268 réponses à ce sujet

[Seagloom]

Would it not make more sense to limit everyone to a single specialization? If specializations are so specialized, why can everyone and their mom master two of them? That was one of my minor criticisms of Origins' mechanics. I admit I cling to an old fashioned role-playing mindset when it comes to this sort of thing though.



I like the idea that every party member gets their own unique set of abilities no one else has. There was too much redundancy in Origins with so many characters but so few specs. It made a few of the characters feel interchangeable from a combat perspective.

[standardpack]

Risax wrote...

standardpack wrote...

Archereon wrote...

Lunar: From What I've heard, specifically from Gaider (or was it Laidlaw?) in a thread I made, AWs are gone. He didn't outright say it, but alluded to it quite a bit.

He confirmed that mages CANNOT use any weapons besides staffs, and that staffs do not do additional damage in melee weapon, and finally that those bladed staffs, like the pre-order one and the trailer one, also don't do additional melee damage.

Put that together, and it looks like there won't be a melee build, we can't play trailer Hawke...

Say WHAT!?  Then what was the freakin' point of making bladed staff weapons?  AW was one of, if not THE, most flexible and best specializations.  That is seriously dissapointing.

Maybe the Battle Mage specialization is a substitute for Arcane Warrior specialization?
I mean you learned Arcane Warrior from a Acient Elven spirit in DA:O, and Battle Mage's seemed to be more common in Dragon Age: Origins-Awakening.

It wouldn't be the same.  Battle mage, while bad****, does not give the mage the ability to have magic work like physical damage to increase the effect of weapons and allowing you to wield them.

[Risax]

standardpack wrote...

Risax wrote...

standardpack wrote...

Archereon wrote...

Lunar: From What I've heard, specifically from Gaider (or was it Laidlaw?) in a thread I made, AWs are gone. He didn't outright say it, but alluded to it quite a bit.

He confirmed that mages CANNOT use any weapons besides staffs, and that staffs do not do additional damage in melee weapon, and finally that those bladed staffs, like the pre-order one and the trailer one, also don't do additional melee damage.

Put that together, and it looks like there won't be a melee build, we can't play trailer Hawke...

Say WHAT!?  Then what was the freakin' point of making bladed staff weapons?  AW was one of, if not THE, most flexible and best specializations.  That is seriously dissapointing.

Maybe the Battle Mage specialization is a substitute for Arcane Warrior specialization?
I mean you learned Arcane Warrior from a Acient Elven spirit in DA:O, and Battle Mage's seemed to be more common in Dragon Age: Origins-Awakening.

It wouldn't be the same.  Battle mage, while bad****, does not give the mage the ability to have magic work like physical damage to increase the effect of weapons and allowing you to wield them.

It might not be the same, no.
And that's dissapointing, but in the thread "Specialties of Circles" someone says that it would be intresting if the Kirkwall Circle has a specialty in different Magic. To which Mike Laidlaw answers:"It would, wouldn't it?" he could just be teasing but maybe we get a new spec like Arcane Warrior.

Or they update Battle Mage so that we could, I dunno maybe create an astral sword to use. And if they don't... Well I hope they make it so that we have other interesting close combat magic, or at least a sh*t load of cool bladed staffs.

[Risax]

Anyway back on rogues, my favorite.
If they will make rogues more ninja-ish, what will they do to the Shadow speciliazation?
I mean, ninjas where seen as shadow warriors no? And the Shadow had some similair abilities, like decoy and shadow striking.

Will these be improved? And will we get more abilities for Specializations then four?
How about abilities in general? Do you get different talent trees for Specializations?

Modifié par Risax, 12 décembre 2010 - 03:11 .

[themageguy]

as far as i know rogues get assassin duelist and shadow.

[matt654321]

Wow, no arcane warrior is a huge downer.



I just caught up on info for this game today, and after watching the trailers I was getting ready to reserve the special edition in a few days. I ALWAYS play a gish-type character in fantasy games where possible, and I was really happy that DAO made that possible. I did multiple AW playthroughs and couldn't bring myself to finish any playthrough with the other classes.



Now that I can't be sure that I can create the type of character I want to play, I'm not so sure that I'm going to reserve, or even buy, the game. I'll wait for more information to come out, but I can't bring myself to throw money at the game without knowing that I can make my melee caster.

[themageguy]

mages in da 2 can bash ppl with their staff in melee. Prob not as good as a sword wielding AW but i think its pretty kool. Hopefully battlemage will be in the game with bonus damage to staff attacks and explosive primal spells to kick butt.

[Risax]

matt654321 wrote...

Wow, no arcane warrior is a huge downer.

I just caught up on info for this game today, and after watching the trailers I was getting ready to reserve the special edition in a few days. I ALWAYS play a gish-type character in fantasy games where possible, and I was really happy that DAO made that possible. I did multiple AW playthroughs and couldn't bring myself to finish any playthrough with the other classes.

