I think in the first playthrough without understanding every details, normal user will usually find themselves relying on their warrior/tank quite a lot. They are likely to find their mage dies quite often in the beginning, and eventually realize they are very useful/powerful when used right.
I think this should be quite fun, and I believe the experience of this first playthrough for everyone is more inportant than the 3rd play through of someone is extremely familiar with everything of the system.
Mages are way overpowered - Warriors underpowered.
Débuté par
Surfie
, nov. 13 2009 03:02
Retour en haut
#252
Posté 26 novembre 2009 - 04:26
Melix.li
-
- Members
- 1 messages
i see mage as an excellent contorller`` and fireball is really a bomb``however, its affecting area is a bit too big i'm afraid` not that flexible`
#253
Posté 26 novembre 2009 - 04:27
Trax_717
-
- Members
- 3 messages
It seems there's several arguements for and against mages at this point in the thread they break down as follows:
For:
1. It's a single player game, balance doesn't matter!
- Or a variant on the same type of arguement.
2. Mages are powerful in the lore.
- Or a variant.
3. Against:
Mages are significantly more powerful/damaging than other group members.
- Or a variant.
4. Adding mages to the group makes the entire game easier.
- Or a variant.
Well lets go from point 1-4 in order.
1. Balance in a single player game does matter. In my opinion.
There's a limit to just how powerful a thing can be in any game before everyone will see reason.
If a class in the game had a "death/kill" spell which worked on every single target ingame, had no cost and no cooldown. It's fair to say very few people would claim it was 'balanced'. Or if it was another game say halo or doom or whatever, and there was a weapon with infinite ammo which when fired killed everything on the map except you. - My point with these extreme comparisons is to show that single player games must also have SOME - balance. The real question isn't if mages are balanced or not, but rather if they're so out of hand that it's not within reason.
2. The lore.
I have huge problems with this. Firstly, mages have many negative drawbacks in the lore. None of which effect you, or your group members ingame. Secondly, if we're going strictly on lore, Templars need a serious look at, if the ingame templars actually had to face a mage in combat, they wouldn't even get into melee range, they would be Frozen/paralyzed/slept/stunned or otherwise immobilized before they even realized the battle had begun. Two mages rotating abilities could keep a veritable army at bay using knockbacks/aoe freezes/paralyzation or other effects. Mages beat mages more readily than a templar can, that shows atleast one issue. Perhaps not a significant one, but certainly an issue.
My suggestion here would be to change the effects of the templars smite ability with mana clash. Making templars the "i will destroy those with mana" ability user.
3. While mages do, tend to do a higher % of group damage than others i think this is understandable. 10-12% Roughly isn't a huge deal in the overall scheme of things, anything over 20% would be something to be conserned about. Assuming you're not just AoEing things in the next room and never sending your melee, then you're skewing things yourself rather than the balance skewing them. (rogues can do the same, kill things which wont/can't fight back tactic using stealth/items etc. Aslong as they're not a huge % over the group in ordinary play, it's acceptable.
The problem here arises when their risk vs. reward doesn't balance out. AW is an obvious problem in this department. Under no circumstances should a class/character which is doing 10%+ more damage than the rest of the party be more difficult to kill than the tank. If you don't consider this a balance issue well then i have a deck of cards to sell you which is missing 14 cards.
4. Honestly this is probably due to CC effects, especially passive ones like winters grasp. I mentioned winters grasp specifcally, as it has a low cost/low cooldown and people use it as a basic damage spell which simply has a passive CC. It seems almost out of place for a rank 1 ability for its power, compared not to other classes but rather to a mages other single target spells, it's simply superior because the chances something will resist its effect vs, say stonefist are much lower and
The mass/aoe CC's are designed to be highly costly or have long cooldowns the problem with the cost here is that lyrium pots and their materials are simply too common. So rather than the cost being prohibitive it's simply another thing to be overlooked. Lightning simply doesn't compare along with arcane bolt.
Overall, i find the main problem with mages is that they don't have many of the down sides people are 'used to' having as mages.
They don't simply run out of spells
They never run low on mana, lyrium is too abundant and making potions costs next to nother.
They have very high survivibility if you spec for it at the cost of almost nothing.
Another problem here is that mages take up two slots in a group currently. Healing and damage.
It would have been more fitting for there to have been 4 classes and healing/earth spells or a few damaging spells going to that forth class. It would have solved alot of the survival/buffing from a single class problems.
