94 réponses à ce sujet

[Garzog The Smelly]

Mages may have been powerful, but they felt more like a necessary part of a whole instead of the "I wish I could have an entire party full of this single class" power they wield in DA:O.



You wanted a rogue, a cleric, a tank, (and you wanted Minsc too!) because the game needed them.

[Shannara13]

DaeFaron wrote...

JonDwarf wrote...
I'd rather feel uber without mathematical formulations to justify my uberness which just makes it feel too much like - *rolls the di* - work

This is the reason I never touched a mage in Neverwinter Nights. Me and one of my brothers had a level 20 sorcerer duel, pretty much the exact same setup spell-wise I believe. But he knew the stats to modify his spells better and always destroyed me.

The amount of numbers can get confusing if you don't really care to min-max. (Increasing your intelligence will up your fireballs damage by 5d7, while a high wisdom modifier will help your spell penetration by 2d6.) Stuff like that.

You are really confused. There are no stats in NWN that increase damage or spell penetration. If you are Wizard the only thing that affects you spells is Intelligence and it just affects affects how many spells you can memorize and the DC on your spells. Wisdom has no affect on Arcane spells. There is no number crunching. All you need to know is if you are a Wizard or a Sorcerer. If you are a Wizard then you get Intelligence as high as possible, if you are a Sorcerer you get Charisma as high as possible. Those are the only stats that make any difference.

[magor1988x]

The issue with mages is not that they are over powered per se...



It's that mages have more tools at their disposal then any other class.



Mages have more damaging abilities, crowd control abilities, self defense and healing abilities, etc then any other class by far.



Furthermore Mages neither gain nor lose by putting all their skills in one tree or spreading their points in several.



Warriors and rogues become quite useless if they spread their points too thinly between the trees and must specialize deep into one of them.



A mage can put spells in spirit, primal, entropy, and specializations and still be a ridiculously powerful force.



A rogue or warrior usually focuses on Archery or Dual Wield, or in the case of Warrior 2h or Sword and Board.



Rogues and Warriors are still awesome in my opinion, Mages just have the advantage. Great DPS or heals, if well managed high survivability, and extreme flexibility in talent placement.

[MerinTB]

Kaosgirl wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Kaosgirl wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

And here's where I get flamed -

I think 4th ED has a better solution with the At-Will, Encounter, Daily and Utility Powers and Rituals.  You will be using your At-Wills forever, but not have to "guess" at which spells to prepare and no mana stat to track.

From a tactics and strategy viewpoint, it's a superior system.  But off the computer, there's more to RPGs than just the tactical and strategical elements.  I'd really want to know why my ability to use Encounter spells varies according to whether or not I can count two consecutive opponents as seperate encounters.

After an encounter ends you take a Short Rest, five minutes to catch your breath, patch your wounds, regain your stamina.  It is after a Short Rest that you regain your Encounter powers (i.e. the rest and energy needed to pull off more tiring / draining manuevers / spells.)

I duck under cover and take a five minute breather while the rest of my party distracts the enemy.  Does that let me recover my Encounter powers?  By the justification, it should; but I'm guessing 'by the book' it would not.

MerinTB wrote...
Honestly, it makes more sense to me than having 3 Magic Missiles memorized in your mind somehow.

We never did do spell memorization.  We did spell preparation - a slight semantical difference maybe, but it made more sense

Though apart from the 'incomplete' magic system, I found myself leaning towards the Iron Heroes alternative instead.

Ok, I think most DM's would let you recover your Encounter powers if you were completely removed from the action and resting for 5 minutes.  I would.

But remember - a round is like 3-6 seconds.  A typical combat encounter, which might go anywhere from 5 to 10 rounds, give or take depending on the scenario/situation/map, takes from half an hour to two hours, again depending on players (their focus and their experience with the ruleset) and scenario/situation.
To be inactive in combat long enough for 5 minutes of rest would require, at minimum, the passage of 100 rounds of combat.  Assuming some situation happens where over 100 rounds occur in a single encounter, the gameplay would probably take, at minimum, something like 5 hours and I don't know who'd want to play the game that way.

