60 réponses à ce sujet

[Must have name]

The simple solution is this:

- As a Warrior, a Combo of Vanguard / Reaver / Berserker is an auto-attack menace. He'll tear through mobs ridiculously quickly.
- As a Rogue, Assassinate. Pair it with Petrify for the Brittle. That's really it. Abilities like Twin Fangs or Archer's Lance are also fairly nice, but Assassinate will 1-hit so many mobs.
- As a Mage, it's got to be Force Mage / Blood Mage. You won't come close damage wise, but abilities like Petrify, Horror, Gravitic Ring are amazing CC. Grab Blood Mage at 14, take the minimum Willpower needed to wear your armour dumping the rest into Con/Mag, equip enough +Blood Magic items, and you'll not only be far hardier than a regular mage, but you'll be handing out buffs and have an almost infinite supply of Mana.

[mr_afk]

aethernox wrote...
...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.

You obviously haven't tried my early mage build  hahaha
The thing about mages is that (unless they're getting interrupted/knockdown all the time) they can deal a lot of damage without taking any back. Warriors tend to suffer from the whole getting hit back thing, which isn't much of a problem besides in the early game when you don't have much consitution and/or damage, so you can't kill them very fast and you can't take too many hits.

For example, would you consider it easier to kite that ogre back near Lothering with a mage or a warrior? And you must admit that Kiting is almost an essential part of the (nightmare) early game. The best part about kiting with a mage (even compared to archers) is that you have a few CC and spike damage spells in your arsenal. E.g. they get too close, you freeze them and bail off. There's a group close together, you zap them with some lightning.

Anyway, I'm not saying that a warrior is hard to play (especially with dlc gear). It's just that a warrior can't really double as both tank and dps-dealer at the same time early game like it does later game (which is the reason why it is the easiest of the classes to get the hang of)

Modifié par mr_afk, 22 avril 2011 - 09:12 .

[aethernox]

The build that requires specific, not easily/reasonably obtainable DLC? Why, no, I haven't tried it.

Warriors are more than capable of doing the same thing, in my experience. Circle strafing and only harassing with Mighty Blow and similar actives lets Warriors kite just as well as mages, except that Warriors don't have to worry about getting stunlocked if something hits them during a casting animation.

Also, you don't really need very much kiting on the Ogre Fight, with proper talent choices. You just need to avoid one or two attacks while cooldowns are up, aside from obvious things like sidestepping the charge.

[mr_afk]

aethernox wrote...

The build that requires specific, not easily/reasonably obtainable DLC? Why, no, I haven't tried it.

Warriors are more than capable of doing the same thing, in my experience. Circle strafing and only harassing with Mighty Blow and similar actives lets Warriors kite just as well as mages, except that Warriors don't have to worry about getting stunlocked if something hits them during a casting animation.

Also, you don't really need very much kiting on the Ogre Fight, with proper talent choices. You just need to avoid one or two attacks while cooldowns are up, aside from obvious things like sidestepping the charge.

Hm maybe you're just a lot more talented than me at using warriors. I always found the first act somewhat annoying with a warrior as I kept getting knockbacked (EVEN though I had a pretty decent fortitude...how is that fair?) and all the threat it drew would cause it to be pincushioned by archers if I wasn't careful.
On the other hand, my mage playthrough (using the same dlc my warrior used) found the whole first act a breeze. Though maybe it's because I'm more experienced now.

Btw, which dlc are you talking about? The only dlc you really need is the blood dragon armour...the other dlc is just very helpful in giving you decent weapons without mag requirements and reducing the amount of points you need to waste on str/con....meh, enough self promoting. All i'm saying really is that I found the first act to be a lot easier with a mage than with a warrior. Once you get to the second act/specialisations and anders semi-permanent haste, there isn't a lot that can beat a warrior in terms of ease of play.

Modifié par mr_afk, 22 avril 2011 - 09:28 .

[jndiii]

my 2 cents:

I would say that player experience (knowledge of the game mechanics, how tactics work, what a "good build" looks like, etc.) accounts for 90% of any perceptions about which classes are easy or difficult to play. My first Hawke was a mage, and that was my most difficult playthrough, to the point that I had to notch things down to Casual just to get by. Now with a mage, I'm soloing the Arishok on Hard without having to reload, simply because I understand how that fight needs to play out, and I know which talents are most effective for that encounter. Yet when I tried rogue and warrior for the first time, I was eating pavement far more often than I thought I should, until I figured out better strategies and tactics for handling those.