As for my opinion, i find mages quite strong. They have very few downsides and if you're playing them well the spell combinations can be deadly. It's a pity melee don't have combinations in the same way, the only real combinations melee have are "X tanks it Y stands behind for more damage". This also helps mages feel more involved as a class and might add to the "overpowered" feel, as you see each peice of damage you do as something YOU did, not simply an auto-attack of some kind.
For:
1. It's a single player game, balance doesn't matter!
- Or a variant on the same type of arguement.
2. Mages are powerful in the lore.
- Or a variant.
3. Against:
Mages are significantly more powerful/damaging than other group members.
- Or a variant.
4. Adding mages to the group makes the entire game easier.
- Or a variant.
Well lets go from point 1-4 in order.
1. Balance in a single player game does matter. In my opinion.
There's a limit to just how powerful a thing can be in any game before everyone will see reason.
If a class in the game had a "death/kill" spell which worked on every single target ingame, had no cost and no cooldown. It's fair to say very few people would claim it was 'balanced'. Or if it was another game say halo or doom or whatever, and there was a weapon with infinite ammo which when fired killed everything on the map except you. - My point with these extreme comparisons is to show that single player games must also have SOME - balance. The real question isn't if mages are balanced or not, but rather if they're so out of hand that it's not within reason.
2. The lore.
I have huge problems with this. Firstly, mages have many negative drawbacks in the lore. None of which effect you, or your group members ingame. Secondly, if we're going strictly on lore, Templars need a serious look at, if the ingame templars actually had to face a mage in combat, they wouldn't even get into melee range, they would be Frozen/paralyzed/slept/stunned or otherwise immobilized before they even realized the battle had begun. Two mages rotating abilities could keep a veritable army at bay using knockbacks/aoe freezes/paralyzation or other effects. Mages beat mages more readily than a templar can, that shows atleast one issue. Perhaps not a significant one, but certainly an issue.
My suggestion here would be to change the effects of the templars smite ability with mana clash. Making templars the "i will destroy those with mana" ability user.
3. While mages do, tend to do a higher % of group damage than others i think this is understandable. 10-12% Roughly isn't a huge deal in the overall scheme of things, anything over 20% would be something to be conserned about. Assuming you're not just AoEing things in the next room and never sending your melee, then you're skewing things yourself rather than the balance skewing them. (rogues can do the same, kill things which wont/can't fight back tactic using stealth/items etc. Aslong as they're not a huge % over the group in ordinary play, it's acceptable.
The problem here arises when their risk vs. reward doesn't balance out. AW is an obvious problem in this department. Under no circumstances should a class/character which is doing 10%+ more damage than the rest of the party be more difficult to kill than the tank. If you don't consider this a balance issue well then i have a deck of cards to sell you which is missing 14 cards.
4. Honestly this is probably due to CC effects, especially passive ones like winters grasp. I mentioned winters grasp specifcally, as it has a low cost/low cooldown and people use it as a basic damage spell which simply has a passive CC. It seems almost out of place for a rank 1 ability for its power, compared not to other classes but rather to a mages other single target spells, it's simply superior because the chances something will resist its effect vs, say stonefist are much lower and
The mass/aoe CC's are designed to be highly costly or have long cooldowns the problem with the cost here is that lyrium pots and their materials are simply too common. So rather than the cost being prohibitive it's simply another thing to be overlooked. Lightning simply doesn't compare along with arcane bolt.
Overall, i find the main problem with mages is that they don't have many of the down sides people are 'used to' having as mages.
They don't simply run out of spells
They never run low on mana, lyrium is too abundant and making potions costs next to nother.
They have very high survivibility if you spec for it at the cost of almost nothing.
Another problem here is that mages take up two slots in a group currently. Healing and damage.
It would have been more fitting for there to have been 4 classes and healing/earth spells or a few damaging spells going to that forth class. It would have solved alot of the survival/buffing from a single class problems.
As for my opinion, i find mages quite strong. They have very few downsides and if you're playing them well the spell combinations can be deadly. It's a pity melee don't have combinations in the same way, the only real combinations melee have are "X tanks it Y stands behind for more damage". This also helps mages feel more involved as a class and might add to the "overpowered" feel, as you see each peice of damage you do as something YOU did, not simply an auto-attack of some kind.
