102 réponses à ce sujet

[Albatroz]

Haussier wrote...

why is the mage always stereotyped as a bookworm/smart guy? why can't we get more of a warrior scholar? I don't wan't a mage to be as effective in melee as a melee specialist like a warrior but I would still like something more than what we tend to get in fantasy games

Meh here's to hopeing.

Because if a mage is able to shoot lightning and ice out of his pores, and is capable of holding his own in physical combat, why have any of the other classes at all? It defeats the purpose of having melee specialists if someone is perfectly capable of getting by in fist fights, even with difficulty, and still able to make people expolde with a snap of their fingers.

[Morroian]

AustinKain wrote...

ONTOPIC:  Mages should not be allowed to wear metal armor, they should be using thier magic to cast spells.

Wouldnt have been as fun if Raistlin was wielding a sword, or Gandalf had a mace.  Magic is a mages armor, and weapon.

Why be so restrictive? Sure you should suffer a penalty so you're not godlike but so long as the balance is right why not.

[Miss Stab]

AustinKain wrote...

Miss Stab wrote...

Pitrus wrote...

AustinKain wrote...

Sabresandiego wrote...

Mage cannot stand up to a warrior in melee combat! Can a book nerd beat up the school wrestling champ! NO! If you want to melee then pick warrior, or if you want to fight like a scumbag pick a rogue! If you want to babble at people and launch fireballs pick mage, but dont pick a mage and try to fight like a warrior!

I'm just kidding, I hope there is some kind of battle mage build that is unique and fun. It better not outshine warriors though!

Actually if the "book nerd" has read the right books, and or knows how to use said books he can beat up the school wrestling champ.

Take your elitist ideaology back to what ever rascist anti-social organization you are a memeber of , and stay amoongst like minded fools.

Thank you and have a nice day.

Wow... You must feel really stupid right now

LOLHEMAD

Although, I think that little section touched a nerve there.

hmm succsefull trolls to you both.

Thank you have a nice day was sarcasm.

Trolls will always troll congratz on being trolls.

wut?
lolumad

[godlike13]

The RustMonster wrote...

Haussier wrote...

why is the mage always stereotyped as a bookworm/smart guy? why can't we get more of a warrior scholar? I don't wan't a mage to be as effective in melee as a melee specialist like a warrior but I would still like something more than what we tend to get in fantasy games

Meh here's to hopeing.

Because if a mage is able to shoot lightning and ice out of his pores, and is capable of holding his own in physical combat, why have any of the other classes at all? It defeats the purpose of having melee specialists if someone is perfectly capable of getting by in fist fights, even with difficulty, and still able to make people expolde with a snap of their fingers.

Just because a Mage is able to hold his own doesn't make him a melee specialists. Melee specialists can do things Mages can not, and vice-versa. Look at Rouges, they can be very capable of holding their own in physical combat, and still be able to snipe people with a pull of their finger. So does ur logic apply to them too now.

[Albatroz]

godlike13 wrote...

The RustMonster wrote...

Haussier wrote...

why is the mage always stereotyped as a bookworm/smart guy? why can't we get more of a warrior scholar? I don't wan't a mage to be as effective in melee as a melee specialist like a warrior but I would still like something more than what we tend to get in fantasy games

Meh here's to hopeing.

Because if a mage is able to shoot lightning and ice out of his pores, and is capable of holding his own in physical combat, why have any of the other classes at all? It defeats the purpose of having melee specialists if someone is perfectly capable of getting by in fist fights, even with difficulty, and still able to make people expolde with a snap of their fingers.

Just because a Mage is able to hold his own doesn't make him a melee specialists. Melee specialists can do things Mages can not, and vice-versa. Look at Rouges, they can be very capable of holding their own in physical combat, and still be able to snipe people with a pull of their finger. So does ur logic apply to them too now.

No, because there's a difference in power level there. There's a significant between a rogue being good at melee and being able to use basic ranged attacks and a mage being good at melle and using MAGIC. Magic is inherently more powerful than a sword swing or arrow. If you combine that with even somewhat powerful melee skills and survivability, you've just taken out the balance. If mages were able to hold their own in melee and were still just as powerful with their ranged magic, it would seriously overpower the class. It becomes a poor choice to play anything other than a mage, and takes away from the fun of the other 2 classes.

[godlike13]

The RustMonster wrote...

godlike13 wrote...

The RustMonster wrote...

Haussier wrote...

why is the mage always stereotyped as a bookworm/smart guy? why can't we get more of a warrior scholar? I don't wan't a mage to be as effective in melee as a melee specialist like a warrior but I would still like something more than what we tend to get in fantasy games

Meh here's to hopeing.

Because if a mage is able to shoot lightning and ice out of his pores, and is capable of holding his own in physical combat, why have any of the other classes at all? It defeats the purpose of having melee specialists if someone is perfectly capable of getting by in fist fights, even with difficulty, and still able to make people expolde with a snap of their fingers.