So, subjectively, I think it's very difficult to judge which of the three classes is easiest to play, especially comparing difficulty at the beginning of the game. You only get one "first playthough," and any subsequent experience is tainted in this regard.

It's a bit easier to judge which of the three is easiest after gaining a lot of playing experience and understanding (I'm not at that level, yet, btw). But at that point, it's mostly picking nits, because all three classes, if well-understood, will find the game easier than the other two, in different ways.

[Lumikki]

Panurge Pantagruel wrote...

...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?

In my opinion it doesn't matter. All classes are about same before and after knowing them. It's all about how good you are in general to figure out what talents or spells could be usefull. How ever, without knowing how the gameplay works in DA2, it's alot harder to figure what's usefull and what's not. So, like allways it takes while to learn.

I usually play mage, but that is because I like to play mages. I'm not so good with Warriors.

Modifié par Lumikki, 22 avril 2011 - 12:44 .

[Iyashi]

AreleX wrote...

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.

Oh, lol. I was wondering 100k + crits aren't enough? What you say is true though, in the other builds you made Varric is important for redirecting aggro, practically making sure Anders doesn't get ****ed. 

[aethernox]

mr_afk wrote...

Hm maybe you're just a lot more talented than me at using warriors. I always found the first act somewhat annoying with a warrior as I kept getting knockbacked (EVEN though I had a pretty decent fortitude...how is that fair?) and all the threat it drew would cause it to be pincushioned by archers if I wasn't careful.
On the other hand, my mage playthrough (using the same dlc my warrior used) found the whole first act a breeze. Though maybe it's because I'm more experienced now.

Btw, which dlc are you talking about? The only dlc you really need is the blood dragon armour...the other dlc is just very helpful in giving you decent weapons without mag requirements and reducing the amount of points you need to waste on str/con....meh, enough self promoting. All i'm saying really is that I found the first act to be a lot easier with a mage than with a warrior. Once you get to the second act/specialisations and anders semi-permanent haste, there isn't a lot that can beat a warrior in terms of ease of play.

But.... it's not like mages don't have difficulty act 1. I mean, assuming that they're knowledgeable enough not to invest in the spells with early immunities (which is mostly the elemental tree), they still have many of the warrior's problems, except that they're more prone to drawing aggro and they're less capable of handling it. Neither of them are hard, per se, but it just seems like Warriors had more going for them. Neither my mage or warrior game was my first playthrough, for the record, and I was already familiar with each class and general optimization before I played them.

I was talking about the Blood Dragon Armor, yes, and to a much lesser extent the Ring of Resilience. I only bothered acquiring the free, widely available DLC.

[mr_afk]

aethernox wrote...

But.... it's not like mages don't have difficulty act 1. I mean, assuming that they're knowledgeable enough not to invest in the spells with early immunities (which is mostly the elemental tree), they still have many of the warrior's problems, except that they're more prone to drawing aggro and they're less capable of handling it. Neither of them are hard, per se, but it just seems like Warriors had more going for them. Neither my mage or warrior game was my first playthrough, for the record, and I was already familiar with each class and general optimization before I played them.

I was talking about the Blood Dragon Armor, yes, and to a much lesser extent the Ring of Resilience. I only bothered acquiring the free, widely available DLC.

Hmm..for a normal mage perhaps. But with both the dragon blood armour (which is pretty overpowered) AND stone armour, a mage can have an armour that's higher than even a warriors and avoid the knock-back issues that can affect some early game warriors. I think it also helps that mages actually draw less threat (until they directly attack them) such that they have less people shooting arrows at them at one time - allowing a mage to safely take out one enemy at a time while the companion tanks absorb the rest of the arrows.

But yeah, I think the reason why I found it so easy was because of the staffs/spells I chose and the way I knew when to use them. My lightning spells tore apart most of the enemies with weak electrical resistance such as spiders, undead, and shades (especially when coupled with staggers) and my ice spells were great for brittling and minor CC. I also was able to setup my companions builds and tactics better which may have helped.

