141 réponses à ce sujet

[darklordpocky-san]

SG60 wrote...

darklordpocky-san wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

AW - Any name you give this combined class has been ridculously over powered in any game I've played DAO or others. It's also A LOT harder to balance classes than some would assume. Games set up to accomodate groups vs strict solo games are very different.

I've seen games handel this balance well, even first Final Fantasy did this.

Just restrict what this set up can do;

1. they can't hit as hard as a Warrior, or equipt heavier armor and weapons.
2. they cannot fully master all magical types, only use them to a certain extent.
3. They have less HP and speed in comparison to a Warrior or Mage.

So for example maybe they could only equip light armor at the very best, and be unable to access some skill upgrades or the "Mastery" skills like Galvanism. If they needed more limiting, you could also disallow them from using the ranged standard attack for mages, and be melee only.

In most RPGs, this usually means they only gain the 1st and 2nd tier offensive magic, and some defensive magic, but cannot access the Higher tiers

i.e. Fire Fira, but no Firaga

[IronVanguard]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

In Exile wrote...

I'm pretty sure they only threw it in after all the cleric whinning on the DA forums in the first place. God, it went on for like a year.

Yee don't remind me.  A proper healer should wear pajamas and have two monk levels and punch people's kidneys out through their ears.  No, really.  That's what I like to play so that's what everyone should play.

I happen to like my 3.5 Cleric/Monk/Sacred Fist with Vow of Poverty build, thank you very much. Not positive it's effective, but it sure sounds nice.

[SG60]

darklordpocky-san wrote...

SG60 wrote...

darklordpocky-san wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

AW - Any name you give this combined class has been ridculously over powered in any game I've played DAO or others. It's also A LOT harder to balance classes than some would assume. Games set up to accomodate groups vs strict solo games are very different.

I've seen games handel this balance well, even first Final Fantasy did this.

Just restrict what this set up can do;

1. they can't hit as hard as a Warrior, or equipt heavier armor and weapons.
2. they cannot fully master all magical types, only use them to a certain extent.
3. They have less HP and speed in comparison to a Warrior or Mage.

So for example maybe they could only equip light armor at the very best, and be unable to access some skill upgrades or the "Mastery" skills like Galvanism. If they needed more limiting, you could also disallow them from using the ranged standard attack for mages, and be melee only.

In most RPGs, this usually means they only gain the 1st and 2nd tier offensive magic, and some defensive magic, but cannot access the Higher tiers

i.e. Fire Fira, but no Firaga

That's the point. In DA2 alot of spells aren't so great unless you get their upgrade, or have the final "Mastery" skill at the end of the tree that boosts that tree's damage. So AW could be say, stuck with the regular small fireball without access to the ice/fire mastery skill, or the Pyromancy boost skill, and not be able to get Fireball's upgrade. So they could get only basic forms of whatever magic they were allowed to have, since that would be the closest thing DA2 has to limiting magic damage. 

[Pauravi]

Frankly, I think that the standard Mage class fits the concept of what I consider to be an Arcane Warrior better than the actual Arcane Warrior in DAO did. Simply standing there are hitting stuff with a bunch of sustainable spells turned on is not what I signed up for. The Mage in DA2 can slice up a guy who is attacking him, fling a fireball at a bunch of grunts, and then turn around and make the mage across the field into an icicle. To me, that is what an Arcane Warrior does.

The only thing that is missing is wearing heavier armor, but I honestly don't think that is the most important part of the class, especially since the mage armor looks pretty sweet. Plus, if it works like in DAO where stats determine what armor you can wear (and I think it does?), you can simply throw a few points into strength and have at it. Sacrifice some BOOM for some protection. That's really what it is about, right?

Modifié par Pauravi, 27 février 2011 - 09:22 .

[ReallyRue]

Shepard Lives wrote...

AW was boring. That's about it.

A proper Magic Knight class (and I say this as a huge fan of Spellswords and such) should be "chopping off heads with one hand and chucking fireballs with the other", not "switch on all sustainables and autoattack until the enemy dies".

I would have been very happy had it been given a revamping in DAII, but I really don't care if it's out.

This, pretty much.
AW had combat magic and shimmering shield, both of which were sustained, but it had no melee abilities. You could use your other spells, admittedly, but it ate up a lot of mana, and using spells like Winter's Grasp or Cone of Cold were a waste of time when the AW keeps putting their weapon away to cast it.
Personally, I think if AW had been combined with something like Spirit Warrior, it would have been more interesting.