Modifié par Trax_717, 26 novembre 2009 - 04:34 .
#254
Posté 26 novembre 2009 - 04:33
Marionetten
-
- Members
- 1 769 messages
I don't recall the lore ever mentioning a single templar standing up to a mage. I actually remember Duncan talking about a blood mage who fought an entire squad of templars evenly until one of them snuck up from behind and cleaved his head in two. They operate in squads for a reason.Trax_717 wrote...
Secondly, if we're going strictly on lore, Templars need a serious look at, if the ingame templars actually had to face a mage in combat, they wouldn't even get into melee range, they would be Frozen/paralyzed/slept/stunned or otherwise immobilized before they even realized the battle had begun. Two mages rotating abilities could keep a veritable army at bay using knockbacks/aoe freezes/paralyzation or other effects. Mages beat mages more readily than a templar can, that shows atleast one issue. Perhaps not a significant one, but certainly an issue.
#255
Posté 26 novembre 2009 - 04:41
Roxlimn
-
- Members
- 1 337 messages
Trax_717:
Clearly, you haven't been playing Warrior right. Warriors have tons of CC abilities, and a single Warrior can 3 or 4 different PBAOE CC abilities ready to fire at once. Shale herself has Quake, which is better than a Fireball for damage at most levels in the game. And she gets both Slam and Killing Blow, which are hella powerful.
There isn't an Elite killer ability in the game that's better than Killing Blow - the fact that you can stack it with Warrior-based Final Blow, Critical Strike, and Mighty Blow means that you can pretty much kill whichever Elite you want gone.
That's better than CC'ing until the cows come home, because DEATH is better than CC.
You do NOT need a Healing mage in Dragon Age. What you need is a Herbalist and frequent visits to Varathorn (don't ****** him off) for massive amounts of Health Poultices. A Mage requires you to have the right combo of spells placed right to do well. A Warrior you can put on Tactics and his infinite amount of Health means you can just leave the computer running and be assured of victory in a few minutes.
This is not lore-based. This is not saying that balance is not important.
This is me telling all you guys who think that Mages are overpowered that you need to look into Warriors much more than you currently are. Because a class that can solo the game on Nightmare while on auto-Tactics is NOT underpowered in the least.
Clearly, you haven't been playing Warrior right. Warriors have tons of CC abilities, and a single Warrior can 3 or 4 different PBAOE CC abilities ready to fire at once. Shale herself has Quake, which is better than a Fireball for damage at most levels in the game. And she gets both Slam and Killing Blow, which are hella powerful.
There isn't an Elite killer ability in the game that's better than Killing Blow - the fact that you can stack it with Warrior-based Final Blow, Critical Strike, and Mighty Blow means that you can pretty much kill whichever Elite you want gone.
That's better than CC'ing until the cows come home, because DEATH is better than CC.
You do NOT need a Healing mage in Dragon Age. What you need is a Herbalist and frequent visits to Varathorn (don't ****** him off) for massive amounts of Health Poultices. A Mage requires you to have the right combo of spells placed right to do well. A Warrior you can put on Tactics and his infinite amount of Health means you can just leave the computer running and be assured of victory in a few minutes.
This is not lore-based. This is not saying that balance is not important.
This is me telling all you guys who think that Mages are overpowered that you need to look into Warriors much more than you currently are. Because a class that can solo the game on Nightmare while on auto-Tactics is NOT underpowered in the least.
#256
Posté 26 novembre 2009 - 06:52
Hulk Hsieh
-
- Members
- 511 messages
On the healig thing...
The healing of Mage isn't really that effective if not going SH spec. Even with SH, it is still hard to have large number of health healed in short time. And if you do want to spam heal every 5 seconds, there will be little change to do AOE damage.
Greater/Potent Poultices are usually more reliable when needing heal badly.
The healing of Mage isn't really that effective if not going SH spec. Even with SH, it is still hard to have large number of health healed in short time. And if you do want to spam heal every 5 seconds, there will be little change to do AOE damage.
Greater/Potent Poultices are usually more reliable when needing heal badly.
#257
Posté 26 novembre 2009 - 06:55
F-C
-
- Members
- 963 messages
THEY DIDNT MAKE THE GAME HOW I WANTED IT !!!!
#258
Posté 26 novembre 2009 - 10:25
MANoob
-
- Members
- 139 messages
Roxlimn wrote...
