60 réponses à ce sujet

[Panurge Pantagruel]

Just finished my first playthrough, and that was with a 2H warrior. classic, honest to God, build.
Afterwards,
I started seeing all these people talking about how the game was easier if Hawke is a mage, and also that Warrior was a more technical  character, and you should try it only after getting some knowledge of  the game... I was like, "what?!"
Then I started a game as a mage and yeah, that ogre on the outskirts of lothering was so easy...
On normal difficulty, playing as a warrior, I was the last man standing after that ogre fell.
All others had fallen (well, I didn't use potions, just on Hawke - was enjoying the visuals instead of planning the fight).
All the main fights were tough. That thing in the deeproads, the valterral (not that much, but still a challenge), and the Arishok - that was tough, had to try it 3 times.

I think only at the very end, with my warrior above lvl 20 things started getting easier.

What do you guys think?

Modifié par Panurge Pantagruel, 22 avril 2011 - 01:39 .

[AreleX]

Good lord, what forum have you been reading, so *I* can go there?

General (read: stupid) consensus is that mages are 'gimped' and Warriors are the best, but, in reality, the classes are all pretty well-balanced, and the burden of failure is laid squarely on the player.

With a solid build, any class can be not only viable, but awesomely powerful, and enjoyable to play. It's just a matter of finding the one that suits you the best, and learning the ins and outs of it.

(Psst...check my sig)

Modifié par AreleX, 22 avril 2011 - 01:46 .

[Panurge Pantagruel]

Well, like I said, I started a mage game and it is easier.
Having fun or not is not part of the thing. Of course I had lots of fun with my warrior and I think I will have also with a mage.

By the way, the forum was this very one.
On one "which class is your favorite" thread.

Modifié par Panurge Pantagruel, 22 avril 2011 - 01:58 .

[Brave27]

AreleX speaks the truth, warriors (with the right build) are machines, mages are machines and hey rogues are also. Kinda wierd how that works. I dont think of it as warrior/rogue/mage but more like ie. Blood/ Force mage or Reaver/ Vanguard/ Berserker warrior. I guess what im just trying to say is that each class has alot of versitility and can be played through many different ways and are all fun

[Panurge Pantagruel]

Yeah, but you both are perhaps missing my point.
I didn't say mages are fun and warriors are not. I never played with mages and I think you can have fun with any build, no matter how lame you make it.

My warrior build was made without any prior knowledge of the game and from a role playing point-of-view instead of maximun-performance pointo-of-view. It was a Reaver only. I didn't spend the other specialization point cause I don't like Berserker and thought that it didn't make any sense for Hawke to learn Templar style stuff. I also did not know the game equipment and had no idea where to find the best stuff or even cared about that.
For example, I finished the game wearing the Champions plate and wielding Limbtaker. Even though, my warrior was a lot of fun. Unstopable. Like, killing 6-10 guys in one blow. I'm sure you guys can make a better build, but thats not the point.

What I mean is, to begin with and for a good bit of the game, playing as
a warrior seems to be harder than what I have found so far as a mage
(act 1 only).

Modifié par Panurge Pantagruel, 22 avril 2011 - 02:19 .

[Brave27]

Warriors do lack a bit of finess in act 1, i do agree, although they are a bit better than the other 2 classes towards the end

[Iyashi]

AreleX wrote...

Good lord, what forum have you been reading, so *I* can go there?

General (read: stupid) consensus is that mages are 'gimped' and Warriors are the best, but, in reality, the classes are all pretty well-balanced, and the burden of failure is laid squarely on the player.

With a solid build, any class can be not only viable, but awesomely powerful, and enjoyable to play. It's just a matter of finding the one that suits you the best, and learning the ins and outs of it.

(Psst...check my sig)

Yeah, check AreleX's guides. I rushed through the game on casual, and it got boring easily. Then when I played on NM I got my booty kicked. After reading his guides, I started to understand the game better, learned how to play tactically instead of spamming the attack button. I played the game 3 more times because of his guides, and they were OP. Now I'm think to start my own guide when I'm done experimenting. :innocent:

[Panurge Pantagruel]

...and the burden of failure is laid squarely on the player.

