172 réponses à ce sujet

[Chuvvy]

I like Anders's mage gear. It's practical and magey. They should have more like that in DA3 if they make it.

[hakwea]

Lumikki wrote...

If people wants more non-robe option, don't use templars as excuse. I mean even the main Templar knows that you are mage and what does she do? Nothing, lets apostate mage to live free in they town. Player character should never been apostate mage in DA2.

So, if you want more customation as look, just ask. There was few leather cloths for mages, I remember wearing some "pirates" leather cloths one time.

Templars aren't an excuse. They are a valid reason since this is a roleplaying game. What characters wear needs to follow the rules of the roleplaying game not ignore them and flaunt that disregard. There is no reason why apostate would continue to wear robes while worried about being found by the templars. There is no reason why garret hawke would be worried about being found out by the templars and wear something that makes him stand out like a sore thumb.

The fact that bland boring robes doesn't fit is just emphasized by the outfits given to companions. Merril and bethany are prime examples of "mage like" armor that isn't a robe. It still carries hints of robes while bringing about other aspects that make it easier to think that the templars wouldn't know at sight.

When playing a mage character DA2's plot falls apart since there are many cases that templars just ignore you being an apostate. Robes are one such and using templars as a reason is just as valid as any other reason. Templars are just part of a large problem of DA2 and Mages.

[Lumikki]

hakwea wrote...

Templars aren't an excuse.

*snip*

When playing a mage character DA2's plot falls apart since there are many cases that templars just ignore you being an apostate. Robes are one such and using templars as a reason is just as valid as any other reason. Templars are just part of a large problem of DA2 and Mages.

Yeah, but the problem isn't robes. Problem is that Templars ignores player mage no matter what. So, using robe as revealing excuse, when wearing anything doesn't hide the fact you are casting spells. So, how are you able to cast spells and still be ignored by all Templars. Been naked or in other cloths, doesn't change that. Yeah, I understand you role-playing reasons, but it's not really good reason until you also DEMAND that templars actually reacts, how you look and your spell casting. So, untill you do the other demand too, templars is just excuse for get what you want. How you gonna role-play anything, when you can "dance" naked in street and no-one notice it.

So, when you ask other cloths, then ask it for role-playing reasons. Not use templars in the game as excuse for it. Because Templars ingnores you allways, it doesn't matter are you naked or what you wear or even cast spells.

Modifié par Lumikki, 28 mars 2011 - 10:52 .

[Chaos_1001]

I pesonally suggest everyone interested actually take a long hard look into the reasons a "mage" has to wear cloth as opposed to plate. You may be surprised by what you actually find out. My first place to search would be no other than google.com.

Happy hunting

[Conduit0]

Chaos_1001 wrote...

I pesonally suggest everyone interested actually take a long hard look into the reasons a "mage" has to wear cloth as opposed to plate. You may be surprised by what you actually find out. My first place to search would be no other than google.com.

Happy hunting

If, "because its always been that way" is the best argument you can up with, you should just stop. Your argument isn't even a valid one, you'd be thrown out of a debate for that kind of drivel to begin with. Also the game has already proven you wrong, the Champions armor is a mix of leather, chainmail, and plate, yet Hawke manages to cast just fine with it, also Merril and Bethany both wear chainmail and they clearly have no problems casting, infact Merril's relationship outfit is a suit of armor that casts off any illusions to being robes or even robe like. The DA universe has already kicked traditional fantasy tropes to the curb, so its pointless trying to use them as justification any more.

[NICKjnp]

Robes...play the game like a real badass. Play your Mage with no clothes on.

[Dark83]

It used to be (ie. DAO) that heavy armor made it harder to cast spells (Sta/Mana cost increase). See the DA:O Codex entry for Heavy Armor. So under that "law of physics", as it were, it would make sense for mages to shun armor - it makes it harder for them to cast spells.

In any case, I'm fine with robes, and some look nifty. All they need is a pointy hat. No wizzard is a wizzard without a pointy hat and a staff with a knob on the end.

[Chaos_1001]

Conduit0 wrote...

Chaos_1001 wrote...

I pesonally suggest everyone interested actually take a long hard look into the reasons a "mage" has to wear cloth as opposed to plate. You may be surprised by what you actually find out. My first place to search would be no other than google.com.

