106 réponses à ce sujet

[Dubya75]

I agree with OP, the long bathrobe-type dresses really does not fit with the new art design in my opinion. I wish they would just completely do away with these and replace it with more bad-ass type sets.
NO MORE DRESSES!

[AxelBat]

For that matter, would an apostate even wear a robe? I mean that is kind of a dead give away... and the big stick on your back isn't helping either, but at least armor/something less lame robe like would deter eyes.

Then again, I don't know why I even mention this since you totally use magic in front of people all the time and no one seems to care. Huh... maybe the whole mage oppression thing is all an illusion

whoops, got off topic

[Deylar]

I like robes.

Make more pant and shirt outfits.

But keep some robes. Cool ones.

Like the Overseer robes.

[Chuvvy]

I wish the put the same amount of time modeling Hawkes armor as they did for companion armor. Hawke looks incredibly drab in comparison until act III. Also I agree. I liked the way Anders's outfit looked, it was practical yet still magey.

[LightningSamus]

Hey, don't diss the robes son... you just don't!

[Darkshore]

This fantasy "rule" is put in place so that there are not overpowered mages in plate armor...Arcane Warrior? (it kinda owned face). Mages wear robes to show that they are Glass Cannons and not unstoppable killing machines. I don't see the robe persona leaving anytime soon.

[AloraKast]

My male mage Hawke is into Act II and STILL wearing the smuggler duds he got at the beginning of Act I, since the Spiral Eye armor set looks so silly on him. *sigh* Really am hoping I will pick up some nice and improved armor duds soon, or else he'll be wearing this crappy gear (stat wise) until I get my hands on the Champion armor set some time in Act III.

[kyles3]

This is why my DA mages are always ladies. Those Circle-style robes are snug in all the right places.

[Marionetten]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Mages walking around with 6ft staves in a world where they're illegal is something I'd love to see go away. Apostates really need to start packing concealed wands or something...

I'd settle for a pair of refined lyrium bracers or something. I've always preferred my mages without wands or staves.

[Addai]

elearon1 wrote...

They do take a while to get, though. I'm in the deep roads now and still wearing the outfit I started the chapter in - that sleeveless mercenary thing - because I haven't found anything else which maintains the character's tough persona. (which means I'm about 30 or more armor points lower than I should be for my level ... but I'll sacrifice protection for characterization every time ... also why I almost never wear helmets in games without "hide" toggles)

I wear the mercenary outfit through act 1, pick up Heavy Velvet Robes (which is not actually a robe) at mage goods store in the Gallows in act 2 (or wear Tevinter Free Mage drop), and Battlemage outfit in act 3 at the same store until I get the champion armor.  I play females but they don't wear skirts either.  You just have to spend a little coin.

Modifié par Addai67, 25 mars 2011 - 02:52 .

[Addai]

Darkshore wrote...

This fantasy "rule" is put in place so that there are not overpowered mages in plate armor...Arcane Warrior? (it kinda owned face). Mages wear robes to show that they are Glass Cannons and not unstoppable killing machines. I don't see the robe persona leaving anytime soon.

That's ridiculous.  A leather armor set is not going to stop much.  Besides, the mercenary outfits and the like aren't really armor, they're just not dresses.

[archonsod]

Gentleman Moogle wrote...
I agree with whoever said this trope needs to die. It's old, it doesn't make any sense within the lore of most games, and the best reasoning anyone can give for its continued existence is "Because that's the way it's always been!"

 It's there for gameplay. This is a fairly fast-paced combat game, you have to make sure the separate classes stand out so that in the middle of combat a player can tell them apart. It's the same reason the classes tend to look so distinct in team based FPS games; you want the player to be able to tell what they're fighting and who to prioritise as a target without having to break their pace to stop and check.

Of course there's plenty of other ways to make the classes look distinctive but it's purely aesthetic taste at that point. You could stick every rogue in a kilt and cravat and get people arguing over whether it looks good or not. One only need look at the seventies to realise that fashion really shouldn't be something entrusted to people.

[Chaos_1001]

The purpose of wearing certain types of armor is because of the following :

Cloth armor --restricted to spellcasters reason is because of their intense concentration , arcane gestures, verbal tones and physical rituals used in spellcasting would be interfered with by wearing armor heavier that cloth .ie a huge negative to both casting efficiency and actual casting effectiveness.