Thats related to it.
So, do you, Arelex,  think that it is easier, without any previous knowledge of the game (yes, leave your Handbook of how to kick-a** on DA2 out of the equation) to make a powerfull mage than a powerfull warrior?

In other words, is the mage class easier to play with a priori?

[Panurge Pantagruel]

Iyashi wrote...

AreleX wrote...

Good lord, what forum have you been reading, so *I* can go there?

General (read: stupid) consensus is that mages are 'gimped' and Warriors are the best, but, in reality, the classes are all pretty well-balanced, and the burden of failure is laid squarely on the player.

With a solid build, any class can be not only viable, but awesomely powerful, and enjoyable to play. It's just a matter of finding the one that suits you the best, and learning the ins and outs of it.

(Psst...check my sig)

Yeah, check AreleX's guides. I rushed through the game on casual, and it got boring easily. Then when I played on NM I got my booty kicked. After reading his guides, I started to understand the game better, learned how to play tactically instead of spamming the attack button. I played the game 3 more times because of his guides, and they were OP. Now I'm think to start my own guide when I'm done experimenting. :innocent:

Sure, thats cool and lots of fun!
I will check them, no doubt.
But what I mean is that, only with strategy and no previous game knowledge, mages are easier.

Oh, and I always play tactically. Since the first Baldur's Gate   
Rushing forward  and "spamming the attack button" is for fps games.

[Panurge Pantagruel]

Brave27 wrote...

Warriors do lack a bit of finess in act 1, i do agree, although they are a bit better than the other 2 classes towards the end

Really? Towards the end the balance shifts?
That's interesting!

[Iyashi]

Panurge Pantagruel wrote...

Brave27 wrote...

Warriors do lack a bit of finess in act 1, i do agree, although they are a bit better than the other 2 classes towards the end

Really? Towards the end the balance shifts?
That's interesting!

It's probably because all the good abilities are at the end of the trees, and you'll have to level up until you get them. Tip: Always chose the sarcastic/funny dialouge, it's very amusing. lol

[Panurge Pantagruel]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Simple.

Warrior has awesome specialization trees, and about one regular talent tree that matches up to the spec trees (Vanguard). Mage spec trees are kind of meh but they have many good regular talent trees (almost all of them). That's why Mage takes off faster and grow at a more even rate, while Warrior dawdles at first but skyrockets when you hit the really awesome spec talents later (Blood Frenzy=> BOOM! Barrage => BOOM!). And that is why Bethany is a better Mage than Carver is a Warrior.

That does make a lot of sense.

[AreleX]

If you go into the game knowing absolutely nothing about it, and were to pick a class, I'd probably say Rogue would be the 'weakest', followed by Mage, then Warrior. This is just my guess (I came out of the womb godlike at DA2, true story), based on what I know of the classes, and what I know you have to know to be successful with the classes.

Of course, the waters get muddied depending on the difficulty you play, since on Normal (and maybe Hard) and lower, you could poke enemies with a pointy stick and be successful. Not a diss, just that when things like friendly fire and elemental weaknesses come into play, it can be easy to get tripped up early on, but those are problems you won't have on the lower difficulties (I think? resistances only apply to NM, not sure). Hope this more accurately answers your question

Should you need any help, feel free to ask!

Modifié par AreleX, 22 avril 2011 - 05:07 .

[Panurge Pantagruel]

AreleX wrote...

If you go into the game knowing absolutely nothing about it, and were to pick a class, I'd probably say Rogue would be the 'weakest', followed by Mage, then Warrior. This is just my guess (I came out of the womb godlike at DA2, true story), based on what I know of the classes, and what I know you have to know to be successful with the classes.

Of course, the waters get muddied depending on the difficulty you play, since on Normal (and maybe Hard) and lower, you could poke enemies with a pointy stick and be successful. Not a diss, just that when things like friendly fire and elemental weaknesses come into play, it can be easy to get tripped up early on, but those are problems you won't have on the lower difficulties (I think? resistances only apply to NM, not sure). Hope this more accurately answers your question

Should you need any help, feel free to ask!

It's cool, the guys above - IOnlySignIn and Iyashi- already nailed it

Modifié par Panurge Pantagruel, 22 avril 2011 - 05:24 .

[Iyashi]

AreleX wrote...