This is me telling all you guys who think that Mages are overpowered that you need to look into Warriors much more than you currently are. Because a class that can solo the game on Nightmare while on auto-Tactics is NOT underpowered in the least.
Id really like to see someone soloing this game on nightmare as a warrior..... One grab and you are screwed. Not even speaking about chain overwhelms. Hell, Id like to see how you solo Kokari Wilds at the very least.
P.S. Ive finished this game as a mage and as a warrior on nightmare + finished it solo as a mage (nightmare too). And you can safely assume that I am competent enough at character building.
P.P.S: How can you stack Shale's and Berserker abilities? Shale doesnt get specialization points. And shale pwns (lots of interesting abilities and flexible tactics), thats imo how a warrior should look like. But Shale is Shale, not a playable warrior class.
Modifié par MANoob, 26 novembre 2009 - 10:36 .
#259
Posté 26 novembre 2009 - 10:46
menasure
-
- Members
- 440 messages
mm i don't really get the viewpoint some have on how strong mages really are. what i tend to do when i face one is besides trying to hit them before they hit me with "something" ranged and preferably incapacitating is simply "release the hound and/or a templar". i would not bother to send in a melee if there is no possibility to beat the mage, however i do make sure to give a party the best available stuff which often includes resistance and there is probably a reason why those salves, bombs etc... have their place in game.
#260
Posté 26 novembre 2009 - 11:04
Hyunsai
-
- Members
- 396 messages
For the Lore argument, are all encounters (even bosses, dragons etc) stupid enough to punch a forcefield forever leaving other party members massacre them (even if they are powerful mages opponents and know well what forcefield do) ?
If obviously broken mechanism is Lorewise, no problem though.
If obviously broken mechanism is Lorewise, no problem though.
#261
Posté 26 novembre 2009 - 11:08
FedericoV
-
- Members
- 1 860 messages
Marionetten wrote...
I don't recall the lore ever mentioning a single templar standing up to a mage. I actually remember Duncan talking about a blood mage who fought an entire squad of templars evenly until one of them snuck up from behind and cleaved his head in two. They operate in squads for a reason.Trax_717 wrote...
Secondly, if we're going strictly on lore, Templars need a serious look at, if the ingame templars actually had to face a mage in combat, they wouldn't even get into melee range, they would be Frozen/paralyzed/slept/stunned or otherwise immobilized before they even realized the battle had begun. Two mages rotating abilities could keep a veritable army at bay using knockbacks/aoe freezes/paralyzation or other effects. Mages beat mages more readily than a templar can, that shows atleast one issue. Perhaps not a significant one, but certainly an issue.
Well... considering the power of Holy Smythe compared to Mana Clash, at least in terms of lore, it's very strange that Templar Squads do not bring a circle mage of trust with them when they hunt, just to have a lesser death rate
. Very, very strange. Honestly, considering the power of Tempars and the power of Mages, it's ubelievable that the Tempars have any form of controll over the mages in terms of lore.
#262
Posté 26 novembre 2009 - 07:01
Blue_dodo
-
- Members
- 391 messages
WillieStyle wrote...
Blue_dodo wrote...
sigh.... long rant but I am really tired of all these overpowered/underpowered topics
okey first off lets take out the ideas of min/maxing skills why ? because if you only put points into strength and constitution you going to have a warrior who is very powerful but can't hit worth **** since there attack is so low because you did not put anything into dextarity, the same with your mental resistance no points into willpower (I do agree that magic is useless to warriors) and you are going to find yourself hit by every single spell, not to mention very low stamina .
It would be nice if you understood how the game works before pontificating.the same goes for mages, while strength can be ignored constitution shouldn't no matter how much distance away from them you will be attacked, heck even mages can kill you at that point, dextarity is useful if only for the bonus to defense that and a combination with constitution physical resistance (less you wish to nock down and stuned constantly)
All of this is wrong.Mages do have some over powered spells, but mana clash only works on mages and therefore is really only a instant killer in certain areas,like the tower, the rest of the time there are only one or two mages in a group making it rather situational.