Leather armor -- restricted to rogue /warrior -- reason is this is heavier armor than cloth which can be used by a rogue because they have no ability restrictions using this type of armor. same is true for warriors

Plate armor-- restricted to warriors --reason being the warrior class focuses their attacks mostly out of brute strength so this heavy set of equipment is easily equipped on this class type. Rogues cannot wear this armor for 2 reasons 1. their abilities require quick nimble responses not available to be done with plate armor. 2. the weight .. the rogue focuses on dexterity not strength.,they essientially cannot wear this armor being as it is too heavy for them to wield.

[hakwea]

Chaos_1001 wrote...

The purpose of wearing certain types of armor is because of the following :

Cloth armor --restricted to spellcasters reason is because of their intense concentration , arcane gestures, verbal tones and physical rituals used in spellcasting would be interfered with by wearing armor heavier that cloth .ie a huge negative to both casting efficiency and actual casting effectiveness.

Except that isn't true. Champions armor, merils armor, bethanys armor all aren't robes. Besides full leather would allow for greater protection and a free range of motion. Have you tried to move and gesture in an actual full robe? The cloth can be just as restricting.

This sterotype doesn't hold true for any of the established lore in dragonage. A mage is not restricted to robes only, they just need to get more physical stats and they can wear heavier armor with no penalty. Even Origins didn't have a penalty for heavier armor, just "fatique" that made abilities cost more.

So holding to sterotypes in a game that has established several times that those sterotypes don't exist in their world is just plain stupid.

[hakwea]

archonsod wrote...
 It's there for gameplay. This is a fairly fast-paced combat game, you have to make sure the separate classes stand out so that in the middle of combat a player can tell them apart. It's the same reason the classes tend to look so distinct in team based FPS games; you want the player to be able to tell what they're fighting and who to prioritise as a target without having to break their pace to stop and check.

There is no multiplayer, or player versus player combat. There is no reason to have mages wear robes for gameplay reasons, because there is no reason to make the players character distinctive. Not to mention that there are already non-robe mage equipment in the game which would completly invalidate the "its for gameplay".

[tmp7704]

archonsod wrote...

It's there for gameplay. This is a fairly fast-paced combat game, you have to make sure the separate classes stand out so that in the middle of combat a player can tell them apart.

I doubt anyone has real trouble telling what class a character with name tag of "Apostate" or "Blood mage" really is. Just like it's not that hard to tell what class characters named "Rogue" or "Archer" are.

As for the pace... that's what the pause can be well used for?

[Russalka]

I like robes.

[Chaos_1001]

hakwea wrote...

Chaos_1001 wrote...

The purpose of wearing certain types of armor is because of the following :

Cloth armor --restricted to spellcasters reason is because of their intense concentration , arcane gestures, verbal tones and physical rituals used in spellcasting would be interfered with by wearing armor heavier that cloth .ie a huge negative to both casting efficiency and actual casting effectiveness.

Except that isn't true. Champions armor, merils armor, bethanys armor all aren't robes. Besides full leather would allow for greater protection and a free range of motion. Have you tried to move and gesture in an actual full robe? The cloth can be just as restricting.

This sterotype doesn't hold true for any of the established lore in dragonage. A mage is not restricted to robes only, they just need to get more physical stats and they can wear heavier armor with no penalty. Even Origins didn't have a penalty for heavier armor, just "fatique" that made abilities cost more.

So holding to sterotypes in a game that has established several times that those sterotypes don't exist in their world is just plain stupid.

Your point is exactly what again ????

Everything I stated is true. The exception within the dragon age universe as a whole is Arcane Mage !  This is not about sterotypes at all but about fantasy lore in general. Honestly I'm going to quote your statement and analaze  it for a moment..

(Except that isn't true. Champions armor, merils armor, bethanys armor all aren't robes. Besides full leather would allow for greater protection and a free range of motion. Have you tried to move and gesture in an actual full robe? The cloth can be just as restricting.

This sterotype doesn't hold true for any of the established lore in dragonage. A mage is not restricted to robes only, they just need to get more physical stats and they can wear heavier armor with no penalty. Even Origins didn't have a penalty for heavier armor, just "fatique" that made abilities cost more.

So holding to sterotypes in a game that has established several times that those sterotypes don't exist in their world is just plain stupid.)