Now that I can't be sure that I can create the type of character I want to play, I'm not so sure that I'm going to reserve, or even buy, the game. I'll wait for more information to come out, but I can't bring myself to throw money at the game without knowing that I can make my melee caster.

Sorry, but who or what is a Gish??

[Seagloom]

Risax wrote...

Sorry, but who or what is a Gish??

It is a term that comes from D&D. Gish translates into "skilled" in the nonexistent, fictional githyanki tongue and is what their warrior/mages are referred to as. Over the years it has become a term to describe any melee/caster hybrid in D&D that is equivalently proficient in both styles of combat. I usually use the term myself out of habit.

[Risax]

Seagloom wrote...

Risax wrote...

Sorry, but who or what is a Gish??

It is a term that comes from D&D. Gish translates into "skilled" in the nonexistent, fictional githyanki tongue and is what their warrior/mages are referred to as. Over the years it has become a term to describe any melee/caster hybrid in D&D that is equivalently proficient in both styles of combat. I usually use the term myself out of habit.

Thanks, I did not know.
I usually just say 'Battle Mage'.

But with the Awakening Spec, that would just cause confusion, so I geuss Gish is better.
I never played the D&D board game, are there any novels that explain it? It sounds interesting and I'm a fan of Fantasy.

Modifié par Risax, 12 décembre 2010 - 09:31 .

[Blacklash93]

I have no idea how Arcane Warrior and Battle Mage would work now. Is it possible to command a mage to fight close-up without having to manually bring them up to an enemy?

[Seagloom]

Risax wrote...

But with the Awakening Spec, that would just cause confusion, so I geuss Gish is better.
I never played the D&D board game, are there any novels that explain it? It sounds interesting and I'm a fan of Fantasy.

Not as such, no. There is information in game manuals and "Dragon magazine", but gish are only described in passing. Most info on githyanki focuses on their history, society, powers, and fabled silver swords. There are dozens of warrior/mage hybrids in D&D with different names. Spellsword, Eldritch Knight, Duskblade, Swordmage, ect depending on which edition you are looking at. Gish is just popular because most folks in those circles recognize it quickly and its easy to write. Based on personal experience, not too many people seem to know where it comes from either. They just pick up the context from conversation and fold it into their vernacular.

On topic: If there is a gish class, I hope it allows us to wield weapons other than staves. I am actually a big fan of staff fighting, but I have a thing about playing war-wizards with swords or bows. Not being able to wear armor, I can live with, but I need weapon access darn it.

[Risax]

Blacklash93 wrote...

I have no idea how Arcane Warrior and Battle Mage would work now. Is it possible to command a mage to fight close-up without having to manually bring them up to an enemy?

In some of the Podcasts Mike Laidlaw seemed to say you could appoint your followers to an enemy, but he could've meant that you take control of the character and make him attack an enemy, and then go back to your own character.

[Risax]

Seagloom wrote...

Risax wrote...

But with the Awakening Spec, that would just cause confusion, so I geuss Gish is better.
I never played the D&D board game, are there any novels that explain it? It sounds interesting and I'm a fan of Fantasy.

Not as such, no. There is information in game manuals and "Dragon magazine", but gish are only described in passing. Most info on githyanki focuses on their history, society, powers, and fabled silver swords. There are dozens of warrior/mage hybrids in D&D with different names. Spellsword, Eldritch Knight, Duskblade, Swordmage, ect depending on which edition you are looking at. Gish is just popular because most folks in those circles recognize it quickly and its easy to write. Based on personal experience, not too many people seem to know where it comes from either. They just pick up the context from conversation and fold it into their vernacular.

On topic: If there is a gish class, I hope it allows us to wield weapons other than staves. I am actually a big fan of staff fighting, but I have a thing about playing war-wizards with swords or bows. Not being able to wear armor, I can live with, but I need weapon access darn it.

Personally I think they should make Spirit Warrior from Awakening, more like a Spellsword or Gish. For example they can give their sword a flame or ice coating, like in DA:O. But now you can slash from far away and a flame wave hits your enemy or something. 

Modifié par Risax, 12 décembre 2010 - 09:49 .

[Archereon]

Seagloom wrote...

Risax wrote...

But with the Awakening Spec, that would just cause confusion, so I geuss Gish is better.
I never played the D&D board game, are there any novels that explain it? It sounds interesting and I'm a fan of Fantasy.

Not as such, no. There is information in game manuals and "Dragon magazine", but gish are only described in passing. Most info on githyanki focuses on their history, society, powers, and fabled silver swords. There are dozens of warrior/mage hybrids in D&D with different names. Spellsword, Eldritch Knight, Duskblade, Swordmage, ect depending on which edition you are looking at. Gish is just popular because most folks in those circles recognize it quickly and its easy to write. Based on personal experience, not too many people seem to know where it comes from either. They just pick up the context from conversation and fold it into their vernacular.

