220 réponses à ce sujet

[HeroicAntagonist]

I think the system was a little too "tacked on," and it didn't impact non-combat situations. My warrior could just become a Templar. The skills made references to consuming lyrium, which my character never did.

The Reaver tree looked decent enough, but I avoided it for in-character reasons: my diplomatic Champion wasn't going to go around eating people. And 'a true reaver has tasted the ritually prepared blood of a dragon'? OK, so should I be able to become a Grey Warden as a specialty simply by spending 1 Spec point? ...Actually, Grey Warden as a Spec. might be interesting. But no -- it's too late for that.

But even if I went with it anyway (or, most notably, Blood Mage as a Mage), it doesn't come up in dialogue, at all, ever -- and with Blood Mage, you become are really big hypocrite. I am from the tabletop RPG perspective, so this is really a problem to me.

[HeroicAntagonist]

Also, there was also a lack of diversity, yet the setting is so rich. Why not look at the Dragon Age lore and pick out a few others? Maybe...

[Warrior] Dragon Hunter (of Nevarra): Added damage to creatures as passive; passive skill that grants +Fortitude to avoid knockback and catching on fire; sustained ability to increase armor by 25%; activated short-duration +60% resistance to fire (upgrade: fire heals you); sustained imbue weapon with [either fire to emulate dragons or add an elemental weakness of dragons].

[Mage] Magister (of Tevinter): Added spellpower as passive boost; abilities that complement blood magic, or are more powerful with it. Ability to summon shade (upgrade: rage demon). Abilities that reinforce their role as slavers, either immobilizing or controlling enemies. Passive increase to amount gained by lyrium potions (upgrade: +1 mana/health with blood magic); capstone as an outright boost to the Magic Stat.

[Rogue] Merchant Prince (of... all over the place): Passive boost increases sell price of all junk by 200% and all other equipment by 50% [what?! Something non-combat oriented in a specialty? Unheard of!]. Sustained ability that grants your companions +x armor (upgrade: reduces your threat); abilities that increase your defense, or increase the effectiveness of your equipment; ends with passive ability that grants +1 damage per 10 sovereigns in your inventory, up to a maximum of +15 damage.

[Knal1991]

HeroicAntagonist wrote...

Also, there was also a lack of diversity, yet the setting is so rich. Why not look at the Dragon Age lore and pick out a few others? Maybe...

[Warrior] Dragon Hunter (of Nevarra): Added damage to creatures as passive; passive skill that grants +Fortitude to avoid knockback and catching on fire; sustained ability to increase armor by 25%; activated short-duration +60% resistance to fire (upgrade: fire heals you); sustained imbue weapon with [either fire to emulate dragons or add an elemental weakness of dragons].

[Mage] Magister (of Tevinter): Added spellpower as passive boost; abilities that complement blood magic, or are more powerful with it. Ability to summon shade (upgrade: rage demon). Abilities that reinforce their role as slavers, either immobilizing or controlling enemies. Passive increase to amount gained by lyrium potions (upgrade: +1 mana/health with blood magic); capstone as an outright boost to the Magic Stat.

[Rogue] Merchant Prince (of... all over the place): Passive boost increases sell price of all junk by 200% and all other equipment by 50% [what?! Something non-combat oriented in a specialty? Unheard of!]. Sustained ability that grants your companions +x armor (upgrade: reduces your threat); abilities that increase your defense, or increase the effectiveness of your equipment; ends with passive ability that grants +1 damage per 10 sovereigns in your inventory, up to a maximum of +15 damage.

-I like the first one, that seems interesting to me as a spec... (I also believe Nevarra would be a great place for the next game)

- The mage of tevinter stuff you mentioned should be an extension of blood magic rather then a new spec... (Personally I'm still rooting for something similiar like keeper (druid ) as in my post at page 8)

- Don't like that though, please keep inventory and loot related stuff to equipment... something like a bard however which buffs party members I'd gladly see return...