This has got to be parody. Mages are the most dangerous enemies in the game. Because there are only 1 or 2 in a group (as opposed to 30?) being able to insta-kill all of the mages in a group (which are again the most dangerous enemies) is "situational".
first off please tell me were I was wrong if you do so then I will admit it, otherwise you are makig a blatent accusation that holds no fact to it, I have this game and I am very much aware of how each attribute point work.
and as for mana clash yeah perhaps I was wrong but it is more effective in the tower (were there is arcane horrors,blood mages etc) the rest of the time there are maybe one or two mages in a group and yes they are a pain in the ass, I can't tell you how many times curse of mortality has killed me (which can be dispelled)
it's all about how you play, I find every spell has some use at some point, example try combining earth qauke with grease trap, great way to slow down mobs
p.s this is from a console user so my knowledge may not apply to pc players
#263
Posté 26 novembre 2009 - 07:06
WillieStyle
-
- Members
- 1 298 messages
Strength affects both damage and chance to hit. So increasing your strength by 10 has the exact same effect on your attack as increasing your strength by 5 and your dex by 5.
Modifié par WillieStyle, 26 novembre 2009 - 07:08 .
#264
Posté 26 novembre 2009 - 07:14
Xultep
-
- Members
- 29 messages
Blue_dodo wrote...
first off please tell me were I was wrong if you do so then I will admit it, otherwise you are makig a blatent accusation that holds no fact to it, I have this game and I am very much aware of how each attribute point work.
and as for mana clash yeah perhaps I was wrong but it is more effective in the tower (were there is arcane horrors,blood mages etc) the rest of the time there are maybe one or two mages in a group and yes they are a pain in the ass, I can't tell you how many times curse of mortality has killed me (which can be dispelled)
it's all about how you play, I find every spell has some use at some point, example try combining earth qauke with grease trap, great way to slow down mobs
p.s this is from a console user so my knowledge may not apply to pc players
LOL, I will take a stab at it
First off your attack will not be gimped by ignoring dex! Unless you dual wield, or use range... Reason is for normal melee you get a 0.5 increase to attack from both dex and str, so it doesn't matter if you split it or not! By putting into dex, however, you will gimp your damage. The caveat being you are not ranged or dualing of course. For the quick dual wield/light armor build you want to put points into dex to also increase defense. Of course gimping str is not all that bad, because you are going for quantity over quality. Lastly for rogues, you can get the feat that puts cunning in place of str, and you become a DPS'ing madman! IMO, highest single target DPS by far!
Haven't found con as useful as str, with wynne in your party!
But in general I think, if you understand the game mechanics you can make a really OP warrior. Mages on the other hand you can do well with without understanding the mechanics all that well.
Modifié par Xultep, 26 novembre 2009 - 07:15 .
#265
Posté 26 novembre 2009 - 07:27
SirGCal
-
- Members
- 91 messages
The big difference with not uping your dex is you will 'be hit' more often. Dex effects your abilities to act defensive and avoid some attacks. I don't believe strength does that. My current warrior can go toe to toe with the biggest and is only getting hit about half the time, if that (which is good cause it's armor isn't very good yet...) Again, on nightmare. So gimping your damage a bit by using dex isn't necessarily a bad thing if it helps you get hit less which = less mana spent healing = less pots, = less injuries (I have 0 injuries on my main characters in all of my playthroughs so far)... Infact for my setups where Alistair is my main tank, I don't really give him any more strength than is necessary for the armor he wears. The rest goes into dex. I don't put much into con either since it doesn't help how much healing has to be done. Magic if anything since that does effect healing.
#266
Posté 26 novembre 2009 - 07:39
SirGCal
-
- Members
- 91 messages
Shockwave3000 wrote...
This I completely agree with. Also as a warrior, I dont care if there are 4 people beating me down, I'm running towards that mage to kill him/her. Nothing hurts more than getting hit the 7-8 times from that darn lighting bolt they send out.Paxsis wrote...
Well, as a warrior, I can safely say that some points don't seem to be made for anything but mages. It can be insanely hard to survive sometimes, even on normal
If you're having that much trouble, I think you're doing something wrong then . For fun I took one of my warriors and just soloed the Stone Prisoner DLC area. Didn't even use a single pot. Though not that that is really a hard area but I also didn't pull anything. I just charged in so it was quite a few times of 10+ on me... I did it for fun and to test a setup (confirm dex vs to-be-hit chance). And I quite easily walked over them all actually. And that's on nightmare.
Any warrior who runs from harm is doing something wrong. They should stand and take it so the other DPS can drop the bad guys. That's why they are called meat shields. But that also doesn't mean they are junk.
