templar (The Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon), but templar could just be a dude who is part of a temple organization.

Fantasy games is usually a warrior, but one can make a fantasy universe with rogue-like templars, archer templars, mage templars, etc.

Special powers optional.

[filetemo]

maybe the problem is being 7 years in development, design elements done in 2003 do not cut it in 2010. It seems whoever designed the three class system wasn't thinking about the extensive choices for classes games must bring in 2010

[AntiChri5]

Three base classes are fine.



We just need some diverse specialisations.

[AllThatJazz]

There was loads of choice in DA:O. I could still be melee/archery, ranger or assassin or bard or Paladin type or berserker, wizard or healer. Aside from monk and possibly warlock (though Blood Magic is warlockish), all D&D classes are pretty much covered, imo. More specialisations will always be good, but I don't feel limited, and I'm not sure I see how voicing the PC has a detrimental effect on this.

[filetemo]

AllThatJazz wrote...

There was loads of choice in DA:O. I could still be melee/archery, ranger or assassin or bard or Paladin type or berserker, wizard or healer

but that only gave you the choice of 4 new skills (and not all of them useful). Besides you didn't get any custom items aside of spellweaver, to make you look like a true bard, paladin or barbarian. Specializations are a partial solution to fit every class into the generic looks of warrior/rogue.

[AllThatJazz]

filetemo wrote...

AllThatJazz wrote...

There was loads of choice in DA:O. I could still be melee/archery, ranger or assassin or bard or Paladin type or berserker, wizard or healer

but that only gave you the choice of 4 new skills (and not all of them useful). Besides you didn't get any custom items aside of spellweaver, to make you look like a true bard, paladin or barbarian. Specializations are a partial solution to fit every class into the generic looks of warrior/rogue.

Custom items for different specialisations would be nice, I agree with you there. To be honest, though, I don't recall a ranger in, say, D&D, being wildly different from a fighter/rogue, and I don't remember there being huge numbers of 'exclusive' skills. Animal empathy, maybe, and access to low level spells. DA:O has tracking/survival, herbalism, dual wield or archery, animal companion, set traps. The only thing it's really missing is the spellcasting, but that's easily explained by how magic works in Thedas. I think it's possible to craft any popular class from the options available in DA:O, with only a few minor differences. But specialisation items? Oooooh, yes please! 

[jaikss]

Wouldnt necessarily want more classes in DA2 since it would just basically be,for example,warrior split into the standard tank warrior and dps warrior like barbarian or whatnot,mage to a damage mage such as sorcerer and a cleric,just not necessary imo.

I do think they could add a little more debth into the specializations though rather than just "read a book and get a new skill tree",especially story wise.Like in DAO it always felt a little off to me that you could use blood magic as you like in front of wynne and alistair and theyd be perfectly fine with it

[Harcken]

Mage, rogue, and warrior are more of a gameplay standard (excluding mages) than a lore one. I don't mind the 3 archetypes being the only 3 playable classes; however I do wish that the differentiation between rogue and warrior is clear and important. Also, specializations were a massive disappointment, they need to be much more in depth and mean something; not give me just two active abilities and a +2 str bonus. If I go templar, I want to feel like a mage-bashing templar. If I go assassin, I want to feel like a shadowy ninja. If I go shapeshifter, I want to feel like a badass druid. Specializations need to be more pronounced and after a certain level (7 maybe), they need to become the center/focus of your combat style.

[In Exile]

filetemo wrote..
but that only gave you the choice of 4 new skills (and not all of them useful). Besides you didn't get any custom items aside of spellweaver, to make you look like a true bard, paladin or barbarian. Specializations are a partial solution to fit every class into the generic looks of warrior/rogue.

You had the templar amours, and particular the knight commander armour, which had 40% spell resistance.

[Chuvvy]

What does having a voice have to do with any of that?

[Merci357]

Harcken wrote...

Mage, rogue, and warrior are more of a gameplay standard (excluding mages) than a lore one. I don't mind the 3 archetypes being the only 3 playable classes; however I do wish that the differentiation between rogue and warrior is clear and important. Also, specializations were a massive disappointment, they need to be much more in depth and mean something; not give me just two active abilities and a +2 str bonus. If I go templar, I want to feel like a mage-bashing templar. If I go assassin, I want to feel like a shadowy ninja. If I go shapeshifter, I want to feel like a badass druid. Specializations need to be more pronounced and after a certain level (7 maybe), they need to become the center/focus of your combat style.