And fair enough about the dlc. I was uber-keen for DAII so got the preorded items. Then, as I already had some I got into the 'gotta get them all' mode so went around registering games, signing up for newsletters etc. Normally I don't see the need for them as they seem rather gimicky. Oh well. Maybe if my crit-mage build works and is so so amazing you'll want to do another mage playthrough to try it hahaha 

[aethernox]

In a party setting, the difference is really minor, since Merrill/Anders can do most of what a Mage Hawke can do, and Fenris/Aveline can do most of what a Warrior Hawke can do. Warrior Hawke gets the best companions, though, since nothing really compares to Anders/Merrill/Varric, and mages can't run that unless they're talented enough to mitigate the glass cannon factor. I just think that the difference between Hawke and Fenris/Aveline is larger than the difference between Hawke and Merrill (since Hawke can't really replace Anders very well, given his unique abilities). I'm not saying that a mage should have struggled through the game, just that things seemed a bit more easy-mode for warriors.

I did the newsletter stuff, and even the Dragon Age Legends stuff (ugh), but I didn't preorder it and I don't have access to the DA:O/Dead Space DLC. This DLC system is seriously frustrating, though. I hate the way that games are moving these days, what with the preorder bonuses, etc.

[Nasabe]

Well, with all other reasons aside, having a Spirit Healer specialized mage gives you two healers where as otherwise you are reliant to Anders.

Via a healer Hawke you also get access to Petrify, Paralysis and Horror, add Merrill and Anders to that and that makes 3 Petrify, 2 Horror and Paralysis cooldowns.

Bosses who aren't immune to neither Petrify or Horror won't be able to move an inch before you kill them. (Varterral anyone?)

That option is simply not available to any other class but only to mage hawke. (Although I think its a major imbalance issue but noone is forcing anyone to capitalize on that, no biggie) So compared to mage hawke every other class is a bit more challenging yes.

Edit: Not only you can do that to other big baddies like Ogres etc. but you can stack healing auras and haste's with anders.. It can reach to a downright easy-mode even on nightmare.

Now that mage is out of the question, I think -for Nightmare- Warrior is easier than melee rogue but more difficult than an archer rogue.

Modifié par Nasabe, 22 avril 2011 - 06:59 .

[aethernox]

That also leaves you without a Rogue or a Warrior. Warriors are necessary for CCCs and to a lesser extent tanking, and rogues are necessary for additional threat redirection and lockpicking (which amounts to a LOT of experience, and a decent amount of loot). Also, you don't really need a healer hawke due to Anders, since Swift Justice plus three or four martyr activations gives Anders stupidly low cooldowns on all of the support spells that he'll ever need.

Mage Hawke + Anders + Merrill + Varric/Fenris/Aveline is actually more challenging/flawed than a balanced party in many situations, especially given the massively reduced durations of petrify/horror coupled with the rampant immunities to both effects. Of course, this is assuming Nightmare play, since nearly any party combination can safely stomp the game otherwise.

[Nasabe]

aethernox wrote...

That also leaves you without a Rogue or a Warrior. Warriors are necessary for CCCs and to a lesser extent tanking, and rogues are necessary for additional threat redirection and lockpicking (which amounts to a LOT of experience, and a decent amount of loot). Also, you don't really need a healer hawke due to Anders, since Swift Justice plus three or four martyr activations gives Anders stupidly low cooldowns on all of the support spells that he'll ever need.

Mage Hawke + Anders + Merrill + Varric/Fenris/Aveline is actually more challenging/flawed than a balanced party in many situations, especially given the massively reduced durations of petrify/horror coupled with the rampant immunities to both effects. Of course, this is assuming Nightmare play, since nearly any party combination can safely stomp the game otherwise.

Fair point about the rogue, although with Fenris CCC is very much doable and maybe even more so than a normal party. two Petrifies + 3 coldwinter's grasp (Brittle) for Mighty blow+scythe with constant 50% crit chance Fenris for staggers which opens up lightning strikes and ..it goes on.  I did try. Trust me it is very very easy to take down a boss without losing a single hp

[aethernox]

Petrify and Horror lose roughly half their duration on Nightmare, and lose half of that against bosses. Assuming that you chain things *perfectly*, you're getting about 2 seconds per Horror and about 3 seconds per Petrify, assuming that the boss isn't immune to either of them (hint: almost every actual boss is immune to them. Orsino is a major exception, aside from the fact that Orsino was like the easiest fight in the game), and Paralysis is even more commonly resisted.

What "boss" was this? You can't fairly ask anyone to just "trust you" when you're making claims that don't sit well with established game mechanics. I could go "I did try. Trust me it is very very easy to one-hit Meredith solo on nightmare," but that doesn't make it a legitimate claim, does it? Upload a video, show your setup, and fight a real boss.