Just because a Mage is able to hold his own doesn't make him a melee specialists. Melee specialists can do things Mages can not, and vice-versa. Look at Rouges, they can be very capable of holding their own in physical combat, and still be able to snipe people with a pull of their finger. So does ur logic apply to them too now.

No, because there's a difference in power level there. There's a significant between a rogue being good at melee and being able to use basic ranged attacks and a mage being good at melle and using MAGIC. Magic is inherently more powerful than a sword swing or arrow. If you combine that with even somewhat powerful melee skills and survivability, you've just taken out the balance. If mages were able to hold their own in melee and were still just as powerful with their ranged magic, it would seriously overpower the class. It becomes a poor choice to play anything other than a mage, and takes away from the fun of the other 2 classes.

So if a Rouge can hold their own in melee and were still just as powerful with their ranged arrows would that not too make them over powered. Sure an arrow might lack the theatrics of magic, but some of those skills are probably going to be quite powerful themselves, with their own advantage.

I still don't under stand on how having a little more versatility makes them overpowered any more then a class like Rouge, or a Warrior even who makes up for the arguably less versatility with sturdiness. Both Rouge and Warrior offer their own advantages where a Mage might lack, some incentive of their own. Mages might be able to hold their own in melle, but that doesn't necessarily mean they will be able to thrive in it like a Warrior or Rouge. Some versatility doesn't just equate to over power, or make the other classes lesser.

Modifié par godlike13, 17 février 2011 - 11:35 .

[Yaskaleh]

Having someone take the enemies attention makes a melle mage possible. He should fight kind of like a rogue. What a true battle mage need to do is to take all spells which effectively promotes his survival in melee range and then choose the spells which helps him deal damage in a melee situation while beating them with his swordstaff. Example is various cone spells which can be better used if the caster is within range and can easily movwe around to increase how many enemies it hits.

[TCBC_Freak]

The Hawke in the trailer is most likely an Arcane Warrior; and they have most likely made some staff-swords for the Arcane Warrior specialty to use.

Just play as an Arcane Warrior and bingo, Mage fighting in melee.

Logic police  in the house...

Modifié par TCBC_Freak, 17 février 2011 - 11:36 .

[Morroian]

There's no arcane warrior spec in DA2.

[Eclipse_9990]

TCBC_Freak wrote...

The Hawke in the trailer is most likely an Arcane Warrior; and they have most likely made some staff-swords for the Arcane Warrior specialty to use.

Logic police in the house...

 Trailer Hawke wasn't an Arcane Warrior ... He was just a Blood Mage.. Thats it. He was fighting in melee, and getting his ass kicked to boot. He only starting winning when he was using magic. 

So yeah. The logic police are wrong. 

Modifié par Eclipse_9990, 17 février 2011 - 11:40 .

[godlike13]

TCBC_Freak wrote...

The Hawke in the trailer is most likely an Arcane Warrior; and they have most likely made some staff-swords for the Arcane Warrior specialty to use.

Just play as an Arcane Warrior and bingo, Mage fighting in melee.

Logic police  in the house...

Im pretty sure Arcane Warrior is gone in DA2 though <_<

[Albatroz]

godlike13 wrote...

The RustMonster wrote...

godlike13 wrote...

The RustMonster wrote...

Haussier wrote...

why is the mage always stereotyped as a bookworm/smart guy? why can't we get more of a warrior scholar? I don't wan't a mage to be as effective in melee as a melee specialist like a warrior but I would still like something more than what we tend to get in fantasy games

Meh here's to hopeing.

Because if a mage is able to shoot lightning and ice out of his pores, and is capable of holding his own in physical combat, why have any of the other classes at all? It defeats the purpose of having melee specialists if someone is perfectly capable of getting by in fist fights, even with difficulty, and still able to make people expolde with a snap of their fingers.

Just because a Mage is able to hold his own doesn't make him a melee specialists. Melee specialists can do things Mages can not, and vice-versa. Look at Rouges, they can be very capable of holding their own in physical combat, and still be able to snipe people with a pull of their finger. So does ur logic apply to them too now.

No, because there's a difference in power level there. There's a significant between a rogue being good at melee and being able to use basic ranged attacks and a mage being good at melle and using MAGIC. Magic is inherently more powerful than a sword swing or arrow. If you combine that with even somewhat powerful melee skills and survivability, you've just taken out the balance. If mages were able to hold their own in melee and were still just as powerful with their ranged magic, it would seriously overpower the class. It becomes a poor choice to play anything other than a mage, and takes away from the fun of the other 2 classes.

So if a Rouge can hold their own in melee and were still just as powerful with their ranged arrows would that not too make them over powered. Sure an arrow might lack the theatrics of magic, but some of those skills are probably going to be quite powerful themselves, with their own advantage.