Happy hunting

If, "because its always been that way" is the best argument you can up with, you should just stop. Your argument isn't even a valid one, you'd be thrown out of a debate for that kind of drivel to begin with. Also the game has already proven you wrong, the Champions armor is a mix of leather, chainmail, and plate, yet Hawke manages to cast just fine with it, also Merril and Bethany both wear chainmail and they clearly have no problems casting, infact Merril's relationship outfit is a suit of armor that casts off any illusions to being robes or even robe like. The DA universe has already kicked traditional fantasy tropes to the curb, so its pointless trying to use them as justification any more.

/sigh

Did you even read what I typed out ? Here I'll re-post exactly what I typed..

I pesonally suggest everyone interested actually take a long hard look into the reasons a "mage" has to wear cloth as opposed to plate. You may be surprised by what you actually find out. My first place to search would be no other than google.com.

Your post --

If, "because its always been that way" is the best argument you can up with, you should just stop

hmmn... did I ever in fact type that out ? You took what I actually wrote out of context and actually made it up. I know you indeed are refering to another post to your response. But that is another discussion which I did not bring here. I honestly do not leave my posts up to interpretation. I get to the point as straight as I can. You can disagree if you wish and that is ok. But dont take what I say and twist / distort it into something else. I wont do that to anyone else so do not do it to me.

[Siansonea]

NICKjnp wrote...

Robes...play the game like a real badass. Play your Mage with no clothes on.

I tried, but he won't take his knickers off...

[NICKjnp]

Yeah...but she does. It is a leather bikini mage

[Siansonea]

Well, Henrick Hawke is still hawt, at least he's got nice abs and shoulders. Very sexay!

[Conduit0]

Chaos_1001 wrote...

Conduit0 wrote...

Chaos_1001 wrote...

I pesonally suggest everyone interested actually take a long hard look into the reasons a "mage" has to wear cloth as opposed to plate. You may be surprised by what you actually find out. My first place to search would be no other than google.com.

Happy hunting

If, "because its always been that way" is the best argument you can up with, you should just stop. Your argument isn't even a valid one, you'd be thrown out of a debate for that kind of drivel to begin with. Also the game has already proven you wrong, the Champions armor is a mix of leather, chainmail, and plate, yet Hawke manages to cast just fine with it, also Merril and Bethany both wear chainmail and they clearly have no problems casting, infact Merril's relationship outfit is a suit of armor that casts off any illusions to being robes or even robe like. The DA universe has already kicked traditional fantasy tropes to the curb, so its pointless trying to use them as justification any more.

/sigh

Did you even read what I typed out ? Here I'll re-post exactly what I typed..

I pesonally suggest everyone interested actually take a long hard look into the reasons a "mage" has to wear cloth as opposed to plate. You may be surprised by what you actually find out. My first place to search would be no other than google.com.

Your post --

If, "because its always been that way" is the best argument you can up with, you should just stop

hmmn... did I ever in fact type that out ? You took what I actually wrote out of context and actually made it up. I know you indeed are refering to another post to your response. But that is another discussion which I did not bring here. I honestly do not leave my posts up to interpretation. I get to the point as straight as I can. You can disagree if you wish and that is ok. But dont take what I say and twist / distort it into something else. I wont do that to anyone else so do not do it to me.

No, you didn't say that, I simply boiled down your argument to its core element which is essentially. "because its always been that way". Which includes your reasoning for wanting people to google mages. Reasoning, which I pointed out is already proven invalid within the DA universe, which you seem hellbent on ignoring.

But if you want me to answer your post directly, fine. Yes I know exactly where classic mage robe trope comes from. The classical Sage character is where it begins, these old wise men often had an otherworldly or magical mystique about them in fantasy and legend. The Sage eventually inspired the character of Merlin who was a sage of a more overtly magical nature. From Merlin and other stories that borrowed the theme, Tolkien drew inspiration for his Wizards of Middle Earth, which even if Gary Gygax wants to deny it, was largely the inspiration for how wizards look within D&D. D&D ofcourse being the prominent inspiration for fantasy based RPGs even to this day. However D&D's mandate that spellcasters must wear cloth wasn't based on any grand logic or essential lore, it was based entirely on the more pactical reality of game balance, wizards hurling powerful spells from a distance needed to be squishie up close. The idea that spellcasters had to wear cloth because they needed freedom of movement to cast was nothing more than a tacked on rational so DMs could keep their players inline with an ingame explanation when the inevitable, "no, your wizard cannot equip that breastplate" situation came up.

However, such game balance limitations do not exist for a game like Dragon Age, because you can have the visual esthetic of armor or an armor like oufit, while still maintaining a low armor value for game balance. Hence why a tired trope should be layed to rest already.

[NICKjnp]

The most awesome naked magic wielded....is Shale. Totally naked and totally awesome.

