Addai67 wrote...
Why people are so befuddled at the idea of a spellsword, I dunno.
Guest_BrotherWarth_*
Schneidend wrote...
Addai67 wrote...
Why people are so befuddled at the idea of a spellsword, I dunno.
People are more befuddled by how little it costs a Mage to be a successful Arcane Warrior. One specialization point and then one talent point is all it takes to make the arcane stat also cover melee damage/hit and stat requirements for heavy weapons and armor. No other class/specialization completely changes the mechanics of how their stats function for so low a price.
Modifié par Addai67, 21 décembre 2010 - 06:22 .
BrotherWarth wrote...
Schneidend wrote...
Addai67 wrote...
Why people are so befuddled at the idea of a spellsword, I dunno.
People are more befuddled by how little it costs a Mage to be a successful Arcane Warrior. One specialization point and then one talent point is all it takes to make the arcane stat also cover melee damage/hit and stat requirements for heavy weapons and armor. No other class/specialization completely changes the mechanics of how their stats function for so low a price.
Which is easily remedied by making only certain armors go off the magic stat instead of strength as opposed to an ability switching it on all armors.
A bit of both. I only found two of the specialisations useful (Blood Mage and Spirit Healer), so if I my mage happened to be one who wouldn't choose Blood Mage then the second specialisation became far less important. The stat bonuses were pretty small, and Arcane Warrior had more spec-specific gear than Shapshifter did.Upsettingshorts wrote...
In this case though, I am wondering if he was making a purely out of character decision regarding aesthetics and the Arcane Warrior specialization - or if there was an incharacter explanation for pursuing a specialty only to wear something.
Wishpig wrote...
matt654321 wrote...
Eh, if I can't make my melee caster archetype, I don't think I can honestly get into this game. I just can't make a character I associate with.
And to all you saying it's good that it was deleted because it was overpowered - that's ridiculous. They could have rebalanced it; rebalancing happens all the time in video game sequels. Instead, we just lost a major character archetype.
Lol... if you can't make a melee caster archetype you can't make a character you can associate with!?!? Now thats a new one. You're a melee caster in real life? Cause thats the only way I see that making sense...
That said, Arcane Warrior was a pretty crappy class. Yeah it was uber strong, but it was really freaking boreing and it was a pretty clumsy class... some spells requiring weapon put away and what not... seemingly in no real pattern. You just kind of couldn't do it.
And it put the warrior class to shame.
But, the melee caster archetype is an important archetype that I hope is represented somehow, just in a better fashion.
WidowMaker9394 wrote...
Who were supposed to teach you the specialization anyways?
Would you be less annoyed if the decision was made because they're making an effort to increase class distinction and increase cross class synergy?matt654321 wrote...
And yeah, people wanting to chuck it completely because it was too good in the last game is a poorly thought out knee-jerk reaction. Designers rebalance and rework concepts all the time. Removing the entire concept because they got it wrong before is a cop-out.
Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 22 décembre 2010 - 12:15 .
Saberchic wrote...
But doesn't it make sense that the Arcane Warrior and Shapeshifter specializations are gone? I mean, I thought those were not common abilities. One was from the phylactery as Maria already pointed out, but Morrigan has to teach you the other.
ziggehunderslash wrote...
Would you be less annoyed if the decision was made because they're making an effort to increase class distinction and increase cross class synergy?matt654321 wrote...
And yeah, people wanting to chuck it completely because it was too good in the last game is a poorly thought out knee-jerk reaction. Designers rebalance and rework concepts all the time. Removing the entire concept because they got it wrong before is a cop-out.
They've removed whole weapon sets from the game, and that had little to do with relative power balance.
Maria Caliban wrote...
WidowMaker9394 wrote...
Who were supposed to teach you the specialization anyways?
In the Elven ruins there was a phylactery with a spirit you could free. In exchange, it would teach you the specialization.
Xewaka wrote...
ziggehunderslash wrote...
Would you be less annoyed if the decision was made because they're making an effort to increase class distinction and increase cross class synergy?matt654321 wrote...
And yeah, people wanting to chuck it completely because it was too good in the last game is a poorly thought out knee-jerk reaction. Designers rebalance and rework concepts all the time. Removing the entire concept because they got it wrong before is a cop-out.
They've removed whole weapon sets from the game, and that had little to do with relative power balance.
This. Warrior got its build option cut in half. And people are complaining because now, for their mage to wear heavy armor, they have to actually sacrifice something?
WidowMaker9394 wrote...
I meant in Dragon Age II. I've picked the specialization many times.Maria Caliban wrote...
In the Elven ruins there was a phylactery with a spirit you could free. In exchange, it would teach you the specialization.WidowMaker9394 wrote...
Who were supposed to teach you the specialization anyways?
Oh. Well, I guess I can see that. I just thought those abilites were supposed to be extremely rare. I guess they just wanted different specializations for Hawke then.Aermas wrote...
Saberchic wrote...
But doesn't it make sense that the Arcane Warrior and Shapeshifter specializations are gone? I mean, I thought those were not common abilities. One was from the phylactery as Maria already pointed out, but Morrigan has to teach you the other.
Anything done once can be done again, it's not like that was the only phylactery & there could still be elven Arcane Warriors in the lands. Other shapeshifting apostates, changing shape in the Fade doesn't seem to be uncommon, so it could be said that other mages change shape whilst in the real world because they originally got the idea from the Fade
Xewaka wrote...
ziggehunderslash wrote...
Would you be less annoyed if the decision was made because they're making an effort to increase class distinction and increase cross class synergy?matt654321 wrote...
And yeah, people wanting to chuck it completely because it was too good in the last game is a poorly thought out knee-jerk reaction. Designers rebalance and rework concepts all the time. Removing the entire concept because they got it wrong before is a cop-out.
They've removed whole weapon sets from the game, and that had little to do with relative power balance.
This. Warrior got its build option cut in half. And people are complaining because now, for their mage to wear heavy armor, they have to actually sacrifice something?
matt654321 wrote...
No, people are complaining because now it makes absolutely no sense to do so, and they've returned nothing to keep the archetype viable.
In DA:O, there was hardly any difference between a dual-wielding warrior and a dual-wielding rogue, just the specializations really, and they weren't the crux of the build. The skill trees were exactly the same, and making them exclusive to a particular class makes sense because of how much overlap there was. Deleting an entire archetype is not the same, at all.
Modifié par Xewaka, 22 décembre 2010 - 12:30 .
Retour en haut