1. the main character's equipment is different than everyone else's set up.
2. bethany and merill both wore robes / cloth.
3.leather is a tighter fit and thus more restrictive than cloth
4.the sterotype as you call it came from way back in the timeframe of JRR Tolkien when he envisioned LotR. My point exactly ---what armor type did Gandalf wear ?
5.since when did Da O or DA 2 for that matter not follow basic fantasy lore ? As to your comment of "established several times that those streotypes dont exist in their world is just plain stupid "  

I honestly LOL'd in real life at you last comment all together. You know nothing about fantasy lore in general. You assumed that armor types were based on stats alone which again is laughable at best. Saying that ( game that actually does in fact follow fantasy lore ) the game is fully against this is in itself pure nonesense.

In short , your "argument " as it were not only holds no water / creditability but is completly laughable to anyone who knows even a lil bit about fantasy lore.

[Alex Kershaw]

Anders sums this question up quite nicely in Awakenings

[Barefoot Warrior]

Too funny! I played Hawke as a mage and I could not handle any of the robes for the mages. Fantasy lore or not, I did not care for the robes. I just let him go in his pants and later on found some light armor he could use and was happy with that. In Awakenings, Anders did say that the robes had their advantages, oh well...

[hakwea]

Chaos_1001 wrote...
1. the main character's equipment is different than everyone else's set up.
2. bethany and merill both wore robes / cloth.
3.leather is a tighter fit and thus more restrictive than cloth
4.the sterotype as you call it came from way back in the timeframe of JRR Tolkien when he envisioned LotR. My point exactly ---what armor type did Gandalf wear ?
5.since when did Da O or DA 2 for that matter not follow basic fantasy lore ? As to your comment of "established several times that those streotypes dont exist in their world is just plain stupid "  

I honestly LOL'd in real life at you last comment all together. You know nothing about fantasy lore in general. You assumed that armor types were based on stats alone which again is laughable at best. Saying that ( game that actually does in fact follow fantasy lore ) the game is fully against this is in itself pure nonesense.

In short , your "argument " as it were not only holds no water / creditability but is completly laughable to anyone who knows even a lil bit about fantasy lore.

To address your numerical points in order

The main character is still a mage if you pick it, and can go against the sterotype. Why in your logic does the mage hawke able to cast magic in restrictive clothing? Not to mention this whole discussion is for what the main character wears. So even your own logic, what he wears is irrelevant to the sterotype goes against what you are trying to say.

Bethany does not wear robes. http://dragonage.wik..._Bethany_WM-jpg and http://dragonage.wik...n_age_ii017-jpg . Wearing metal is also not cloth. Merril has a similar non-robe get up. This is also not a robe http://dragonage.wik...concept_art-jpg but what merril is wearing.

Not all leather armor is restrictive to movement. Even some metal armor, like just a breastplate wouldn't restrict the movement of arms and hands (the only typical "movement" needed for casting spells. Something like http://www.iotcusa.c...tem/ir80710.jpg wouldn't restrict at all.

Did I ever say where the sterotype came from? Nope. Did I say that gandalf never wore robes? Nope. So you seem to be confused with what I've said in this thread. Gandalf, tolkien or lord of the rings are not things that are present in the lore of Thedas or Dragon age. In the lore of thedas mages don't have to wear just robes. In act 2 of the game a minor blood mage that is involved with a family members quest is wearing pants and a tunic. Gasp not a robe. So the sterotype doesn't hold for dragon age.

As for your point 5 if you can't see where it hasn't followed the sterotype of "mages can only wear robes" then you haven't played either of the games or read this thread where several examples of mages not wearing robes has been provided by myself and others. Bioware has created their own version of "fantasy lore" for their game franchise.

Armor types in DA2 are based on stats alone. A mage can wear a set of plate armor if I allocate my mages stats to be such. So how is bioware not basing armor types a character can wear off of stats alone? Most armor in dragon age 2 does not have class restrictions, just stat restrictions. And weapons (and shields) carry both the stat and training restrictions. So a mage in da2 can never wear a shield but they can plate armor. Guess another point where the standard lore doesn't follow. Even if you ignore the lore of the arcane warrior which again throws the steortype out the window. Remember that in the first dragon age that heavier armor provided greater fatique. They didn't restrict armor to sterotypes just provided greater fatique. http://social.biowar...racter_id=16868 is the link to my mage character in DA2. A mage in blood dragon armor, full plate. Guess it is stat based and only stat based if a mage in thedas can wear full plate.