That said, as a game mechanic you have to be outside of an ongoing Encounter to recover Encounter powers.  It's the mechanic of the game to simplify things.

[Roxlimn]

magor1988x:



You're completely off-base there. A Rogue can dabble in both Archery and Dual Wield and be a potent force on the battlefield. In fact, you can do this with Leliana (not even a main) while being a stun-tower buffing bard and still be magnificently potent. All you really need out of the DW section is Momentum, after all, and your go-to powers in Archery are similarly focused.



A Warrior can have both Two Handed and Shield powers and switch according to need. Their normal attacks are so powerful, in fact, that you can sometimes totally switch out of a style even if you don't have any talents associated with another style and still totally own.



People somehow make this mistake that just because the Mage animations are flashier, that the class itself is more powerful. Mages in DAO are less powerful than Mages in BG, while Warriors in DAO are more powerful than Warriors in BG. On the whole, DAO is a better balanced game, really.



The one thing a Mage can do that a Warrior absolutely cannot do in DAO is win a battle without even taking an attack. That said, they ARE rather vulnerable to Crushing Prison and Curse of Mortality, whereas you can spec an entire Warrior party to be essentially magic-proof. NO need to neutralize the Mage at all!

[soteria]

Shannara13 wrote...

Seifz wrote...

There's really nothing good about the AD&D spell system.  The DA:O system is much, much better.  Mana is always better than memorization, and spell combos are just a blast to discover and then use.

Actually a major disadvantage of a mana system is that with a mana system you tend to fall back on just repeatably casting your most powerful spell while the lower level spells get ignored. With a memorization system it encourages yout to make the most off all your spells from lvl 1 to max simply because you have only a few uses of your most powerful spells.

That's only true if your lower level spells are so bad that you would never use them unless you had no choice.  Make spells that scale with level or stats, and make every spell useful, don't make stupidly overpowered spells, and players will use their entire spellbook when appropriate.   Your spells should be used because they're useful, not because they're so much better than everything else or you just don't have a choice.

Additionally, those lower level spells weren't always a good option, since some monsters were immune to low-level spells or they just wouldn't pass saves/resistance checks.

You are really confused. There are no stats in NWN that increase damage or spell penetration. If you are Wizard the only thing that affects you spells is Intelligence and it just affects affects how many spells you can memorize and the DC on your spells. Wisdom has no affect on Arcane spells. There is no number crunching. All you need to know is if you are a Wizard or a Sorcerer. If you are a Wizard then you get Intelligence as high as possible, if you are a Sorcerer you get Charisma as high as possible. Those are the only stats that make any difference.

One of the many weaknesses of the DnD system, and ties into my first point.  In other terms, intelligence/charisma only increased your chance to hit with spells and let you cast more of them.  Lower level spells couldn't be allowed to scale well because they gave you more of them, hence Magic Missile, Lesser Magic Missile Storm, and IGMMS.  A better system would have been to leave it all the same spell, and let it scale--if I aim at a single target, that's what it goes for, or if I aim at an area, the missiles strike enemies in that area.

Modifié par soteria, 05 décembre 2009 - 08:31 .

[Seraphael]

Skellimancer wrote...

I really wished Bioware used/stole the spell system from Baldur's Gate series.

DA:O spell system is so dumbed down.

Oh I agree completly, at least if not for the "low-magic world" thing. Mage battles in BG2 was more fun than combat in just about any other game as far as I'm concerned. So many layers to it.

[Stronghold II]

Lacan2 wrote... On Nightmare. I could probably kill the Maker.

 Game On Bro!!!!

 No, seriously man, that's going in my sig later.

[soteria]

Seraphael wrote...

Skellimancer wrote...

I really wished Bioware used/stole the spell system from Baldur's Gate series.

DA:O spell system is so dumbed down.

Oh I agree completly, at least if not for the "low-magic world" thing. Mage battles in BG2 was more fun than combat in just about any other game as far as I'm concerned. So many layers to it.