[Siansonea]

I never played Shale. I didn't know they had nekkid people in them there video games.

[hakwea]

Chaos_1001 wrote...

I pesonally suggest everyone interested actually take a long hard look into the reasons a "mage" has to wear cloth as opposed to plate. You may be surprised by what you actually find out. My first place to search would be no other than google.com.

Happy hunting

Have you googled mage? Doing a google image search for just the word mage returns images of mages in robes and not in robes. Besides those reasons don't apply to the dragon age Fiction since bioware has already established different rules. So if the rules are different, the reasons can't be the same.

Modifié par hakwea, 29 mars 2011 - 01:59 .

[Chromie]

hakwea wrote...

Chaos_1001 wrote...

I pesonally suggest everyone interested actually take a long hard look into the reasons a "mage" has to wear cloth as opposed to plate. You may be surprised by what you actually find out. My first place to search would be no other than google.com.

Happy hunting

Have you googled mage? Doing a google image search for just the word mage returns images of mages in robes and not in robes.

Well the very first image I saw on Google images was...

Modifié par Ringo12, 29 mars 2011 - 01:54 .

[hakwea]

Lumikki wrote...
Yeah, but the problem isn't robes. Problem is that Templars ignores player mage no matter what. So, using robe as revealing excuse, when wearing anything doesn't hide the fact you are casting spells. So, how are you able to cast spells and still be ignored by all Templars. Been naked or in other cloths, doesn't change that. Yeah, I understand you role-playing reasons, but it's not really good reason until you also DEMAND that templars actually reacts, how you look and your spell casting. So, untill you do the other demand too, templars is just excuse for get what you want. How you gonna role-play anything, when you can "dance" naked in street and no-one notice it.

So, when you ask other cloths, then ask it for role-playing reasons. Not use templars in the game as excuse for it. Because Templars ingnores you allways, it doesn't matter are you naked or what you wear or even cast spells.

Just because bioware failed to account for it in their story doesn't mean it is an invalid reason. Yes your clothes don't change that you can use magic in front of templars but that isn't the point of having more non-robe options. The point of non-robe options is so when you aren't in combat you blend in. Its a lore reason. And in a roleplaying game lore is really the only reason you need. (In this case it doesn't remove gameplay fun so it isn't a spot you ignore lore for gameplay) Like merril and bethany do, instead of standing out like a light house in fog.

Would it be nice if everything was perfect? Sure. But you don't need everything to have a reason for a simple change.

Modifié par hakwea, 29 mars 2011 - 02:05 .

[neppakyo]

I loved my mage in DA:O in Massive armour. Mind you, she was an Arcane Warrior, duel-wielding longswords, and able to cast a few devastating spells as well. I wish they didn't remove that awesome class from DA2.

And I agree, in modern rpgs, the cloth limit to mages is mainly a D&D thing. Bring back the fatigue option on armours, you want to wear something heavy? Prepare to have your stamina/mana pool significantly reduced.

[planed scaped]

Download the no restrictions mod. BAM! Mage in armor.

It's the only way I can play a mage since many of the robes look bleh.

[Chaos_1001]

Conduit0 wrote...

Chaos_1001 wrote...

Conduit0 wrote...

Chaos_1001 wrote...

I pesonally suggest everyone interested actually take a long hard look into the reasons a "mage" has to wear cloth as opposed to plate. You may be surprised by what you actually find out. My first place to search would be no other than google.com.

Happy hunting

If, "because its always been that way" is the best argument you can up with, you should just stop. Your argument isn't even a valid one, you'd be thrown out of a debate for that kind of drivel to begin with. Also the game has already proven you wrong, the Champions armor is a mix of leather, chainmail, and plate, yet Hawke manages to cast just fine with it, also Merril and Bethany both wear chainmail and they clearly have no problems casting, infact Merril's relationship outfit is a suit of armor that casts off any illusions to being robes or even robe like. The DA universe has already kicked traditional fantasy tropes to the curb, so its pointless trying to use them as justification any more.

/sigh

Did you even read what I typed out ? Here I'll re-post exactly what I typed..

I pesonally suggest everyone interested actually take a long hard look into the reasons a "mage" has to wear cloth as opposed to plate. You may be surprised by what you actually find out. My first place to search would be no other than google.com.

Your post --

If, "because its always been that way" is the best argument you can up with, you should just stop

hmmn... did I ever in fact type that out ? You took what I actually wrote out of context and actually made it up. I know you indeed are refering to another post to your response. But that is another discussion which I did not bring here. I honestly do not leave my posts up to interpretation. I get to the point as straight as I can. You can disagree if you wish and that is ok. But dont take what I say and twist / distort it into something else. I wont do that to anyone else so do not do it to me.