[AngelicMachinery]

They pew pew too hard, that's it.

[darklordpocky-san]

SG60 wrote...

darklordpocky-san wrote...

SG60 wrote...

darklordpocky-san wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

AW - Any name you give this combined class has been ridculously over powered in any game I've played DAO or others. It's also A LOT harder to balance classes than some would assume. Games set up to accomodate groups vs strict solo games are very different.

I've seen games handel this balance well, even first Final Fantasy did this.

Just restrict what this set up can do;

1. they can't hit as hard as a Warrior, or equipt heavier armor and weapons.
2. they cannot fully master all magical types, only use them to a certain extent.
3. They have less HP and speed in comparison to a Warrior or Mage.

So for example maybe they could only equip light armor at the very best, and be unable to access some skill upgrades or the "Mastery" skills like Galvanism. If they needed more limiting, you could also disallow them from using the ranged standard attack for mages, and be melee only.

In most RPGs, this usually means they only gain the 1st and 2nd tier offensive magic, and some defensive magic, but cannot access the Higher tiers

i.e. Fire Fira, but no Firaga

That's the point. In DA2 alot of spells aren't so great unless you get their upgrade, or have the final "Mastery" skill at the end of the tree that boosts that tree's damage. So AW could be say, stuck with the regular small fireball without access to the ice/fire mastery skill, or the Pyromancy boost skill, and not be able to get Fireball's upgrade. So they could get only basic forms of whatever magic they were allowed to have, since that would be the closest thing DA2 has to limiting magic damage. 

pretty much; I kind of hoped they would do this.

But what can ya do, we'll have to wait for DA3, since I highly doubt an expansion can restrict upgrades made in DA2.

[Gastrian]

There's no reason why you couldn't have a AW style class. You could have the specialisation the same way Baldur's Gate handled Dual classing for humans. Make it a specialisation option later in the game that opens up the Warrior skill tree for Mages and the Mage tech tree for mages. You already have a balancing system in place by the fact that a character has already spend a large portion of the skill points on their original tree and can't progress any further with that class, they'd start off the second class as if they were level 1 so would only be able to pick the lower options, they'd never be able to fully specialise and the abilities themselves can be restricted by their inventory, so to use spells you can't select heavy armour but to use double handed weapon abilities you'd have to use a double handed sword, thereby preventing you from using staffs.

Imogen from BG2 was a dual class Rogue/Spellcaster and wasn't considered overpowered purely because you could get much more powerful mages and better thiefs, she just happened to be more versatile.

[Starfoxea]

Pauravi wrote...

Frankly, I think that the standard Mage class fits the concept of what I consider to be an Arcane Warrior better than the actual Arcane Warrior in DAO did. Simply standing there are hitting stuff with a bunch of sustainable spells turned on is not what I signed up for. The Mage in DA2 can slice up a guy who is attacking him, fling a fireball at a bunch of grunts, and then turn around and make the mage across the field into an icicle. To me, that is what an Arcane Warrior does.

Exactly, the real benefit of the AW class (at least to me) was to be able to respond properly when attacked in melee. Sometimes in DA2 Mind Blast just doesn't work and you find yourself with one enemy stuck to your shoes but then you can use your staff to give them a some pause, at least the time that one your spells cools down. So the need for DA:O styled AW is eliminated. That is what AW should have been about. A mage that mostly spends his time to attack at range but who when attacked in melee is still able to beat his oppponent to some extent (although much less efficiently than when using the staff at range).

I just hope that the relatively small damage of the default staff in the demo increases with better staves or character levels. Otherwise the ability to go melee with an opponent will become completely useless after a while.

[sythsillis]

I think the mage is nicely balanced in DA 2. If I'm not mistaken, in the full game there is a path you can take to increase your mage's melee abilities if you want, but at the cost of foregoing more mage skills.

[Starfoxea]

Pauravi wrote...

Frankly, I think that the standard Mage class fits the concept of what I consider to be an Arcane Warrior better than the actual Arcane Warrior in DAO did. Simply standing there are hitting stuff with a bunch of sustainable spells turned on is not what I signed up for. The Mage in DA2 can slice up a guy who is attacking him, fling a fireball at a bunch of grunts, and then turn around and make the mage across the field into an icicle. To me, that is what an Arcane Warrior does.