Layers?  I just cast breach, pierce magic, lower reasistance, greater malison, and disintegrate.  Then, I found out I could use Keldorn's dispel magic and a couple melee swings to do the same thing with less effort.  Or just run a stealthed rogue in with a cloak of non-detection to backstab the mage and end the fight before it began.  Or heck, just stay out of sight until the spells expire, and then pelt the mage with ranged attacks. 

Plus, the high level spells were bad.  Not ineffective, just bad--too many "save or else" spells.  I don't understand the glamorization of that spell system...

[JonDwarf]

SomeoneStoleMyName wrote...

purplesunset wrote...

Dragon Age was intended to be a low-magic game, and even the lore supports this "low-magic"  goal.

I hope you mean only DA:O and not any sequels and the like, low magic worlds sucks. The game was great but just a shadow of what it couldve been as a high magic world.

I completely disagree. though I love mages and feel they belong in 9 out of 10 RPG's. If my Dwarf decked out with Warden Armor hops off a cliff aiming straight for your mages head with his - *place any blunt or sharp high damage weapon here* - I want to see some skull splitting, maybe even some separation of head from body. Mages should not always be the strongest and I really like that about DAO, my dwarf can shake off alot of magic attacks and when he gets close to a mage it is lights out. like it should be. Mages wear no armor (unless archmage) and if a 4' battle axe comes swinging at your no armor mage it should rightfully split them in half.

Elsewhere (AD&D games), the mage would roll a save, counter with (place uber spell here) and your juggernaut warrior decked in armor is gone... Bull**** I say, An armored vehicle is an armored vehicle I say and if your mage couldn't banish them to the fade prior to them meeting you face-to-face, guess what? Your mages deserves an axe in his/her skull. Of course all this is IMHO, dwarven worshipper to the end and let's face it... Not a whole lot of dwarven mages running around.

In conclusion, Mages should not be the only uber class in RPG's because an axe to the head will cut down any mage and it should.

[JonDwarf]

satang wrote...

D&D wizard in summary.

Hahaha, That's what i'm sodding talking about... My only beef with the pic is... Where is the dwarf with an axe aiming straight for that wizard's head? 

[Elanareon]

DnD spell systems is stupid! Memorizing spell then when you use it you suddenly forget it! lol The only cool think about DnD spell system is the way mages learn spells...

[JonDwarf]

Shannara13 wrote...

DaeFaron wrote...

JonDwarf wrote...
I'd rather feel uber without mathematical formulations to justify my uberness which just makes it feel too much like - *rolls the di* - work

This is the reason I never touched a mage in Neverwinter Nights. Me and one of my brothers had a level 20 sorcerer duel, pretty much the exact same setup spell-wise I believe. But he knew the stats to modify his spells better and always destroyed me.

The amount of numbers can get confusing if you don't really care to min-max. (Increasing your intelligence will up your fireballs damage by 5d7, while a high wisdom modifier will help your spell penetration by 2d6.) Stuff like that.

You are really confused. There are no stats in NWN that increase damage or spell penetration. If you are Wizard the only thing that affects you spells is Intelligence and it just affects affects how many spells you can memorize and the DC on your spells. Wisdom has no affect on Arcane spells. There is no number crunching. All you need to know is if you are a Wizard or a Sorcerer. If you are a Wizard then you get Intelligence as high as possible, if you are a Sorcerer you get Charisma as high as possible. Those are the only stats that make any difference.

What if you like some wizard spells and some sorcerer spells home slice?

[Elanareon]

haha Yeah mage battles in BG was breach, pierce then hack away!

[Seraphael]

soteria wrote...

Seraphael wrote...

Skellimancer wrote...

I really wished Bioware used/stole the spell system from Baldur's Gate series.

DA:O spell system is so dumbed down.

Oh I agree completly, at least if not for the "low-magic world" thing. Mage battles in BG2 was more fun than combat in just about any other game as far as I'm concerned. So many layers to it.

