143 réponses à ce sujet

[Shifty Assassin]

so then a balanced spec? so templar, champion, Spirit warrior still cause i dont think anyone suggested reaver so im sticking with my first guess

[HolyAvenger]

We go to a city full of templars, ruled by templars, have a companion whose husband was a templar...I find it extremely unlikely that surrounded as we are by a bunch of templars, we wouldn't get the templar spec.



Berserker is a staple of BioWare's and fantasy, and a might be a good fit for Fenris. He's going to be 2H right? Champion might be renamed since that will become Hawke's title, they'll probably pull some talents out of that and combine with Guardian to make the 3rd spec, something new for the game (like force mage for mages).

[AlexXIV]

Peter Thomas wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

I think most people agree that templar is very likely.

Also accordin what was said above either Champ, Guard or Zerk must be in.

I think Champion or Guardian since they are defensive spec.

Then for the last spot we would have open Spirit Warrior and Reaver.

We need another clue.

ಠ_ಠ

Whoever said we need a defensive spec and an offensive spec?

You sure like toying with us.

Well I said that because it is like ... something basic. In most RPGs I know there some sort of guardian.

Edit: Oh wait I could understand this as you saying there is no offensive spec. Maybe useless since you have distincted classes more, so you don't need offensive warriors because rogues do that. Also would kinda go hand in had with the removal of dual wield warriors.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 16 janvier 2011 - 05:07 .

[Shifty Assassin]

 No holly because in this thread  social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/5377761/1 (confirmed by dev) someone guessed the 3 warrior specs but got shouted down plus through this thread we are sure of champion/gaurdian

Modifié par Shifty Assassin, 16 janvier 2011 - 05:05 .

[HolyAvenger]

I'd love it if it was Champion/Templar/SW by the way, that was the exactly the build I chose for my canon sword and board warden. Epic.

[Shifty Assassin]

Thats my guess for the warrior specs since we ruled out beserker Champion Templar Spirit Warrior

[AlexXIV]

Shifty Assassin wrote...

Thats my guess for the warrior specs since we ruled out beserker Champion Templar Spirit Warrior

Only problem I have with champion is that there is also the title champion of kirkwall.

In DA:O the champion title was unlocked by becomming champion of redliffe. That would be bit late in the game if it happend when you are getting champion of kirkwall.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 16 janvier 2011 - 05:14 .

[HolyAvenger]

Guess they'll rename the champion spec. I'm still surprised warrior don't get a new spec like the mages do.

[AlexXIV]

Just realized they wouldn't tell us even if we guessed right, so we won't know until they say so anyway ... dunno why I even got into this.

[Shifty Assassin]

cuz it was fun

[odin1999]

Not that I care in the least about warriors but I would highly doubt spirit warrior is in. The ability to bypass armor with element damage would be a wee bit too powerful. Granted you actually have to get there first to do damage and probably don't have mobility options like a rogue does. But I would not be suprised if you got some charge/intercept type ability.

Not that anyone knows exactly yet but for mages it would appear that blood wound/hand of winter and rogues don't have bard songs of regen and the atk/defense one isn't coming back. So it would appear that the blatant op abilities of the classes have been removed thus most likely saying that spirit warrior would be removed/altered to not bypass armor.

Modifié par odin1999, 16 janvier 2011 - 05:43 .

[Maria Caliban]

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

Rogues were already confirmed: Assassin (yes), Duelist (yes), and Shadow (yes.)
Mages are now confirmed: Blood Mage (yes), Spirit Healer (yes), Battlemage (no)

That leaves ' no, no, yes' for champion, guardian, and berserker

[Adhin]

Yeah that's what I was saying. I still think berserkers in. Besides champion/guardian, Berserks one of the specialization that... technically doesn't really need any crazy training, more so when you listen to how Oghren explained it. You just get mad and start hitting ****. All the other stuff is weird magic training or demon-deal making to learn ancient techniques of eeevvvilll-ishy crap.

I can see Guardian being a good fit with what the Dev up there said. The idea that your sacrificing your self to protect others would be an interesting 'shift' in how your character is played compared to a normal tank. Though its a bit odd taking dmg when someone else is being hit. Not sure how you explain that with out magic.

Meh.

[AlexXIV]

Adhin wrote...

Yeah that's what I was saying. I still think berserkers in. Besides champion/guardian, Berserks one of the specialization that... technically doesn't really need any crazy training, more so when you listen to how Oghren explained it. You just get mad and start hitting ****. All the other stuff is weird magic training or demon-deal making to learn ancient techniques of eeevvvilll-ishy crap.
I can see Guardian being a good fit with what the Dev up there said. The idea that your sacrificing your self to protect others would be an interesting 'shift' in how your character is played compared to a normal tank. Though its a bit odd taking dmg when someone else is being hit. Not sure how you explain that with out magic.
Meh.

You get a really big shield and everyone is covering behind it?

[Bachmors]

What about the one guy who guessed arcane warrior, spirit warrior and templar ... though I guess he wasn't really serious about it ^^

But it would make sense, if they wanted to streamline the classes, to put arcane warrior in the warrior specializations ... simply a warrior with some offensive melee magic (blade enchantments and the like) ... but I guess that is not going to happen :-(

[AlexXIV]

Bachmors wrote...