[brazen_nl]

If going for three mages, I'd rather have a ranged rogue as a warrior. First, the warrior needs to move for a finisher, and a rogue can just shoot Archer's Lance or Bursting arrow with less risk of friendly fire. Second, it's safer to drop a walking bomb with a full-ranged party than with a melee character. You also won't have to rune up the warrior for spirit and fire warding, so you can drop Firestorm whenever you want.

Modifié par brazen_nl, 22 avril 2011 - 08:13 .

[mr_afk]

brazen_nl wrote...

If going for three mages, I'd rather have a ranged rogue as a warrior. First, the warrior needs to move for a finisher, and a rogue can just shoot Archer's Lance or Bursting arrow with less risk of friendly fire. Second, it's safer to drop a walking bomb with a full-ranged party than with a melee character. You also won't have to rune up the warrior for spirit and fire warding, so you can drop Firestorm whenever you want.

Hmm debatable. You're missing out on stagger-CCCs which are some of the easiest and most powerful for mages. All you need is a warrior to stagger an enemy than you can either zap it with lightning or explode it with blood magic. I wouldn't mind using a party setup with 3 mages and 1 warrior if it weren't for the fact that rogues are necessary to open locked chests. As for freezing enemies for your warrior, I've found brittling pretty hard to do consistently (but I didn't get elemental mastery which may be why)

However, a more balanced party (2 mages, 1 rogue, 1 warrior) gives you more options (such as walking bombs etc) and more options is always good.

Edit: And bite your tongue! Archer's lance less risk of friendly fire?!!! That is probably the only CCC i've known to consistently kill a party member everytime it's triggered. I've become so paranoid that whenever I see Varric about to shoot one I pause and micro everyone away. haha

Modifié par mr_afk, 22 avril 2011 - 08:33 .

[Nasabe]

aethernox wrote...

Petrify and Horror lose roughly half their duration on Nightmare, and lose half of that against bosses. Assuming that you chain things *perfectly*, you're getting about 2 seconds per Horror and about 3 seconds per Petrify, assuming that the boss isn't immune to either of them (hint: almost every actual boss is immune to them. Orsino is a major exception, aside from the fact that Orsino was like the easiest fight in the game), and Paralysis is even more commonly resisted.

What "boss" was this? You can't fairly ask anyone to just "trust you" when you're making claims that don't sit well with established game mechanics. I could go "I did try. Trust me it is very very easy to one-hit Meredith solo on nightmare," but that doesn't make it a legitimate claim, does it? Upload a video, show your setup, and fight a real boss.

I did not mean to brag about something I did, I pointed out why playing a mage could be easier than a warrior if you exploited a certain setup and pointed on how to do it when questioned.

Its up to you to take my word on it or not really, I don't feel obliged to prove it for the sake of a personal argument. You can certainly call it BS and move on.

[brazen_nl]

mr_afk wrote...

brazen_nl wrote...

If going for three mages, I'd rather have a ranged rogue as a warrior. First, the warrior needs to move for a finisher, and a rogue can just shoot Archer's Lance or Bursting arrow with less risk of friendly fire. Second, it's safer to drop a walking bomb with a full-ranged party than with a melee character. You also won't have to rune up the warrior for spirit and fire warding, so you can drop Firestorm whenever you want.

Hmm debatable. You're missing out on stagger-CCCs which are some of the easiest and most powerful for mages. All you need is a warrior to stagger an enemy than you can either zap it with lightning or explode it with blood magic. I wouldn't mind using a party setup with 3 mages and 1 warrior if it weren't for the fact that rogues are necessary to open locked chests. As for freezing enemies for your warrior, I've found brittling pretty hard to do consistently (but I didn't get elemental mastery which may be why)

However, a more balanced party (2 mages, 1 rogue, 1 warrior) gives you more options (such as walking bombs etc) and more options is always good.

Edit: And bite your tongue! Archer's lance less risk of friendly fire?!!! That is probably the only CCC i've known to consistently kill a party member everytime it's triggered. I've become so paranoid that whenever I see Varric about to shoot one I pause and micro everyone away. haha

Elemental mastery makes a big difference.

I agree, a balanced party is safest, but 3 mages is more fun. The amount of damage you do is just amazing.

You don't need a warrior for walking bombs. Immobilize, disorient and drop the bomb.