Layers?  I just cast breach, pierce magic, lower reasistance, greater malison, and disintegrate.  Then, I found out I could use Keldorn's dispel magic and a couple melee swings to do the same thing with less effort.  Or just run a stealthed rogue in with a cloak of non-detection to backstab the mage and end the fight before it began.  Or heck, just stay out of sight until the spells expire, and then pelt the mage with ranged attacks. 

Plus, the high level spells were bad.  Not ineffective, just bad--too many "save or else" spells.  I don't understand the glamorization of that spell system...

You're oversimplyfying it. There were protection spells, anti-protection spells and spells which protected against anti-protection spells. Which other game has that complex spellcasting? In DA:O it's more the luck of the draw, who casts first shall win kind of deal. So yeah, LAYERS.

Modifié par Seraphael, 05 décembre 2009 - 03:33 .

[SphereofSilence]

Lacan2 wrote...

It amazes me that people are complaining that mages are overpowered, like this is some new offense. Especially if they ever played BG2.

Nothing in this game compares to Time Stop, Comet, Chain Contingency, Wish, Immunity from Magic Weapons, etc. With a level 20 BG2 sorcerer, I could solo this game without taking damage. On Nightmare. I could probably kill the Maker.

To sum it up, these mages are pansies compared to that.

That is true, but there were a few mechanics in place in BG2 that actually mitigates that:

1) Mages in BG2 needs to be of relatively high level (if I remember correctly) compared to DAO, to cast these 'ultimate' spells. In DAO you can easily access Blizzard, Chain Lightning, Earthquake, Death Hex by mid game.

2) There were limited spell slots to equip spells in BG2. And the only way to recast spells were to rest the whole party. So you got to choose your spells wisely before any combat outing, and manage them so that you don't use up all and left with no ammunition to fight further.

The end result is you don't get to cast them as often as in DAO. It was precisely this lack of frequency, that made those spells, as powerful as they were, acceptable. Actually, it was rewarding in a way. After 100++ hours of gameplay, it genuinely felt that you're rewarded to have come this far to become a powerful mage.  

But in DAO, you're almost always able to unload your full arsenal of magic, since spells are dependent of mana, and mana are regenerated quickly after each encounter. And to be able to use these spells by mid game...kinda makes it too easy and demeans the experience. At least to me. 

[Seraphael]

...not to mention, enemies in BG2 were actually quite dangerous. Wish + Time Stop casting demi (god) liches? Undead (and undead dragons IIRC) that drained a couple of levels per hit? Ugh!

Modifié par Seraphael, 05 décembre 2009 - 05:43 .

[Tianwyn]

1. Don't have to work off a list of memorized spells with limited daily uses.

*Coughsorcerercough*

2. Fewer saving throws. I can toss stuff like Crushing Prison on big time foes and, gasp, it worked unlike say Disintegrate in BG2 which did nothing on anything I wanted to disintegrate. Same thing with spells like sleep or horror which seem to "connect" a lot more than those same spells in BG2

Disintigrate works if you know what sort of enemy to cast it on. If you're fighting a higher level enemy, it is more likely that they'll make a save against it. Stuff that works against bigger bosses in BG, for example, are the higher level spells like Horrid Wilting and Dragon's Breath.

3. Mages don't have counter magic (and this BTW is a good thing). I hated that the main role for my mages as BG@ worse on were casting 10 different varieties of debuffs to strip away the isane protections fired off by sequencers to nerf mage fights. In DAO my mages main role is to kill people and break things.

A lot of times, I bypassed the whole counter-magic thing in BG. My sorceress had the offensive spells, and Imoen was my backup. With the Robe of Vecna, I could cast a spell sequencer like 3 Horrid Wiltings instantly and wipe out all the mages in a room before they had their spell shields up.



In summary - if the Templars in DA think Ferelden mages are bad, they would have seizures if they met the BG ones.

...not to mention, enemies in BG2 were actually quite dangerous. Wish + Time Stop casting demi (god) liches? Undead (and undead dragons IIRC) that drained a couple of levels per hit? Ugh!