If you go into the game knowing absolutely nothing about it, and were to pick a class, I'd probably say Rogue would be the 'weakest', followed by Mage, then Warrior. This is just my guess (I came out of the womb godlike at DA2, true story), based on what I know of the classes, and what I know you have to know to be successful with the classes.

Of course, the waters get muddied depending on the difficulty you play, since on Normal (and maybe Hard) and lower, you could poke enemies with a pointy stick and be successful. Not a diss, just that when things like friendly fire and elemental weaknesses come into play, it can be easy to get tripped up early on, but those are problems you won't have on the lower difficulties (I think? resistances only apply to NM, not sure). Hope this more accurately answers your question

Should you need any help, feel free to ask!

Rouges are the weakest in damage or ...?

[mr_afk]

AreleX wrote...

If you go into the game knowing absolutely nothing about it, and were to pick a class, I'd probably say Rogue would be the 'weakest', followed by Mage, then Warrior. This is just my guess (I came out of the womb godlike at DA2, true story), based on what I know of the classes, and what I know you have to know to be successful with the classes.

I don't know...If you play as an archer the rogue is actually pretty straight-forward. Pretty much it's just avoid-getting-hit-and-let-out-massive-single-target-dps fullstop.

I did an archer playthrough first and I still recall how much easier it was than my attempt at DW. I would say early game that DW is 'weakest' (due to lack of threat reduction abilities and no fortitude), followed by warrior (because it hasn't got the nifty abilities that allow it to survive all the threat it draws) and archer and mage been the best (because you can just kite anything to death ).

Late game, warrior becomes the easiest (as you just concentrate on hitting things and drawing threat, and the aoe damage is useful), then depending on how fast you pick things up, the others would be pretty similar.

Iyashi wrote...

Rouges are the weakest in damage or ...?

Probably weakest weakest-wise. Um...that wasn't helpful was it?
Haha they're probably talking about ease of gameplay/surviability - so something to do with the low hp and low fortitude of rogues (until you get the rings)
Also, single target dps means that against multiple enemies the rogue can get easily swamped (unlike a warrior)

They have crazy damage though. Pretty much their general base damage and talents all focus on killing something really fast so they are definately not the weakest in terms of damage.

Modifié par mr_afk, 22 avril 2011 - 05:39 .

[Priisus]

Well, why would you say that? Warrior is a "technical" character? Why's that?

My first character in DA2 is also a 2-H warrior and I roll a mage as my 2nd and I think they're both ok early in the game. Do you think it's harder because it may be your first playthrough and you're still learning the mechanics of the game? I think DA2 does a good job on balancing all the classes and specialization compared to DA;O where a well-built Arcane Warrior is just breezing... I was playing a little like AreleX's berserker vanguard before I found her guide. And then I respecced to hers... warrior basically is then awesome sauce imo.

[Panurge Pantagruel]

Priisus wrote...

Well, why would you say that? Warrior is a "technical" character? Why's that?

My first character in DA2 is also a 2-H warrior and I roll a mage as my 2nd and I think they're both ok early in the game. Do you think it's harder because it may be your first playthrough and you're still learning the mechanics of the game? I think DA2 does a good job on balancing all the classes and specialization compared to DA;O where a well-built Arcane Warrior is just breezing... I was playing a little like AreleX's berserker vanguard before I found her guide. And then I respecced to hers... warrior basically is then awesome sauce imo.

I didn't say that, and also don't understand what it is meant by it. I was hoping one of the guys that used this description on the forum would step in and explain it.

I always play as a warrior in each and every RPG that strikes my fancy.
My DA:O's char was also a warrior and I didn't even try other classes (replayed as a warrior 3 times and played the expansions). I'm just used to it, and I really didn't have all that time to experiment anyway.

Guides on how to make your character become a "glass-nuke-force-of-the-mother-of-jesus" are interesting for me as they put my own choices into perspective, but I end up making my own build based on the role-playing style that I prefer at the moment (as many others, I think). I don't really care about dealing the most damage but, having the most fun which, for my taste, is not the same although not necessarily the opposite.

As I said above, it was my first playthrough and I didn't find it hard or impossible (I always try going on normal difficulty first) but a good-balanced difficulty. 