[1varangian]

I thought Reaver and Berserker had the same kind of vibe to them, and the knightly champion was missing entirely as a specialization.

I was also sad to see Shapeshifter gone from Mage specializations. It was the one specialization that brought something entirely different on the table. As did Arcane Warrior by fundamentally changing the way you play a mage.

Specializations should do just that - change how a PC plays instead of just give a few extra spells or talents. Force mage was kind of cool but those spells might have just as well been in the Arcane tree. Blood Mage is different and interesting too but it's lame it has no impact on what NPCs or companions think of you.

[HeroicAntagonist]

Knal1991 wrote...

HeroicAntagonist wrote...

Also, there was also a lack of diversity, yet the setting is so rich. Why not look at the Dragon Age lore and pick out a few others? Maybe...

[Warrior] Dragon Hunter (of Nevarra): Added damage to creatures as passive; passive skill that grants +Fortitude to avoid knockback and catching on fire; sustained ability to increase armor by 25%; activated short-duration +60% resistance to fire (upgrade: fire heals you); sustained imbue weapon with [either fire to emulate dragons or add an elemental weakness of dragons].

[Mage] Magister (of Tevinter): Added spellpower as passive boost; abilities that complement blood magic, or are more powerful with it. Ability to summon shade (upgrade: rage demon). Abilities that reinforce their role as slavers, either immobilizing or controlling enemies. Passive increase to amount gained by lyrium potions (upgrade: +1 mana/health with blood magic); capstone as an outright boost to the Magic Stat.

[Rogue] Merchant Prince (of... all over the place): Passive boost increases sell price of all junk by 200% and all other equipment by 50% [what?! Something non-combat oriented in a specialty? Unheard of!]. Sustained ability that grants your companions +x armor (upgrade: reduces your threat); abilities that increase your defense, or increase the effectiveness of your equipment; ends with passive ability that grants +1 damage per 10 sovereigns in your inventory, up to a maximum of +15 damage.

-I like the first one, that seems interesting to me as a spec... (I also believe Nevarra would be a great place for the next game)

- The mage of tevinter stuff you mentioned should be an extension of blood magic rather then a new spec... (Personally I'm still rooting for something similiar like keeper (druid ) as in my post at page 8)

- Don't like that though, please keep inventory and loot related stuff to equipment... something like a bard however which buffs party members I'd gladly see return...

Yeah, those are just some silly cooked-up examples.  You see what I'm saying, though, right?  Assassin represents the Crows of Antiva.  Bard represented the bards of Orlais.  Templar represented the Templars of the Chantry.  In other words, Bioware should try to distill a larger varient of Specs from their own very big, very rich setting.

[Jymm]

I'm really glad someone is actually polling us about this stuff. Too bad I'm so late to the party.

I agree that specs should be found in quests but available by spec time if you hunt for them. I had to stub in characters in DAO to open specs I wanted for other characters (or hack them in, since I play on PC.) I also agree that it should have some impact on the world around me and how at least my close confidants react.

RP aspects aside, mechanically I'm just fine with only getting one per playthrough. No character I have played in either DAO or DA2 has made any particularly interesting use of specializations. I leave spec points unspent all the time. I feel like my warrior character is particularly trapped. I don't _want_ to be a berserker, reaver, or a templar. Back to RP I guess, but the abilities aren't even enough to lure me in. And I don't think I want to be a blood mage or a spirit healer either so that second spec is _always_ going to go to waste. I don't have nearly enough ability points to use all the cool-sounding abilities there are on the _main_ trees and the specialization ones don't have enough appeal to make me want them.

edit: to summarize some of that, I think I'd vote for more specializations (for variety) with fewer but more awesome abilities in there.

Modifié par Jymm, 10 avril 2011 - 10:25 .

[Justin2k]

Why take Reaver on a tank?

For Devour. Thats pretty much the only reason.