Ah, Archer's Lance in the context of not having a warrior wander into a walking bomb or firestorm. You better believe I've been shot by Varric multiple times using both Archer's Lance and Bursting arrow!

When going with a warrior, what I've done now is ditch Aveline for Fenris, since I find Fenris easier to rune up for Fire and Spirit than Aveline, so less risk of my warrior dying to either Firestorm or WB.

[aethernox]

Nasabe wrote...
I did not mean to brag about something I did, I pointed out why playing a mage could be easier than a warrior if you exploited a certain setup and pointed on how to do it when questioned.

Its up to you to take my word on it or not really, I don't feel obliged to prove it for the sake of a personal argument. You can certainly call it BS and move on.

I wouldn't really call this a personal argument, it's just that this is a forum for build optimization and so the more well-tested information we have the better. I just don't think that your party build works the way that you think it does.

[Nasabe]

aethernox wrote...

Nasabe wrote...
I did not mean to brag about something I did, I pointed out why playing a mage could be easier than a warrior if you exploited a certain setup and pointed on how to do it when questioned.

Its up to you to take my word on it or not really, I don't feel obliged to prove it for the sake of a personal argument. You can certainly call it BS and move on.

I wouldn't really call this a personal argument, it's just that this is a forum for build optimization and so the more well-tested information we have the better. I just don't think that your party build works the way that you think it does.

Well in that case I'll try to elobarate, varterral isn't immune to either, dragons (except for high dragon) aren't immune to either. Tal-Vashoth officers aren't immune to either, Crazed Elf etc. isn't immune to either, Almost all the casters aren't immune to either (Seerabas, bloodragers, apostates etc.), Abominations aren't immune, list keeps going on with spiders etc... Assassin types are immune to one of them and vulnarable to the other (Human assassins are immune to Petrify for example and vice versa for Dwarf)

Horror time is reduced correct, but Petrify is not. Even if it is, Fenris can certainly run from the other edge of the battlefield to use mighty strike so I did not even notice. Timing could be due to I micromanage everything and use no tactics, I don't know honestly, never had any trouble with it.

With all these in mind, playing a balanced party is more fun imo. Powerplay kind of goes against the purpose of these kind of games. I just pointed out because the OP asked about it.

[Morroian]

Panurge Pantagruel wrote...

What do you guys think?

I find playing as a warrior easier, especially once I got the reaver spec and claymore.

[Darth Krytie]

Rogue was weakest for me...which was weird since it was my favourite class in DA:O. There wasn't really any benefit to being a rogue in this game over the other classes. Especially since there's not a lot of need to lockpick or disarm traps without party members. And Varric is so hella awesome with his AOE attacks, it wasn't a burden always having him in party.

Mage and warrior are pretty equal, imo. Depending on how you build 'em, of course. Never played as a one-handed warrior...just two handed.

[Adokat]

Darth Krytie wrote...

Rogue was weakest for me...which was weird since it was my favourite class in DA:O. There wasn't really any benefit to being a rogue in this game over the other classes. Especially since there's not a lot of need to lockpick or disarm traps without party members. And Varric is so hella awesome with his AOE attacks, it wasn't a burden always having him in party.

Mage and warrior are pretty equal, imo. Depending on how you build 'em, of course. Never played as a one-handed warrior...just two handed.

Actually, I think Rogues are a great class, and via their specializations, they're able to do amazing burst damage. Assassinate and Vendetta are incredible for taking out enemy mages and rogues.  None of your party's rogues are capable of doing that nearly as well, and this gives Rogue Hawkes a big advantage in tough encounters. Obviously, Hawke will excel as whatever class he/she is, but your party members are already adept at filling the roles that Hawke would.  Aveline and Fenris can be good tanks, capable of also taking out waves of weak enemies(a task the rogue can't do as reliably), and Merrill and Anders cover healing, support, crowd control, and damage pretty well. 

It's only in extreme burst damage that your 2(or 3) rogues can't match up.  There are many encounters where you have a very limited time to kill an enemy before it goes invulnerable and inflicts high damage on your party. I think only Hawke can reliably do the crazy burst damage required.

[Ryzaki]

Morroian wrote...

Panurge Pantagruel wrote...

What do you guys think?

I find playing as a warrior easier, especially once I got the reaver spec and claymore.

This. 

Rogue is fun yeah but nothing quite measures up to the warrior. 

Does help that I don't have to worry about dying just do to a strong special.