But, when I got to start a new "campaign" as a mage it seems just much easier.
So, it's not warrior thats too hard, it is mage that I found too easy in comparison (so far on act1). 

Modifié par Panurge Pantagruel, 22 avril 2011 - 06:52 .

[AreleX]

Iyashi wrote...

Rouges are the weakest in damage or ...?

Oh no no, rogue has the highest single target damage output in the game by a highway mile (check some of my speed kill vids/general rogue vids), but the issue comes if you a. don't know how to get that damage, or b. don't know how to avoid being crippled by your nonexistant fortitude (stealthing, redirecting aggro, companion protection, Etched Ring of the Twins, etc.). Rogue is a beast of a class, but if you don't know what's going on, odds are you'll have a terrible time.

Modifié par AreleX, 22 avril 2011 - 07:17 .

[Haplose]

This was very true for Da:O and is definately also true for DA2: the second playtrough is much easier then the first, regardless of class. Even if you bump the difficulty higher, it might still seem easier.

Actually I think that Bioware did an amazing job at balancing the classes and they are all pretty much equal. Maybe the ranged classes have the advantage of kiting - in the beginning. But definately each class has the potential to be amazingly powerfull.

[Bones40]

I played a rogue first, then mage then 2H warrior and since then I've played a smattering of all them again and again (I think I'm around 10 full playthroughs now). In my experience, warriors are the easiest to play with no prior knowledge of the game.

Once you do have knowledge of the game basically any mage with the Force Mage spec is probably easiest because you can lock down the entire battlefield in nearly all encounters in the game, especially with a little help from petrify, horror and winter's grasp.

Overall though, if you just want to load the game and start adventuring with little thought to build, party make-up or tactics...your best bet is with a Warrior.

edit - also, I found Warrior to be ridiculously easy in Act 1 due to Blood Dragon armor and Hayden's Razor/Fade Shear + Lion of Orlais.  If you don't have access to that content, I could see how Act 1 would be sluggish for a warrior.

Modifié par Bones40, 22 avril 2011 - 07:35 .

[Priisus]

Panurge Pantagruel wrote...

As I said above, it was my first playthrough and I didn't find it hard or impossible (I always try going on normal difficulty first) but a good-balanced difficulty. 

But, when I got to start a new "campaign" as a mage it seems just much easier.
So, it's not warrior thats too hard, it is mage that I found too easy in comparison (so far on act1). 

I always play on Normal on my first playthrough too and I also often ended up going for the "heaviest" class just from the RP perspective

I think the only reason I can see the ogre stage being easier on a mage is because of the hurlock adds and depending on how your mage is specced (I just went along with it, no guide used). I chose the Fireball spell, the AOE made fast job on the adds and made the main battle with the ogre easier. I continue that mage as a support/healer mage but then I got the Isabella bug... and I was just controlling... Anders for the rest of the game:pinched:

So well back to the initial question, I think all the classes are pretty balanced in this game but so far I've only played on Hard, maybe Nightmare is a different thing.

[Panurge Pantagruel]

Thanks for the feedback guys!

[aethernox]

I don't know how much "harder" the game could really be between two classes on the low difficulties. I mean, can you even die on normal?

Warriors are the easiest class to play, in my opinion. I don't mean that it takes less skill to play them, but rather the game is less challenging as a warrior when compared to the other classes, since you don't have any of the problems that mages and rogues have. Mages get support abilities and AoE. Rogues get single-target DPS, support abilities and threat redirection. Warriors get single-target and AoE-DPS, threat redirection, copious tanking potential, and relatively free Fortitude compared to the other classes. It pretty much does everything but support, which is better handled by your party members in the first place.

Nightmare Warrior was a cakewalk compared to Nightmare Rogue, and Nightmare Mage has a ton of problems in the first couple of acts.

AreleX's comments were spot on. I don't really buy that Mages start out better than warriors. It takes a lot of talent points to get mages to the point where they have a relevant action at all stages of the fight, and by that time Warriors are abusing some of the best talents in the game. Specifically, someone stated that Warriors don't take off until they get stuff like Barrage, Blood Frenzy, and by extension Sacrificial Frenzy. That's kind of misleading, as none of those abilities are as good as Cleave, the third talent in the Vanguard tree.

Modifié par aethernox, 22 avril 2011 - 08:51 .