[Pscyon]

To answer the thread in a single word: no. Now I've only completed the game once, as a mage, but I only picked one specialization (Force Mage) because I felt it would be a waste to not use the specialization points at all. That said though, I even felt Force Mage to be a bit pointless and only invested a few points in it. RPGs are supposed to give you a lot of choices in character development, and sequels are supposed to add, not substract stuff; yet there's less specialization choices (or ANY kind of choices). DA had like 6 per class I think with Awakening, now there's 3...

DuelingBardElf wrote...

By the same token, party seems
limited too. Must take a rogue, must take anders if not a spirit healer.

Agree on having to always take a rogue unless you play one seeing as there's chests everywhere, but I never felt the need to take Anders along. He was the least used party member actually.  I had the basic healing spell on my char and got by just fine with the odd healing potion if it was on cooldown. Played on Normal though, does higher difficulty settings actually require much more healing?

[Morroian]

Pscyon wrote...

To answer the thread in a single word: no. Now I've only completed the game once, as a mage, but I only picked one specialization (Force Mage) because I felt it would be a waste to not use the specialization points at all. 

Choosing a spec gives you bonuses even without choosing any of the talents within the specs so it is a waste not to even choose the second spec.

Pscyon wrote...

That said though, I even felt Force Mage to be a bit pointless and only invested a few points in it. RPGs are supposed to give you a lot of choices in character development, and sequels are supposed to add, not substract stuff; yet there's less specialization choices (or ANY kind of choices). DA had like 6 per class I think with Awakening, now there's 3...

DAO had 4 specs without Awakenings. They've reduced it by 1 but expanded the number of talents within specs. But I agree there should be more specs to give more variety to the classes.

[Pscyon]

Morroian wrote...

Choosing a spec gives you bonuses even without choosing any of the talents within the specs so it is a waste not to even choose the second spec.

Aha. Hadn't noticed the stat bonuses tbh, had a look just now. Still, my playthrough wasn't stunted in any way by missing out on potential stat increases, so no regrets.

... also had a look at Warrior/Rogue now. No Dual Weapons or Archery for Warriors?

[Perfect-Kenshin]

Luke Barrett wrote...

On this topic, I've got a couple questions for everyone (apparently I've decided to gather feedback today!):

- Would you rather have more specs or keep 3 but have more depth to them? (variety vs. complexity)

Keep 3. Make them more complex.

- Do you think allowing users to have 2 specs out of 3 was a good idea? (or simply, allowing users to access 66% of their spec lines in one playthrough)

Yes]

- Did you like having all 3 unlock at level 7 or was it better that you had to seek them out with sidequests or through other means like in DAO?

No, unlocking them through side quest was a pain in the ass. I liked having all three immediately available.

[Pscyon]

Oooh. Just noticed this.

Luke Barrett wrote...

- Would you rather have more specs or keep 3 but have more depth to them? (variety vs. complexity)
- Do you think allowing users to have 2 specs out of 3 was a good idea? (or simply, allowing users to access 66% of their spec lines in one playthrough)
(if no then would a better synergy between specs help this out?)
- Did you like having all 3 unlock at level 7 or was it better that you had to seek them out with sidequests or through other means like in DAO?

- Both tbh. Though since I'm guessing it's one or the other; more. More options is better in just about any situation.
- Yes. 2 is plenty. Personally I'm happy with 1, but like having the option of 2.
- I'd say a mix would be good. Some specializations are common enough that you should be able to just pick them (no lack of Blood Mages in Kirkwall and it doesn't take a genius to become a Berserker) but more exotic specializations could be gained through tomes/quests/companions. One thing that springs to mind is that in the Templar description it says that rich/influential citizens are able to get hold of lyrium; this certainly explains Hawke being able to learn Templar abilities, but doesn't really make sense until after a certain point in the quest line. Not that I'd recommend doing anything with that now, but seems odd it wasn't there from day 1.

[Mercuron]

I think three specs each is sufficient. That said, I tend to agree with the person who mentioned how having more than one at a time leads to contradictions. I think having only one spec at a time is best, so long as that spec is chosen either at character creation, or after a prologue/tutorial, before the game proper starts.