The one that always got me was Imprisonment.

[Deathstyk85]

how are mages over powered exactly? i had no trouble playing the game as any of the three classes.

rogues were fun but their gear sucked, warriors were just all around awesome to play, i did decent dw damage, and i never died, and mages did big bursts of damage but couldnt take as much from direct hits. people act like the other two classes are cripples trying to swing their cruches at people. there is no "underpowered" class. their just different play styles with a bunch of equally powerful classes, and since it is a single player game, and not a multiplayer game, theres really no need to say "well that class was more powerful than my class, waaa" because its not like that class is gonna pop out of a bush and kill you.

and in all honosty, i found warriors the easiest class to play. what was the warriors i win button? cutting off someones head, or dismembering them in a delightful plethera of ways.

[orpheus333]

I think the difference is mainly party size personally. In BG2 there was a certain dillution of power as the party size was so large. In DA it is far mroe noticable that you have to have at the least one spell-caster. In BG2 you had to have a cleric and an arcane mage in order for your party to function efficiantly. IMO the power level of casters in both games is high. This nonsense about the casting system in bg2 giving some sort of strategic challange is rubbish. Not once did it play a major part in my descision making throughout all my play throughs of both bg1 and bg2.

[Tianwyn]

This nonsense about the casting system in bg2 giving some sort of strategic challange is rubbish. Not once did it play a major part in my descision making throughout all my play throughs of both bg1 and bg2.

People play the game differently.



I'm not saying there isn't strategy in DA's mage system; I just think that, because of larger party size in BG, there was a need for a more diverse selection of spells than you see in DA. And I preferred it. *Shrug*

[Skellimancer]

Problem with DA:O is that you can dump all points into Magic and totally ignore other stats gaining your higher power magics at around lv 3.



---------------------slight spoiler?----------------------------



When i played as a Mage on Nightmare difficulty all challenge was removed from the game as soon as i got cone of cold. which i got during the Kokari wilds test, and towards the end i could destroy huge groups of monsters whom i never even agrod, by casting AOE's over walls... its insane.

[MerinTB]

Skellimancer wrote...

Problem with DA:O is that you can dump all points into Magic and totally ignore other stats gaining your higher power magics at around lv 3.

---------------------slight spoiler?----------------------------

When i played as a Mage on Nightmare difficulty all challenge was removed from the game as soon as i got cone of cold. which i got during the Kokari wilds test, and towards the end i could destroy huge groups of monsters whom i never even agrod, by casting AOE's over walls... its insane.

I will give you that I find it mildly unfair that I can cast spells through walls even if I cannot see into the room (still fog of war's) simpley by casting an area effect spell right next to the wall.

Apparently magical blizzards ignore barriers, like walls and ceilings.

[Brunopolis]

BG2 wasn't too bad until you go to the level 9 mage spells which happened VERY late game.  Anyways the last D&D game Bioware made was NWN 2 so compare DAO to that game which is far more accurate. 

I remember in NWN 2 you could get some killer builds.  I remember playing with my rogue shadowdancer that was an ABSOLUTE monster in damage dealing.  The game was still imbalanced but at least their were imbalanced options available for all classes.  If you picked a warrior you could still specialize into something decent(Weapon master and Dwarven Defender). 8)

[Sidney]

Tianwyn wrote...
I'm not saying there isn't strategy in DA's mage system; I just think that, because of larger party size in BG, there was a need for a more diverse selection of spells than you see in DA. And I preferred it. *Shrug*

You needed a variety of breach, dispel magic, pierce magic and so on and so on because each one ripped away one layer of some stupid protection cocoon the liches were in. Other than that mages didn't need a huge variety of spells.

Even at the end of the game I was using Magic Missile as my main offensive spell because anything else took so flippin' long to cast that my monk and minsc had killed everything in the room before I broke a spell off.

The BG, and by extension D&D, spell system was awful. The myrid of protection and dispelling spells, the long, long casting times and the pointless memorizations meant that Edwin was really just along for the ride.