I still don't under stand on how having a little more versatility makes them overpowered any more then a class like Rouge, or a Warrior even who makes up for the arguably less versatility with sturdiness. Both Rouge and Warrior offer their own advantages where a Mage might lack, some incentive of their own. Mages might be able to hold their own in melle, but that doesn't necessarily mean they will be able to thrive in it like a Warrior or Rouge. Some versatility doesn't just equate to over power, or make the other classes lesser.

Except rogues have to choose whether they want to go melee or ranged, if they try to do both they wind up getting themselves killed. The problem I have is that people want mages to do well in melee while still bein just as effective at range, with no compromises. No way around it, that is overpowered. The fact that Origins players could solo the game on nightmare with AW proves that. IMO, mages who get too close to their enemies should go down fast. Call me a fantasy purist, but I think that mages should be squishy and melee should be a last resort, not the go to tactic.

[Sabresandiego]

I think battlemages are fine if the game is just as hard to complete as one as it is for a warrior or rogue. If the game is easier for a battlemage then a warrior or rogue, then balance is off.

[Albatroz]

Sabresandiego wrote...

I think battlemages are fine if the game is just as hard to complete as one as it is for a warrior or rogue. If the game is easier for a battlemage then a warrior or rogue, then balance is off.

I guess I can agree with that, but AW was definitely OP in DAO. (Is that enough acronyms in one sentence? Nah. Acronyms FTW)

[DKJaigen]

this whole melee thing is just standard staff damage in awesome looking melee animations. so plz stop arguing about the mages melee because technically it isn't melee

[Haussier]

Sabresandiego wrote...

I think battlemages are fine if the game is just as hard to complete as one as it is for a warrior or rogue. If the game is easier for a battlemage then a warrior or rogue, then balance is off.

I agree of course. I wouldn't mind sacrificing some of my ranged damage for some more close range survivability

[Johnny Shepard]

Yeah, same here. I don't whant the game to be easyer, I just whant to be an ass kicking melee Mage.

[Albatroz]

DKJaigen wrote...

this whole melee thing is just standard staff damage in awesome looking melee animations. so plz stop arguing about the mages melee because technically it isn't melee

We know that, we're debating whether or not mages SHOULD have melee capablities though. I am personally against it for both roleplay and mechanical reasons. IMO, mages being up at the forefront of battles fighting people with melee combat defeats the purposes of playing as a mage, and makes the class overpowered in comparison to the other 2.

[0rz0]

It has been said you can build your mage as more melee oriented. Granted it won't do that much for his effectiveness, but still, it's there.

[ScorpSt]

Looking at the leaked demo, what seems to be happening is that the ranged animations for the staff look similar to melee animations to the point where, if the enemy is close enough, it looks like you're performing melee attacks. As for whether mages should be able to melee, let me ask you, if you had a big staff and someone got too close to fire a bolt at, wouldn't you hit them with the staff? I don't think mages should be able to tank, but I think they should be able to hold their own against one or two enemies.

[Sabresandiego]

The RustMonster wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...

this whole melee thing is just standard staff damage in awesome looking melee animations. so plz stop arguing about the mages melee because technically it isn't melee

We know that, we're debating whether or not mages SHOULD have melee capablities though. I am personally against it for both roleplay and mechanical reasons. IMO, mages being up at the forefront of battles fighting people with melee combat defeats the purposes of playing as a mage, and makes the class overpowered in comparison to the other 2.

This isnt technically true. If you give the mage the abilities of a warrior, you give the warrior the abilities of a mage. This means rediculous attacks like whirlwind, charges, thrown weapons, and powerful attacks and defenses. As rpg are progressing what newer rpg's are doing is getting rid of class roles, and stereotypes of the past and building classes which all have dps, healing, and control abilities yet do it in different ways. A good example of this is guild wars 2 where there are no dedicated healers or tanks, every class can heal or prevent damage to their party in some way, and crowd control in some way. I am all for battlemages, just as I am all for warriors with self healing and massive AOE manuevers which decimate enemies similar to how a mage would.

[jomonoe]

Just my two cents, it kind of sounds like the people who want a melee mage would fit right into a class like monk in Diablo 3. Monks can't take as much damage as a warrior or have as much burst damage as a rogue but make up for it by having "magical" wild cards like a hit everyone with a teleporting attack spell or phase out of damage spell or other things that neither of the other two classes can do

[godlike13]

Sabresandiego wrote...

This isnt technically true. If you give the mage the abilities of a warrior, you give the warrior the abilities of a mage.

Like Templare for instance

[AustinKain]

A mages armor and sword is his/her magic.



Go look at fantasy games and books for the last 30 years going all the way back to D&D before there was even a first edition just Gygax and his pals playing. Mages had one piece of metal on them other than rings or bracelets jewlery etc.. and that was a lone Dagger(not a shotsword but a 4-6inch long dagger.



<<<Fantasy purist and belive things have been done like that for so many years because it works.

[godlike13]

Gandalf rocked a sword <_<

Modifié par godlike13, 18 février 2011 - 02:06 .