Generally, with a party, I charge out with the tank, taunt everything right off the bat, then head for support first (healing mages, etc.) Work your way around and finishing on the biggest bad guys. Or, if you're using AOE mages and just want to cheat yourself (boring for me so I don't... AOEs make everything just too easy), just send the tank in the middle and taunt em all, then AOE on top of him. Maybe use forcefield on him if you like him enough to care... It's the ultimate you-win button (more so than any other combo I can think of for mass enemies).
#267
Posté 26 novembre 2009 - 07:45
arpegino
-
- Members
- 29 messages
On hard and nightmare difficulties, you can beat the game without a rogue or warrior, but you can't beat it without a mage.
#268
Posté 26 novembre 2009 - 07:48
WillieStyle
-
- Members
- 1 298 messages
arpegino wrote...
On hard and nightmare difficulties, you can beat the game without a rogue or warrior, but you can't beat it without a mage.
Untrue. You can solo the game with a rogue. It's hard and a little tedious, but doable.
#269
Posté 26 novembre 2009 - 08:06
Xultep
-
- Members
- 29 messages
SirGCal wrote...
The big difference with not uping your dex is you will 'be hit' more often. Dex effects your abilities to act defensive and avoid some attacks. I don't believe strength does that. My current warrior can go toe to toe with the biggest and is only getting hit about half the time, if that (which is good cause it's armor isn't very good yet...) Again, on nightmare. So gimping your damage a bit by using dex isn't necessarily a bad thing if it helps you get hit less which = less mana spent healing = less pots, = less injuries (I have 0 injuries on my main characters in all of my playthroughs so far)... Infact for my setups where Alistair is my main tank, I don't really give him any more strength than is necessary for the armor he wears. The rest goes into dex. I don't put much into con either since it doesn't help how much healing has to be done. Magic if anything since that does effect healing.
Yeah, I have three warriors.
2H --> a lot of str, little dex and even less con. Hits like a truck and wears the heaviest armor! Can one shot the OP mages;) (but is very slow)
dual wield -> mainly dex and a little str. The goal here is to wear light armor getting little penalties due to fatigue and just keep the combo train going! Plays alot like a barbarian.
sword and board --> only 6th level, but right now I am splitting pretty evenly between str, dex and con.
Modifié par Xultep, 26 novembre 2009 - 08:07 .
#270
Posté 26 novembre 2009 - 08:11
Blue_dodo
-
- Members
- 391 messages
WillieStyle wrote...
arpegino wrote...
On hard and nightmare difficulties, you can beat the game without a rogue or warrior, but you can't beat it without a mage.
Untrue. You can solo the game with a rogue. It's hard and a little tedious, but doable.
yo can pretty much solo as any class, a warrior who has taken reaver/champion is very good at crowd control plus devour (provided it isn't bugged or you nkow how to get it to work) can completly heal you.
rogues can definatly solo, although you have to be very wise at what skills you pick, a maxed out ranger class is good for this (I hear that the advanced wolf summoning has a 100% critical chance)
#271
Posté 26 novembre 2009 - 08:24
WillieStyle
-
- Members
- 1 298 messages
I'd love to see someone solo the game on nightmare with a warrior. I'm not saying it's impossible, but stealth is very, very useful.
#272
Posté 26 novembre 2009 - 09:38
MANoob
-
- Members
- 139 messages
There are lots of players soloing the game as mages and rogues, but I have yet to see someone soloing it as a warrior. Imo the biggest problem is that monsters can grab/overwhelm/stunlock you and I dont see how a warrior can counter this. Stealth is pretty much what makes rogue soloing possible. And warrior looks like a rogue nerfed in every aspect (especially for soloing).
#273
Posté 26 novembre 2009 - 10:25
Aristofiles
-
- Members
- 2 messages
Kinda stupid discussion in a way. Since its a single playergame it really dosent matter if something is balanced or not. If you think the game is to easy with a AW then simply pick another class. Perhaps some players like to play as a mage (Cant stand it personaly though) There is only need to balance a game 100% if there are players hacking of on eachother in multi. Try finish the game with only the main character, playing as a nude 2h wielding rouge and put all your skill points on magic..... if you want a chalange that is.
I think its good that that allow the players to choose if thay wanto play it easy or hard
I think its good that that allow the players to choose if thay wanto play it easy or hard
Modifié par Aristofiles, 26 novembre 2009 - 10:27 .