By your last line you seem to not understand what is being said. No one is stating that there has never been a sterotype of mages wearing robes. No one has ever said that most fantasy lore has mages wearing robes. What has been said is that bioware has allowed mages to wear things other then robes and just cloth items several times in the lore of dragon age.

Modifié par hakwea, 26 mars 2011 - 12:08 .

[Chaos_1001]

hakwea wrote...

Chaos_1001 wrote...
1. the main character's equipment is different than everyone else's set up.
2. bethany and merill both wore robes / cloth.
3.leather is a tighter fit and thus more restrictive than cloth
4.the sterotype as you call it came from way back in the timeframe of JRR Tolkien when he envisioned LotR. My point exactly ---what armor type did Gandalf wear ?
5.since when did Da O or DA 2 for that matter not follow basic fantasy lore ? As to your comment of "established several times that those streotypes dont exist in their world is just plain stupid "  

I honestly LOL'd in real life at you last comment all together. You know nothing about fantasy lore in general. You assumed that armor types were based on stats alone which again is laughable at best. Saying that ( game that actually does in fact follow fantasy lore ) the game is fully against this is in itself pure nonesense.

In short , your "argument " as it were not only holds no water / creditability but is completly laughable to anyone who knows even a lil bit about fantasy lore.

To address your numerical points in order

The main character is still a mage if you pick it, and can go against the sterotype. Why in your logic does the mage hawke able to cast magic in restrictive clothing? Not to mention this whole discussion is for what the main character wears. So even your own logic, what he wears is irrelevant to the sterotype goes against what you are trying to say.

Bethany does not wear robes. http://dragonage.wik..._Bethany_WM-jpg and http://dragonage.wik...n_age_ii017-jpg . Wearing metal is also not cloth. Merril has a similar non-robe get up. This is also not a robe http://dragonage.wik...concept_art-jpg but what merril is wearing.

Not all leather armor is restrictive to movement. Even some metal armor, like just a breastplate wouldn't restrict the movement of arms and hands (the only typical "movement" needed for casting spells. Something like http://www.iotcusa.c...tem/ir80710.jpg wouldn't restrict at all.

Did I ever say where the sterotype came from? Nope. Did I say that gandalf never wore robes? Nope. So you seem to be confused with what I've said in this thread. Gandalf, tolkien or lord of the rings are not things that are present in the lore of Thedas or Dragon age. In the lore of thedas mages don't have to wear just robes. In act 2 of the game a minor blood mage that is involved with a family members quest is wearing pants and a tunic. Gasp not a robe. So the sterotype doesn't hold for dragon age.

As for your point 5 if you can't see where it hasn't followed the sterotype of "mages can only wear robes" then you haven't played either of the games or read this thread where several examples of mages not wearing robes has been provided by myself and others. Bioware has created their own version of "fantasy lore" for their game franchise.

Armor types in DA2 are based on stats alone. A mage can wear a set of plate armor if I allocate my mages stats to be such. So how is bioware not basing armor types a character can wear off of stats alone? Most armor in dragon age 2 does not have class restrictions, just stat restrictions. And weapons (and shields) carry both the stat and training restrictions. So a mage in da2 can never wear a shield but they can plate armor. Guess another point where the standard lore doesn't follow. Even if you ignore the lore of the arcane warrior which again throws the steortype out the window. Remember that in the first dragon age that heavier armor provided greater fatique. They didn't restrict armor to sterotypes just provided greater fatique. http://social.biowar...racter_id=16868 is the link to my mage character in DA2. A mage in blood dragon armor, full plate. Guess it is stat based and only stat based if a mage in thedas can wear full plate.

By your last line you seem to not understand what is being said. No one is stating that there has never been a sterotype of mages wearing robes. No one has ever said that most fantasy lore has mages wearing robes. What has been said is that bioware has allowed mages to wear things other then robes and just cloth items several times in the lore of dragon age.

You are in fact basing all your examples off of wikia and concept ... One of those is pure interpretation and the other is alpha stage of the game.