This. After all, quite some games had a similar approach. Like Dark Age of Camelot - you start the game as a member of some plain archetype, maybe rogue, and at a certain level you choose your specialisation class. At that point, you are no longer a rogue, but a Infiltrator, a Scout, a Minstrel, whatever. They shared some common traits, of course, but played, due to their specialisation lines, vastly different.
I'd love to see the specialisation in DA have some more depth added. Did your rogue change, when he became a Duelist? Just another four skills added, and a tiny passive bonus. More fleshed out and improved specialisations could add a lot of replayability to the game.

[Vandrayke]

Harcken wrote...

Mage, rogue, and warrior are more of a gameplay standard (excluding mages) than a lore one. I don't mind the 3 archetypes being the only 3 playable classes; however I do wish that the differentiation between rogue and warrior is clear and important. Also, specializations were a massive disappointment, they need to be much more in depth and mean something; not give me just two active abilities and a +2 str bonus. If I go templar, I want to feel like a mage-bashing templar. If I go assassin, I want to feel like a shadowy ninja. If I go shapeshifter, I want to feel like a badass druid. Specializations need to be more pronounced and after a certain level (7 maybe), they need to become the center/focus of your combat style.

totally agree

[filetemo]

In Exile wrote...

You had the templar amours, and particular the knight commander armour, which had 40% spell resistance.

yes, I give you that. Having just a single custom item makes you believe more that you are a real templar. Imagine having three or four armors and weapons unique to each class. A simple thing like that would be at least half of the solution to differentiate classes.

But again, the problem is, how can we ask three or more custom armors for each class if in the whole game there were three heavy armors in total with 6 or 7 textures? It's bioware's job to design more armors.

If we say "no need for more armors and classes" bioware will feel confortable in the current situation and will not push harder to add more material.

[In Exile]

filetemo wrote...
yes, I give you that. Having just a single custom item makes you believe more that you are a real templar.

I disagree completely. First, you aren't a real templar. You fluked into a Grey Warden who dropped out midway through who taught you how to be a templar. That aside, fancy gear wouldn't make me feel like a templar. The game recognizing me as a templar and treating me that way would.

This is why I disagree with you. I find everything you are saying completely superficial. None of it would feel richer. It would feel less rich, because the only difference between classes would be gameplay.

Imagine having three or four armors and weapons unique to each class. A simple thing like that would be at least half of the solution to differentiate classes.

No, it wouldn't differentiate a class at all. It would just give it different gameplay options.

But again, the problem is, how can we ask three or more custom armors for each class if in the whole game there were three heavy armors in total with 6 or 7 textures? It's bioware's job to design more armors.

It was a reskin of the massive armour. They just changed how the lower leggins looked.

[filetemo]

In Exile wrote...

I disagree completely. First, you aren't a real templar. You fluked into a Grey Warden who dropped out midway through who taught you how to be a templar. That aside, fancy gear wouldn't make me feel like a templar. The game recognizing me as a templar and treating me that way would.

half of feeling like a templar is the looks. The other half is having an origin and a complete skill tree for templars.But the first half is more feasible seen limitations to classes in the current da design.Do not be mistaken, I'm asking to include the two halfs.

In Exile wrote...

In Exile wrote...This is why I disagree with you. I find everything you are saying completely superficial. None of it would feel richer. It would feel less rich, because the only difference between classes would be gameplay.

Imagine having three or four armors and weapons unique to each class. A simple thing like that would be at least half of the solution to differentiate classes.

No, it wouldn't differentiate a class at all. It would just give it different gameplay options.

differences in classes are in gameplay mostly, in looks and in back lore.
Now I don't know if you just agreed or disagreed with me

In Exile wrote...

But again, the problem is, how can we ask three or more custom armors for each class if in the whole game there were three heavy armors in total with 6 or 7 textures? It's bioware's job to design more armors.

It was a reskin of the massive armour. They just changed how the lower leggins looked.

I wasn't talking specifically about templar armor, but the lack of various models in general.

What I'm trying to say is:
People says more classes are not needed due to the three classes system.It's the opposite actually: What I'm complaining about is precisely the fact that the three classes system with specializations was made ON PURPOSE to eliminate the complication of balancing six or more classes.I think that is a flaw and lazyness not trying to push the engine from bioware so I'm criticising it.