Moreoever, I think specs as they stand right now are little more than window dressing to a character, both in the story and in gameplay. Characters never react to your spec (if they are in a position to know what it is) and in gameplay, I personally find it hard to make spec trees the focus of my character design - they more often than not wind up supporting other trees that my design is built on instead. I feel that should be reversed - I believe your spec should be central to how your character deals with the world and overcomes its obstacles.

To that end, I don't think having spec talents is enough. I think each spec for each class should provide a wrinkle, a mechanic that makes the actual gameplay of say, a Force Mage different from a Blood Mage.

For instance, a Blood Mage is all about using health instead of mana to power spells, so perhaps that spec drops the mana resource entirely and adds a 'blood' mechanic that siphons enemy health (or ally health), then stores it as a resource in place of mana. Then they can cast spells, expending their blood resource, only cutting into health once their blood hits zero (unless they stop casting to drain more). This can be counterbalanced in numerous ways, such as blood constantly depleting or even completely once combat ends, or encounters with creatures that have no blood, forcing the Blood Mage to rely on his allies for blood or simply casting from his own health pool.

Force Mages on the other hand, focus on manipulating force, so maybe what happens with them is that when they cast a spell, they dictate the effects of force directly instead of causing the listed effects like other mages. However this is counterbalanced by any increase in force causing a decrease in damage, so while a Force Mage may be able to increase the elemental force of a Winter's Grasp to freeze enemies that would normally resist, the actual damage done may barely scratch them or even cause no damage at all. This can go in the other direction, where the same Winter's Grasp spell has no elemental force component at all, but does somewhat more damage than normal. This could also add damage to spells that normally inflict none, or force to spells that normally have none - with the exceptions of healing and buff spells.

Just two examples off the top of my head, but the idea is not for specs to give a few special abilities but to change the way the class is fundamentally played, without making it completely unfamiliar.

[Pious_Augustus]

Luke Barrett wrote...

On this topic, I've got a couple questions for everyone (apparently I've decided to gather feedback today!):

- Would you rather have more specs or keep 3 but have more depth to them? (variety vs. complexity)

I think we all love to customize out characters. I think for example I prefer more an Arcane Warrior then anything. I think for classes I would prefer classes that let me shine over my companions. Problem is with Dragon Age 2 it got it completely wrong.
 
Spirit Healer is more a supportive spec and honestly you think Anders could get it or Merrill the Blood Mage spec but yeah only you can have them. The Force Mage didn’t do anything for me honestly the whole Mage profession became rather dull.
 
True story I never finished Neverwinter Nights OC because I kept rerolling for years because I just couldn’t get the right class combo or class. Same with World of Warcraft I never could stay with one profession, class or race. Mainly because the class I wanted was only available for that race or the class I really wanted had not been made yet but I kept saying it will be eventually (Death Knights)
 
Also on both the promotional trailers for Origins and Dragon Age 2 it seems you had nice little effects. Orgins had the blue Death Knight eyes and Hawke had the burning red eyes which I guess people assumed wrong that Hawke was really special.
 
If you can add need effects for the class

- Do you think allowing users to have 2 specs out of 3 was a good idea? (or simply, allowing users to access 66% of their spec lines in one playthrough)
(if no then would a better synergy between specs help this out?)

Quote depends on the player me myself I like to add as much as I can if the class has some neat spells or even nice spell effects on the character.

- Did you like having all 3 unlock at level 7 or was it better that you had to seek them out with sidequests or through other means like in DAO?

I think side quests are nice but this can ruin it for me. For example having to enter a dungeon for the spec I want and maybe I have to enter it early and leave out a companion who has a special event in this location?

[Huntress]

Melca36 wrote...

Please Please Keep Force Mage spec in the next game!!! 

While I can only give the game a 7/8 I had alot of fun as a Force Mage! 

Yes please, keep this mage tree as it is and add DW warriors!!!