Exactly, the real benefit of the AW class (at least to me) was to be able to respond properly when attacked in melee. Sometimes in DA2 Mind Blast just doesn't work and you find yourself with one enemy stuck to your shoes but then you can use your staff to give them a some pause, at least the time that one your spells cools down. So the need for DA:O styled AW is eliminated. That is what AW should have been about. A mage that mostly spends his time to attack at range but who when attacked in melee is still able to beat his oppponent to some extent (although much less efficiently than when using the staff at range).

I just hope that the relatively small damage of the default staff in the demo increases with better staves or character levels. Otherwise the ability to go melee with an opponent will become completely useless after a while.

[bsbcaer]

darklordpocky-san wrote...

Granted, it was the strongest class in Origins, thanks to devs not balancing out the specs of it. But it was a build that's classic in RPG games. The Fighter-Mage, Spellsword, Magic Knight, Red Mage, whatever; the point is, it's there for those of us who are balance freaks.

Some gamers just like to be able to handle situations relativley well on their own, or just be a great asset to the team, by being able to help in multiple ways (ala Red Mage). The problem stemmed from how badly it was balanced. It was the most powerful class, when in most RPGs, the Magic Knight build is designed to be the jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none, meaning it's gaining the benefits from doing a bit of everything, but losing out on pure specialzation in any one field.

As for Arcane Warriors (about time I mentioned them in this post) I understand them being gone, to a point. The argument that the lore states it to be an 'all but lost' specialization is pretty sound, except we still have Reavers, and they are warriors given strength through another ritual found in Oirings, that would make no sense. . . unless there are multiple blood drinking dragon cults in this world.

But I wanna know what everyone else thinks, do you guys feel that people just like to write off the AW spec for s poor showing in DA:O, or do you feel it should have been revamped/replaced to accomidate that playstyle?

I know Im probably the minority in this thread, but Im glad it's gone.  Granted, I grew up on AD&D, so I always prefererred the idea that if you choose to be a Fighter/Mage or Thief/Mage or other "/Mage" hybrid that you were not able to cast spells if you were wearing armour (of course, depends on your GM).  I think that it makes sense to limit the player if they choose to make a Fighter/Mage to only being able to use certain abilities under certain conditions.  If you did put a Fighter/Mage into dragon age, I would have it as a separate class that would not be allowed to specialize (ie. get no specialization points) and with severely limited Warrior abilities and Mage Spells  --maybe three trees from each (going by the DA2 system) with Sword + Shield, 2 Handed, and one of the other "new" ones for Warrior and Creation, Elemental (Fire/Cold), and another one for Mage.  It makes no sense that a Fighter/Mage would be able to access all the abilities of a Fighter and all the abilities of a mage at the level of proficiency of a pure fighter or pure mage.

Lore-wise, I was kind of upset that they brough Reaver back (although how upset depends entirely on how they bring it back) as I thought both Reaver and Arcane Warrior should have been left back in DA:O

[Eludajae]

Actually I am seeing some of the Arcane Warrior built into the new mage class. Look at the weapon use and armor worn. They didn't place it in as a class because they built parts into the mage.

[darklordpocky-san]

Gastrian wrote...

There's no reason why you couldn't have a AW style class. You could have the specialisation the same way Baldur's Gate handled Dual classing for humans. Make it a specialisation option later in the game that opens up the Warrior skill tree for Mages and the Mage tech tree for mages. You already have a balancing system in place by the fact that a character has already spend a large portion of the skill points on their original tree and can't progress any further with that class, they'd start off the second class as if they were level 1 so would only be able to pick the lower options, they'd never be able to fully specialise and the abilities themselves can be restricted by their inventory, so to use spells you can't select heavy armour but to use double handed weapon abilities you'd have to use a double handed sword, thereby preventing you from using staffs.

Imogen from BG2 was a dual class Rogue/Spellcaster and wasn't considered overpowered purely because you could get much more powerful mages and better thiefs, she just happened to be more versatile.

I like versatility, I just can't stand crippling overspecialization in my character build lol

[bsbcaer]

Pauravi wrote...