What about the one guy who guessed arcane warrior, spirit warrior and templar ... though I guess he wasn't really serious about it ^^
But it would make sense, if they wanted to streamline the classes, to put arcane warrior in the warrior specializations ... simply a warrior with some offensive melee magic (blade enchantments and the like) ... but I guess that is not going to happen :-(

I was having the same thought but I think they said Arcane Warrior is out. And if they had it in the warrior tree it would still be in, just different ... I guess. But I be damned if I knew.

[Adhin]

Arcane Warrior, for the Warrior would make no sense at all. The whole point of that class was to use your magic/spells to do what a Warrior does by default, then enhance it a bit further. If you think about it the 'Spirit Warrior' is the Warriors version of an 'Arcane Warrior' but in reverse, its giving mage-like abilities to the Warrior. Same with Templar though its more specific.

You know it also kind of occured to me, if you goto the fade regardless of that class you are (happened in DAO) they're is a chance to learn a few of the specializations outside of normal means. Kind of like how bloodmagic was obtained in the last game you could do it with Spirit Warrior or Reaver (could actually be based off who you side with). Would make sense with Spirit Healer and Blood Magic as well though them 2 are far more well documented im sure so I'd imagine there a lot easier to find someone capable of teaching.

There is also the case where we may get these specializations from are companions - all be it there 'Hawkes' version of it. Like Duelist (hawke) vs Swashbuckler (Isabella). That in mind I think a Spirit Warrior/Reaver or some kind of spelly combination may work if you get taught anything by Fenris but that may also not make sense, considering I think he has whatever his specialization is due to being tampered with by mages.

Modifié par Adhin, 16 janvier 2011 - 01:45 .

[Thicos]

Why not a bow specialization to rogue? Again?
then why will I create a archer?

Cut Duelist, it is not necessary. Assassin and Shadow is enough.

Please bard and archer for rogues.

Modifié par Thicos, 16 janvier 2011 - 03:48 .

[Peter Thomas]

Thicos wrote...

Why not a bow specialization to rogue? Again?
then why will I create a archer?

Cut Duelist, it is not necessary. Assassin and Shadow is enough.

Please bard and archer for rogues.

All Rogue specs work whether you dual wield or use a bow. The only talents you can't use as an archer are in the Dual Weapon tree.

[Dhiro]

Peter Thomas wrote...

Thicos wrote...

Why not a bow specialization to rogue? Again?
then why will I create a archer?

Cut Duelist, it is not necessary. Assassin and Shadow is enough.

Please bard and archer for rogues.

All Rogue specs work whether you dual wield or use a bow. The only talents you can't use as an archer are in the Dual Weapon tree.

But Assassins usually uses more backstabs, no? I fail in see how this help a rogue.

I wonder if we'll have only three specializations. In a sense, I think that would be cool. Saying things like "I'm a Templar' is much more omnious than 'I'm a templar-champion-guardian'. Hmhm.

[nightcobra]

Peter Thomas wrote...

Thicos wrote...

Why not a bow specialization to rogue? Again?
then why will I create a archer?

Cut Duelist, it is not necessary. Assassin and Shadow is enough.

Please bard and archer for rogues.

All Rogue specs work whether you dual wield or use a bow. The only talents you can't use as an archer are in the Dual Weapon tree.

so can we assume it's the same situation for warriors?

like this:

one basic tree for sword and shield

one basic tree for 2 handers

the 4 basic trees and the 3 specs  that are left are comprised of abilities that are usable by both weapon styles

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 16 janvier 2011 - 08:43 .

[The Night Haunter]

Dhiro wrote...

Peter Thomas wrote...

Thicos wrote...

Why not a bow specialization to rogue? Again?
then why will I create a archer?

Cut Duelist, it is not necessary. Assassin and Shadow is enough.

Please bard and archer for rogues.

All Rogue specs work whether you dual wield or use a bow. The only talents you can't use as an archer are in the Dual Weapon tree.

But Assassins usually uses more backstabs, no? I fail in see how this help a rogue.

I wonder if we'll have only three specializations. In a sense, I think that would be cool. Saying things like "I'm a Templar' is much more omnious than 'I'm a templar-champion-guardian'. Hmhm.

Assassins help bows because..... *dun-dun-dun* they changed it. Which is what they've been talkin about since Peter had his Q & A thread a while back.

[Dhiro]

ghostmessiah202 wrote...

Dhiro wrote...

Peter Thomas wrote...

Thicos wrote...

Why not a bow specialization to rogue? Again?
then why will I create a archer?

Cut Duelist, it is not necessary. Assassin and Shadow is enough.

Please bard and archer for rogues.

All Rogue specs work whether you dual wield or use a bow. The only talents you can't use as an archer are in the Dual Weapon tree.

But Assassins usually uses more backstabs, no? I fail in see how this help a rogue.

I wonder if we'll have only three specializations. In a sense, I think that would be cool. Saying things like "I'm a Templar' is much more omnious than 'I'm a templar-champion-guardian'. Hmhm.

Assassins help bows because..... *dun-dun-dun* they changed it. Which is what they've been talkin about since Peter had his Q & A thread a while back.

Oh, I must have missed it. Sorry ~