No, you didn't say that, I simply boiled down your argument to its core element which is essentially. "because its always been that way". Which includes your reasoning for wanting people to google mages. Reasoning, which I pointed out is already proven invalid within the DA universe, which you seem hellbent on ignoring.

But if you want me to answer your post directly, fine. Yes I know exactly where classic mage robe trope comes from. The classical Sage character is where it begins, these old wise men often had an otherworldly or magical mystique about them in fantasy and legend. The Sage eventually inspired the character of Merlin who was a sage of a more overtly magical nature. From Merlin and other stories that borrowed the theme, Tolkien drew inspiration for his Wizards of Middle Earth, which even if Gary Gygax wants to deny it, was largely the inspiration for how wizards look within D&D. D&D ofcourse being the prominent inspiration for fantasy based RPGs even to this day. However D&D's mandate that spellcasters must wear cloth wasn't based on any grand logic or essential lore, it was based entirely on the more pactical reality of game balance, wizards hurling powerful spells from a distance needed to be squishie up close. The idea that spellcasters had to wear cloth because they needed freedom of movement to cast was nothing more than a tacked on rational so DMs could keep their players inline with an ingame explanation when the inevitable, "no, your wizard cannot equip that breastplate" situation came up.

However, such game balance limitations do not exist for a game like Dragon Age, because you can have the visual esthetic of armor or an armor like oufit, while still maintaining a low armor value for game balance. Hence why a tired trope should be layed to rest already.

A very well layed out argument indeed. A lot of your points I do agree with and some I do not.

this is in fact one of them..

( However D&D's mandate that spellcasters must wear cloth wasn't based on any grand logic or essential lore, it was based entirely on the more pactical reality of game balance, wizards hurling powerful spells from a distance needed to be squishie up close. The idea that spellcasters had to wear cloth because they needed freedom of movement to cast was nothing more than a tacked on rational so DMs could keep their players inline with an ingame explanation when the inevitable, "no, your wizard cannot equip that breastplate" situation came up.)

That is an assumption at best. Unless you yourself can either show proof of that statement or can prove you are directly related to the creation of ADnD / DnD then your comment holds no weight and is strictly opinion.

This is the other point I had an issue with..

However, such game balance limitations do not exist for a game like Dragon Age, because you can have the visual esthetic of armor or an armor like oufit, while still maintaining a low armor value for game balance. Hence why a tired trope should be layed to rest already.[/

While the Dragon Age Universe does in fact allow for a bit flexibility. It still holds true to the original lore from ages past. For instance, A mage can wear a plate suit but has to..

A. Spend a lot of wasted attribute points in strength to equip it.
B. Gets no real benifit out of the statistics it gives. (IE increased magic ?)

Now as for the whole Dragon Age Lore thing you so eloquently keep bringing up..

Show me ( and everyone else here on this forum ) once and for all the "actual proof" of Dragon Age disreguarding the past lore . Here is the catch though..

It has to be an acredited source that BIoware / EA themselves has said outright either in a forum, a blog, or their main site(s) for the games themselves. A wikia is not an acredited source, someones blog is not an acredited source and a fan site is not an acredited source. Using any of the non-acredited sources is not applicable in any debate, institution of business or as a basis of fact even in a court of law.

In closing lets see the "proof" otherwise, everything is in fact your word vs the lore itself.

Again Happy Hunting



PS do not bring Arcane Warrior into this at all. It was not a feature in both games and therefore does not apply in this paticular "chat"

Modifié par Chaos_1001, 29 mars 2011 - 03:15 .

[snackrat]

Here's to hoping someone makes a replacer for the mage robes to make them have pants without completely forgoing 'magey'.

[Barefoot Warrior]

I just left him in his pants and made up for it with amulets, rings, belts and did just fine. End of act two I found some light armor that worked fine but I could not handle those robes. Made me want to sneeze...LOL

[Deylar]

As said in another thread. I like robes. Just make them more unique and more cool looking.

[Alice Alive]

I keep hearing bits about DA3 being in Orlais, so wouldn't it be fabulous if they went in a Granado Espada direction? LOL Female mages wear ballgowns with lotsa cleavage and male mages wear suits with top hats and monocles~ Yessiree~

[sonsonthebia07]

Dunno about y'all but I'm sporting the finery whilst I tank.

Why do warriors have to wear armor? Sod it all.