[Mikeuicus]

- Would you rather have more specs or keep 3 but have more depth to them? (variety vs. complexity)

More specs with the current depth would lead to more interesting choices for mixing and matching.

- Do you think allowing users to have 2 specs out of 3 was a good idea? (or simply, allowing users to access 66% of their spec lines in one playthrough)
(if no then would a better synergy between specs help this out?)

I like 2/4 from DA:O but I think 2/3 just "muddles" things. With 3 specializations only being able to choose 1 would be better, I think, though in this case I would want to see the specs alter the class in more fundamental ways (like maybe Shadow makes your Rogue shadowy in combat).

- Did you like having all 3 unlock at level 7 or was it better that you had to seek them out with sidequests or through other means like in DAO?
A part of me was glad - -it was kind of lame in DAO to run around with a specialization point I couldn't use until I found the character or book that would teach me to use it. Still, I think if handled properly and given at a time in the game around when your character gets their specialization point (perhaps at level 7 you get a bunch of letters?), class teaching books, characters etc. could be a great way to add lore/immersion to your character, like Hawke having to do quests for a cult of reavers to learn their ways, etc.

[NeoNight1986]

Personally. I loved the skill tree system. however the spec's themselves didnt game changing... granted they were niffty. I personally like the variety of the specs. awakenings had 6.. i think origins had 4. granted for me as a mage each of these changed in part the way i actually played my mage... i miss that. I do agree that getting the spec's should be story based. and if you go that route it should be included.. (i am a blood mage... yet no one cares...) anyway its my 2 cents.

i like variety and meaning full. to me having 7 abilities that dont do much... or having 4 where each point is very cool.

having said that i would keep the main tree's where they are and have the spec trees short sweet and character defining. ( so allowing you to get 2 of 4 to me is good.) (or 3 of 6 for "Epic" levels.)

[TeenAngst]

I wish they'd bring back the bard, ranger, and arcane warrior at least.

Modifié par TeenAngst, 11 avril 2011 - 06:54 .

[atheelogos]

Luke Barrett wrote...

- Did you like having all 3 unlock at level 7 or was it better that you had to seek them out with sidequests or through other means like in DAO?

I prefer story with my specs. For example Merrill is a blood mage she could have taught Hawke how to do it.
For Reaver Merrill could have approached you after you killed that dragon in Act 1 bone pit. She can something like "you've been nice to me these past couple of months and I want to return the favor and give you the blood of a dragon prepared with Blood Magic." Thus unlocking Reaver spec. You know that kind of stuff.

But if you guys decide to go this route please don't do it like you did in Origins. For example back in the day I was over half way through DAO and I was still looking for Arcane warrior. If your going to make it quest related do it all early so you can choose any of them by level 7.

Thanks for taking the time Luke.:happy:

Modifié par atheelogos, 11 avril 2011 - 11:36 .

[Macrake]

Specializations being just another skill tree is pretty boring. Though its far down on my list of complaints.

[zambingo]

Luke Barrett wrote...

On this topic, I've got a couple questions for everyone (apparently I've decided to gather feedback today!):

- Would you rather have more specs or keep 3 but have more depth to them? (variety vs. complexity)
- Do you think allowing users to have 2 specs out of 3 was a good idea? (or simply, allowing users to access 66% of their spec lines in one playthrough)
(if no then would a better synergy between specs help this out?)
- Did you like having all 3 unlock at level 7 or was it better that you had to seek them out with sidequests or through other means like in DAO?

I liked having to seek out the specializations. I enjoyed that they stayed unlocked in a +Game type style once unlocked. But seeking them out that first time was neat. I also would be really happy to have these spec unlocks be full quests. That'd be spiffy and I think it'd lend some "reality" to being able to learn Templar stuff or Blood Magic etc. I'd be interested to read about player decisions with Blood Magic if we are required to deal with a demon to learn it (as the lore suggests). Sure DAO had that, but the deal was really screwing over someone else. The deal should affect the PC. But anyway.