Frankly, I think that the standard Mage class fits the concept of what I consider to be an Arcane Warrior better than the actual Arcane Warrior in DAO did. Simply standing there are hitting stuff with a bunch of sustainable spells turned on is not what I signed up for. The Mage in DA2 can slice up a guy who is attacking him, fling a fireball at a bunch of grunts, and then turn around and make the mage across the field into an icicle. To me, that is what an Arcane Warrior does.

The only thing that is missing is wearing heavier armor, but I honestly don't think that is the most important part of the class, especially since the mage armor looks pretty sweet. Plus, if it works like in DAO where stats determine what armor you can wear (and I think it does?), you can simply throw a few points into strength and have at it. Sacrifice some BOOM for some protection. That's really what it is about, right?

You're right about armour.  If you want your mage to start wearing heavier armour, you just need to start investing points in Strength (I think it's strength)

[darklordpocky-san]

Eludajae wrote...

Actually I am seeing some of the Arcane Warrior built into the new mage class. Look at the weapon use and armor worn. They didn't place it in as a class because they built parts into the mage.

I hope that's not just an esthetic feautre

[darklordpocky-san]

bsbcaer wrote...

Pauravi wrote...

Frankly, I think that the standard Mage class fits the concept of what I consider to be an Arcane Warrior better than the actual Arcane Warrior in DAO did. Simply standing there are hitting stuff with a bunch of sustainable spells turned on is not what I signed up for. The Mage in DA2 can slice up a guy who is attacking him, fling a fireball at a bunch of grunts, and then turn around and make the mage across the field into an icicle. To me, that is what an Arcane Warrior does.

The only thing that is missing is wearing heavier armor, but I honestly don't think that is the most important part of the class, especially since the mage armor looks pretty sweet. Plus, if it works like in DAO where stats determine what armor you can wear (and I think it does?), you can simply throw a few points into strength and have at it. Sacrifice some BOOM for some protection. That's really what it is about, right?

You're right about armour.  If you want your mage to start wearing heavier armour, you just need to start investing points in Strength (I think it's strength)

I was actually having this discussion

Fighter/Mage, Magic Knight, Red Mage, what have you, need to be built with three balancing features:

1. They can't hit as hard as a Warrior, or equipt heavy armor or weapons.
2. They can't cast Magic at the same potency as a Mage, only use the basic offensive/defensive spells.
3. They don't have the HP of  a Warrior or the speed and MP of  a Mage.

they did that with the Red Mage in almost all iterations for Final Fantasy.

[SG60]

darklordpocky-san wrote...

Eludajae wrote...

Actually I am seeing some of the Arcane Warrior built into the new mage class. Look at the weapon use and armor worn. They didn't place it in as a class because they built parts into the mage.

I hope that's not just an esthetic feautre

Well there are mage outfits that aren't robes, but you still can't wear heavier armor unless you want to put points into the requirements for those. So technically you could make a mage with alot of STR and CON (heavy armor requirements) and go around smacking people with the mage melee attack, if you really wanted to for whatever reason.

EDIT: It still probably wouldn't be really effective, but it is possible.

Modifié par SG60, 27 février 2011 - 09:52 .

[Pauravi]

darklordpocky-san wrote...

Fighter/Mage, Magic Knight, Red Mage, what have you, need to be built with three balancing features:

1. They can't hit as hard as a Warrior, or equipt heavy armor or weapons.
2. They can't cast Magic at the same potency as a Mage, only use the basic offensive/defensive spells.
3. They don't have the HP of  a Warrior or the speed and MP of  a Mage.

they did that with the Red Mage in almost all iterations for Final Fantasy.

"Speed" is not a relevant idea in DA.

Also, this is really just one particular kind of "fighter/mage", it doesn't need to be this way.  This is useful if you want the jack-of-all-trades type character, but some people simply want a mage who is competent enough to acquit himself if attacked up close, but who mostly uses magic.  Some people want a warrior who simply enhances or defends themselves with magic, but who primarily uses his weapon and armor.  These could both also be called fighter-mages, and can be balanced in different ways.

I might also point out that Red Mage-type classes are often not particularly effective because of their lack of high-powered abilities.  The only time that hasn't been true is when they have been given a specialization where they are not weaker than others, or a specific highly useful spell (for instance as debuffers, or the Refresh spell in FF11).