The part of leather and breastplate armors is also your interpretation

the blood dragon armor was character specific to Hawke. if you did multiple playthroughs you would see that was warrior armor.BUT there is a LOT of armor in da2 that is hawke specific. whether or not he/ she could use it.

How many plate sets or even leather sets do you personally see in either game that increased Magic attributes or greater casting pool attributes ? the answer .... NONE

I stand by what I said .  Your argument holds no water or creditability. You are not even trying to discuss this rationally. You saw my post and without digging to the why and how attacked it full force.

Next time you wish to pick an argument with someone . pick someone who actually does not know the lore and such .

[Sidney]

I hate robes. I actually wear worse robes in the game because, and I NEVER say this because I usually don't care that much, the robes are so flippin' ugly.

In a world where mages are hunted it makes it even worse because no one else wears those stupid thing - or carries those big sticks either. The fact that Tolkein put a wizard in a robe means diddly to me because while it made sense in his world it makes none here.

[hakwea]

Chaos_1001 wrote...
You are in fact basing all your examples off of wikia and concept ... One of those is pure interpretation and the other is alpha stage of the game.

The part of leather and breastplate armors is also your interpretation

the blood dragon armor was character specific to Hawke. if you did multiple playthroughs you would see that was warrior armor.BUT there is a LOT of armor in da2 that is hawke specific. whether or not he/ she could use it.

How many plate sets or even leather sets do you personally see in either game that increased Magic attributes or greater casting pool attributes ? the answer .... NONE

I stand by what I said .  Your argument holds no water or creditability. You are not even trying to discuss this rationally. You saw my post and without digging to the why and how attacked it full force.

Next time you wish to pick an argument with someone . pick someone who actually does not know the lore and such .

The picture of bethany is not an alpha image. She is wearing that outfit in the released version of the game. Obviously you haven't played the game if you think it isn't the outfit she is wearing. The same is true of merrils armor. The link I posted was to concept art yes, but it reflects exactly what she is wearing in the game. I would have posted a screenshot to her armor but this is a no spoiler forum and the one on dragon age wika of an in-game screenshot is a spoiler. The fact that they come from wiki style page is also irrelevant since they reflect info from the game and is not fake. Also my examples come from playing the game, the proof is just based off of wiki screenshots so I don't have to do the work of uploading images myself. You don't invent a wheel if someone else is providing one for you. All of the images I provided can be seen with a playthrough of any character class as bethany and merril can be encounter no matter the class.

All armor in dragon age 2 is restricted to hawke. Because hawke is the only one that can equip it since you can't change the armor that your companions equip. That isn't a lore restriction, otherwise why would all the shops in kirkwall be there just to sell to hawke? The blood dragon armor isn't a warrior armor because it provides useful stats to anyone and a mage can wear it.

There are lots of leather and plate sets that benefit mages. Again if you've played the game you would be able to figure this out since all most stats are universal. If they boost stamina, they also boost mana. If they boost attack they do so for any class. If they boost mana they also boost stamina. My mage character is benefiting from all the stats provided by the equipped blood dragon armor, because none of them are providing class specific bonuses. The +1 to attributes even increases my spell attack and mana which meets two of your requirements right there. Also armor doesn't have to grant exclusive class bonuses for it to be useful to that class, most stats on armor and items in Dragon age 2 are equal benifit to all classes. Just go to the accessories tab in the inventory and cycle through your character and each of the companions. You will notice that the can rate the same item as the same STAR rating for different classes.

If you know the lore and such I wouldn't have to explain the way armor, bonuses and stats work in DA2. I wouldn't need to continually point out to you that several mages in Dragon Age 2 aren't wearing robes and/or just cloth. I wouldn't need to point out to you that biowares signature armor, the armor the lore of the champion is based around isn't a robe nor just cloth. The fantasy sterotype doesn't exist in dragon age lore. You can qoute the reason for it in other games and you can bring up every little scrap of tolkien knowledge but it doesn't change the fact that bioware has already established the lore of dragon age as different from that of the sterotype.

[Chaos_1001]

hakwea ...


I'm tired of arguing with you.. Everthing I told the OP in my initial respose was true. You in fact are going on 90% opinion. You are also at this point trying to start a fight. Honestly I dont care if you believe me or not . I told the truth to the OP like I said. You are trying to be a rules lawyer in something you undersatnd only part of . In short --- conversation over ---