On topic: If there is a gish class, I hope it allows us to wield weapons other than staves. I am actually a big fan of staff fighting, but I have a thing about playing war-wizards with swords or bows. Not being able to wear armor, I can live with, but I need weapon access darn it.

I'm the other way around.  I don't wana fight people in swords wearing a dress, I want to do it in badarse plate mail.  Preferabley, I'd go with the 2h sword for my mage.  A DPS AW for DA2 would be awesome.

[Dasher1010]

we're getting three specs per class.



The rougue ones were already confirmed: Assassin, Duelist and Shadow



I'm predicting that the warrior will have: Champion, Guardian and Berserker



Mages will probably have Blood Mage, Spirit Healer and Battlemage

[Risax]

Dasher1010 wrote...

we're getting three specs per class.

The rougue ones were already confirmed: Assassin, Duelist and Shadow

I'm predicting that the warrior will have: Champion, Guardian and Berserker

Mages will probably have Blood Mage, Spirit Healer and Battlemage

Where did you get the info???

[Peter Thomas]

Dasher1010 wrote...

The rougue ones were already confirmed: Assassin, Duelist and Shadow

I'm predicting that the warrior will have: Champion, Guardian and Berserker

Mages will probably have Blood Mage, Spirit Healer and Battlemage

in NO particular order:

no, no, no, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes

[Risax]

...Thanks Mr. Thomas.
At least it's some info.

Modifié par Risax, 13 décembre 2010 - 12:26 .

[Ensgnblack]

I just hope specializations actually mean something in DA2. I found myself taking specs often just to get the passive bonuses.



I found myself always taking the same ones, regardless of spec (for the most part).

[Mad Method]

Peter Thomas wrote...

Dasher1010 wrote...

The rougue ones were already confirmed: Assassin, Duelist and Shadow

I'm predicting that the warrior will have: Champion, Guardian and Berserker

Mages will probably have Blood Mage, Spirit Healer and Battlemage

in NO particular order:

no, no, no, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes

Quick! Process of elimination!

Rogue: Assassin (confirmed!), Duelist (confirmed!) and Shadow (confirmed!)
Warrior: Champion (not confirmed!), Guardian (not confirmed!) and Berserker (not confirmed!)
Mage: Blood Mage (confirmed!) , Spirit Healer (not confirmed!) and Battlemage (not confirmed!)

That leaves us with: Champion - Guardian - Berserker - Spirit Healer - Battlemage
And: no, no, no, yes, yes

If we make some guesses at which specs are most dubious, we can remove Guardian and Battlemage because neither of them seem like something that ought be a spec per se: All mages have been granted melee abilities to enter the fray point blank, so all mages that fight should be "battlemages" and all warriors that tank (ie. all warriors) should be "guardians."

That leaves us with: Champion - Berserker - Spirit Healer
And: no, yes, yes

I would rule out Champion simply because no matter what class you are, you will be the Champion of Kirkwall, therefore a Champion specialization would be "forced" on your character for Warriors or just very weird to not have as a Warrior or non-Warrior. If that is the case, we will have Berserker and Spirit Healer specializations.

[Phazor58]

Mad Method wrote...

Peter Thomas wrote...

Dasher1010 wrote...

The rougue ones were already confirmed: Assassin, Duelist and Shadow

I'm predicting that the warrior will have: Champion, Guardian and Berserker

Mages will probably have Blood Mage, Spirit Healer and Battlemage

in NO particular order:

no, no, no, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes

Quick! Process of elimination!

Rogue: Assassin (confirmed!), Duelist (confirmed!) and Shadow (confirmed!)
Warrior: Champion (not confirmed!), Guardian (not confirmed!) and Berserker (not confirmed!)
Mage: Blood Mage (confirmed!) , Spirit Healer (not confirmed!) and Battlemage (not confirmed!)

That leaves us with: Champion - Guardian - Berserker - Spirit Healer - Battlemage
And: no, no, no, yes, yes

If we make some guesses at which specs are most dubious, we can remove Guardian and Battlemage because neither of them seem like something that ought be a spec per se: All mages have been granted melee abilities to enter the fray point blank, so all mages that fight should be "battlemages" and all warriors that tank (ie. all warriors) should be "guardians."

That leaves us with: Champion - Berserker - Spirit Healer
And: no, yes, yes

I would rule out Champion simply because no matter what class you are, you will be the Champion of Kirkwall, therefore a Champion specialization would be "forced" on your character for Warriors or just very weird to not have as a Warrior or non-Warrior. If that is the case, we will have Berserker and Spirit Healer specializations.

Good analysis.  Makes sense to me.

[Risax]

I was already sure they'd keep Spirit Healer.
But Champion and Berserker? I dunno, maybe they've kept Champion.
But maybe now, it is a specialization for Hawke only?

Modifié par Risax, 13 décembre 2010 - 01:20 .