[Failbox]

When I saw arcane warrior in Origins, I thought it was going to be a class with magic-based melee abilities, not two sustainable auras so I could autoattack between spells. And in Dragon Age 2, when we actually have sword-staffs, it'd be perfect for it.

I guess BioWare just likes missing out on opportunities.

[darklordpocky-san]

Pauravi wrote...

darklordpocky-san wrote...

Fighter/Mage, Magic Knight, Red Mage, what have you, need to be built with three balancing features:

1. They can't hit as hard as a Warrior, or equipt heavy armor or weapons.
2. They can't cast Magic at the same potency as a Mage, only use the basic offensive/defensive spells.
3. They don't have the HP of  a Warrior or the speed and MP of  a Mage.

they did that with the Red Mage in almost all iterations for Final Fantasy.

"Speed" is not a relevant idea in DA.

Also, this is really just one particular kind of "fighter/mage", it doesn't need to be this way.  This is useful if you want the jack-of-all-trades type character, but some people simply want a mage who is competent enough to acquit himself if attacked up close, but who mostly uses magic.  Some people want a warrior who simply enhances or defends themselves with magic, but who primarily uses his weapon and armor.  These could both also be called fighter-mages, and can be balanced in different ways.

I might also point out that Red Mage-type classes are often not particularly effective because of their lack of high-powered abilities.  The only time that hasn't been true is when they have been given a specialization where they are not weaker than others, or a specific highly useful spell (for instance as debuffers, or the Refresh spell in FF11).

A poor choice in words, sorry. In most cases they won't be the best, but in a team, they work well, which is what DA2 seems to be favoring.

In FF5, the Red Mage got Double-Cast, letting them cast 2 spells at once. I don't think it'd be fair to have in a DA setting, but giving them melee and magic balance lets them have an edge when fighting overspecialized opponents. I just don't see it taking as many heads as a Warrior or filling the screen with fire like a Mage.

Battlemages are the "up-close and personal" mage, and I assume that they will be brought back. . . or worked into the standard build (more likely than the suggested Arcane Warrior being standard).

Modifié par darklordpocky-san, 27 février 2011 - 10:37 .

[darklordpocky-san]

Failbox wrote...

When I saw arcane warrior in Origins, I thought it was going to be a class with magic-based melee abilities, not two sustainable auras so I could autoattack between spells. And in Dragon Age 2, when we actually have sword-staffs, it'd be perfect for it.

I guess BioWare just likes missing out on opportunities.

Sadly enough, they got the mix perfect with the Vanguard in ME and ME2. Squishy, and unable to use the heaviest of armor and weapons, but able to mix their biotics (magic) with their attacks (melee/guns).

[Kileyan]

bsbcaer wrote...

You're right about armour.  If you want your mage to start wearing heavier armour, you just need to start investing points in Strength (I think it's strength)

The combat systems designer talked a little about this. Many heavier armors will not only require a certain level of str, but also constitution. By heavier I mean plate armor equivalents. I doubt many people are planning on creating a dexterity monkey light armor mage.

That does bring up a question though, are staff attacks stilll auto hit with no possibility of crit?

Modifié par Kileyan, 27 février 2011 - 10:46 .

[RPGamer13]

I can understand why it's not here:

One: Every class has specific weapons they equip.  An arcane warrior won't work in this case because you wouldn't be able to equip any of the melee weapons

Two: The class was awesome due to how overpowered it is, but I had no weapon skills to go with it and in a skill driven game that is a huge negative

Three: To cast the majority of spells, the mage had to put their weapon away and there was no indication of this in the descriptions.

Four: The specialization would have to be completely redesigned to improve it and would have to break the conventions of Dragon Age II

[darklordpocky-san]

Kileyan wrote...

bsbcaer wrote...

You're right about armour.  If you want your mage to start wearing heavier armour, you just need to start investing points in Strength (I think it's strength)

The combat systems designer talked a little about this. Many heavier armors will not only require a certain level of str, but also constitution. By heavier I mean plate armor equivalents. I doubt many people are planning on creating a dexterity monkey light armor mage.

That does bring up a question though, are staff attacks stilll auto hit with no possibility of crit?

I never got an actual crit in the demo, and I never missed. I think the animation is just to replace the "pew pew" of DA:O.

We're still stuck with the sticks, and even the bladed ones may not give us finishers