People says more classes wouldn't fit the lore or would broke the rules of magic. Again, that's precisely the problem, that the lore of dragon age was made on purpose like this with a three classes gameplay in mind to eliminate the posiblity of existence of "exotic" spellcaster classes. All lore, races, and storys in da are made so they can fit the three classes system. You don't hear stories about druids, necromancers or famous healers in thedas, it's all about warriors and rogues and mages. How uninteresting is that?

At least, if they wanted, they could make a Tevinter magister class, who uses excluiively old gods magic, who could have a full tree of blood magic, old gods spells, darkspawn spells, necromancing, teleportation. It's radically different from the concept of a traditional mage, enough differentiated to be a class on it's own.

And for the archetype of a paladin or melee fighter with divine magic, they could create the chosen black knight of the old gods, with spells and blessings from them, again this is enough different from a regular fighter to grant it a new class if done right. And a good oportunity to expand the lore of tevinter adding old gods own magic.

Modifié par filetemo, 30 juillet 2010 - 06:04 .

[In Exile]

Let me put it this way: I think D&D is stupid and built the wrong way, to accomodate as many different possible classes and playstyles as possible. It works for PnP were you create the adventure yourself, but it just becomes stupid when trying to meaningfully implement in into any kind of single-player game.

I think DA:O was built the right way: magic is one thing, and there are people who use magic. They can use it in different ways, to do different things, but they are all fundamentally mages, who use magic. In the same way that there is the non-magic class, and it's break-away utility class.

About the best thing DA did was tie your class to an origin, so it made sense you were what you were in-game and peopel could reference it (thought it only was really well done in the case of the mage).

Divine magic is stupid. Walking gods like in D&D are stupid. It's all just done for the sake of variety in options, but the variety isn't good or even desirable in the first place.

[filetemo]

In Exile wrote...

Let me put it this way: I think D&D is stupid and built the wrong way, to accomodate as many different possible classes and playstyles as possible. It works for PnP were you create the adventure yourself, but it just becomes stupid when trying to meaningfully implement in into any kind of single-player game.
I think DA:O was built the right way: magic is one thing, and there are people who use magic. They can use it in different ways, to do different things, but they are all fundamentally mages, who use magic. In the same way that there is the non-magic class, and it's break-away utility class.
About the best thing DA did was tie your class to an origin, so it made sense you were what you were in-game and peopel could reference it (thought it only was really well done in the case of the mage).
Divine magic is stupid. Walking gods like in D&D are stupid. It's all just done for the sake of variety in options, but the variety isn't good or even desirable in the first place.

one thing is the half million D&D classes and minor variations and then there's dao with...3.

in thedas from rivain to ferelden everybody is sword and board, two hander or dual wielder. As rogue from orlais to orzammar everybody is dual wielder or archer. So everybody fights and looks the same even having never seen each other? And also, there's the fact that nobody ever in the continent of thedas who was born as a mage tried to train to be competent with a sword (except some elves who tried to improve martial skills with magic 400 years ago which knowledge was resumed in a book)

And if divine magic is stupid and has no place in dao because the maker left us many centuries ago and we don't even know if there's an afterlife, what kind of rule-breaking creature is the guardian of the sacred ashes? a man who has been there for a millenia, knows the facts of the whole life of the warden and his companions? wouldn't you call that, "a spirit"? Couldn't be that a new and amazing class? "Knights of the sacred ashes"?

So "divine magic is stupid" till it's not.

[HopHazzard]

You know there's a whole codex entry about how mages aren't permitted to participate in weapons training. Now there may be some apostate out in the wilds who's handy with a blade but since we only ever get to play circle mages it doesn't matter. And the arcane warrior spec wasn't learned from a book it was telepathically uploaded into our brains.

It seems like you're saying that each individual fighting style requires a class of its own and that just doesn't make sense to me. They could introduce new weapons like spears, or rapiers, or naginata all with their own unique fighting styles, but the people who use them will still be warriors.

Modifié par HopHazzard, 30 juillet 2010 - 07:50 .

[filetemo]

HopHazzard wrote...

since we only ever get to play circle mages it doesn't matter.

morrigan, jowan, mage warden commander from orlais' origin in Awakenings...

[HopHazzard]

Morrigan and Jowan are not pc's and both Jowan and the Orlesian warden are circle mages.
(edited to change incorrect information)

Modifié par HopHazzard, 30 juillet 2010 - 07:49 .

[filetemo]

My point is that you say: it's normal to not be able to play this class because the game doesn't allow you to do so.



And I say: it must be changed

[HopHazzard]

Well, you'd still be a mage. You'd just be a mage with a weapon skill tree.