Aucune réponse à ce sujet

[Spell Singer]

First off this is not about one being better than the other but mainly on what I have noticed playing so far about the differences.  I had not planned on playing a mage until I finished my first play through but I got vastly frustrated at the Red Cliffe Battles (both in the village and in the castle) and thought to take a break and so did the mage origin story.

I'm playing on hard (except for the red cliffe village battles which I set to easy after 6 catastrophes on hard) and I'm more of a role player then a min-maxer so my characters aren't "optimized" in any sense.

I also use a lot of pause and issue commands but no so often zoom the battle fully out (excepting when I have a dispersed battlefield which happens not so often).  I find staying in close and scanning around usually gives me a better feel for the combat situation generally.

The first thing that struck me was how different playing a mage in the mage origin was compared to just getting Morrigan dropped in your lap.  I started with heal and glyph of paralyzation and had absolutely no difficulties in the mage origin.  Arcane Bolt is your friend basically, but the one thing that I did learn was a lot more about how the spells all interact by playing a low level mage dependant on my spells.  So if nothing else I think the mage origin is useful for anyone it was without a doubt an eye opener for me.

Some of this is because your PC is the mage and this means far less reliance on the AI routines for things like keeping distance, spell selection, target selection and even attacking.  Its worth pointing out that situational awareness as a mage (or an archer) is generally better then when you are playing a front line fighter.  What goes on behind your character is much harder to control as a fighter then as a mage, even in zoomed out mode I have found this to be the case.  It was also the case in NWNx and when leading groups on Avlis and based on that I had always felt that a mage was a better group leader then a fighter just because they aren't involved in close combat.  On the topic of the tactics panel.  I find it easier to create sensible tactics for warriors then for mages.  It is far easier to say "if target is using medium or heavy armour use sunder armour" as this is inevitably a good idea where as which spell you should cast when and at who varies.  I put a lot of work into Wynne's tactics and I still find them from time to time not at all what I want.  Plus getting a behaviour setting which makes the NPC both avoid getting hit and attack with the staff the way my PC does also difficult.

Even with Arcane Bolt and my staff as my only direct damage spells I found that taking my time and limiting my combat as a mage resulted in far better outcomes then combat as a fighter in terms of damage taken (nearly zero despite no armour).  Glyph of Paralysis and 2 Arcane bolts and a few staff blasts delt with spiders and the guardians of the basement generally without difficulty.  Being able to heal was a boon to my companions.

What you do learn and learn quickly as a mage is the need for lyrium potions and for pacing your spell use.  This is probably much the same as fighters and healing potions.  But I noticed that playing a mage gives you a far better feel for how to monitor your mana level then watching the NPCs.  I did much better in terms of efficiency in preparing for the tower of Ashal as a mage.  But I put that down to experience, I didn't figure out how to buy flasks till I was in Lothering as a warrior.

Over all the bigest thing I noticed between playing a mage and warrior was the general lack of multiple attack options to warriors.  Mages gain rather early spells that can affect multiple opponents (Mind Blast being the primary one I'm thinking of) which at least to an extent can give them some breathing room.  Warriors on the other hand don't.  My warrior is sword and shield using (when not using a bow) and getting mobbed by several attackers can be down right frustrating.  I've started using shield bash on opponent one and shield pummel on opponent two to buy me some time when really surrounded.  In any case a surrounded warrior will use up a lot of healing generally speaking (or at least depending on what armour you may be in this is true) and even more annoying is the fact you can end up being moved out of position.  And position for warriors is far more critical than for mages.  I've had things run between two characters trying to hold a door way, had my character shield bash his way to the other side of the scrum pack (rather not my plan), and just general combat movement resulting in a less than ideal front line.  Also you are far more affected by some sort of combat density resulting in no attack then a staff blasting mage is.  There seems to be some issue with combat density which sometimes seems to stop attacks.  I noticed this particularily in the Red Cliffe battles where I often felt that some sort of additional effect was in play.  Too many characters in a small space seemed bad, and I often wondered if that was why the knights and milita were getting the stuffing pounded out of them (ony Ser Pers and one more lived and no milita survived the village battle even on easy).

Combat didn't always go the way I wanted as a mage but I found the experience less frustrating then when playing a warrior and worrying about what was going on behind me.  Against the ogre it took me 6 tries to get past it...and then only by the whiskers of my Dog...as a warrior compared to a single attempt with only the archer dieing as a mage.  Likely I could have saved the archer but I chose to go for full damage to the ogre while it was occupied.  As a warrior I had the circle mage use flaming weapons but I suspect now that was a major error on my part; 50 mana tied down in that spell would have given a shock, an arcane bolt and a heal just about which would have done far more to save the day.  On the other hand Alister and my character obliterated two orgres in the forest without breaking much of a sweat later in the game with only Wynne and Leliana for support and while we took damage the fight was one sided and brief.

Now I suspect that playing an archer would produce a similar experience as a warrior.  I find that when I get the whole party doing archery I can maintain a lot more control and that critical awareness.  Still overall the experience with playing both mages and warriors has been good and I'd hesitate to say one is better than the other.  But at least up to Lothering my mage has experienced significantly less combat frustration compared to my warrior.  Part of that is that I've had experience with my warrior to assist in battle planning and part of it seems to mainly that a human is far more able to use a mage "intellegently" compared to the scripted tactics the NPCs use.  Also my mage has not yet encountered the scripted ambushes where you start surrounded and outnumbered which have been often rather brutal affairs for my warrior.