220 réponses à ce sujet

[Jisai]

Hybrid classes are fine (IE: Paladin) but changing the established ethos and fundamental design is probably going to be regarded with angst in regard to Magi and Clerics.

• Magi are Mages for a reason, they use destructive magic learnt through either study or from other lore and draws from their natural manafont to facilitate this aquired knowledge.

• Clerics are Priests for a reason, they use only Divine Magic given to them through faith in their diety.

There is magic that is different from elemental, and we define them differently.

• Divine/Holy
  
  
• Black/Death Magic (Necromantic Arts)
  
  
• Crowd Control that is moreso regarded as a hybrid as it could be used by both Divine or Black
  
  Blood Magic as newly introduced in DA:Origins (An example of Bioware expanding their horizons!)

D&D is the established basic, and can be built upon, however, as stated Bioware works exclusively in the D&D realm but isnt afraid to veer off as seen with Blood Magic, which I think could be further expanded in an XPAC.

Magic is very robust and can be expanded with different types/effects/lore. For example newfound lore is a wonderful reasoning, as Morrigan pointed out with 'carefully guarded lore' that was passed down to only a select few. New or moreso 'old' tomes are found and new thought and practices are established.
Warriors and Rogues are not really open for such expansion.
Warriors and Rogues 'could' have different ways of killing but there really isnt anthing that's profoundly 'different' about the said killing other than the weapon used an motion unless we are talking about martial arts, wheras magic has the potential to change many things as an 'effect' of the spell and residual consequences of failing a saving throw.
Clerics can use heavy armour, as seen in NWN2 with the Warpriest. Different types of Clerics are also open to discussion as we saw in NWN2 as well.

Modifié par Jisai, 05 décembre 2009 - 08:59 .

[georage]

Yes, I think Bioware should have made priests (and healing) a talent of the warrior class, not the mage class.



Giving mages the ability to heal and raise makes them one-stop shops of destruction and creation.

[Jisai]

Again, this is where Bioware is trying to expand their horizons and quite possibly establish their own D&D-type structure. Not exactly a bad thing, as it could be interesting.

Modifié par Jisai, 05 décembre 2009 - 09:01 .

[Seifz]

Jisai wrote...

Hybrid classes are fine (IE: Paladin) but changing the established ethos and fundamental design is probably going to be regarded with angst in regard to Magi and Clerics.

You're thinking D&D again.  DA:O is not D&D.  It's not based on D&D, it doesn't use D&D's lore, and it doesn't use D&D's combat system.  It has almost nothing to do with D&D at all.

[*]Magi are Mages for a reason, they use destructive magic learnt through either study or from other lore and draws from their natural manafont to facilitate this aquired knowledge.[/list]

• Clerics are Priests for a reason, they use only Divine Magic given to them through faith in their diety.

The concept of "divine magic" does not exist in Thedas.  There are no divine beings that grant powers.  Indeed, we don't know for certain that there are any divine beings at all.

Blood Magic as newly introduced in DA:Origins (An example of Bioware expanding their horizons!)[/list]D&D is the established basic, and can be built upon, however, as stated Bioware works exclusively in the D&D realm but isnt afraid to veer off as seen with Blood Magic, which I think could be further expanded in an XPAC.

First of all, the idea of Blood Magic isn't new.  It existed in Warcraft lore, and I bet that it exists elsewhere, too.  Even ignoring that, there's a big problem with your claim here.  BioWare does not work exclusively in the realm of D&D.  Indeed, this game has nothing to do with D&D at all!  Really!

[DaeFaron]

The way magic is in Dragon age, you are born with or without it.



Still, the view clerics are healers is false. Load up NWN and look in all the areas clerics can focus in. Everything from elements, to war, to death/necromancy like spells/

[FalloutBoy]

It's like trying to argue with a rock...

[Sloth Of Doom]

........a whole bunch of crap assuming that DA:O was somehow set in the D&D multiverse and anything to do with D&D applies to it.

Some people just don't get it.  Seriousy.

Dragon Age has NOTHING TO DO WITH D&D.
[*]

[Cadarin]

FalloutBoy wrote...

The usage of tanks, and proper group tactics in general, is not limited to MMO gameplay. It only seems like it because there have recently been so many more single-character RPG's than group RPG's. MMO's might have made terms like DPS and CC popular, but I assure you that people were using those tactics long before MMO's existed.

I've been playing tactical RPGs for a long time, but I  don't remember any of them using any kind of threat mechanic like the MMOs use.  In BG2, the enemies would pretty much just randomly swarm your party.  Luckily they tended to stick to whoever they saw first, so you just put your tanks in the front and that took care of it.  That was pretty much all that was required to play a warrior.  Personally, I find that having access to things like taunt and disengage make the combat a lot more interesting, and I  think we have games like WoW  to thank for it.

A lot of people may not have played with that stuff much yet, but my first playthrough was on hard with 2 tanks and no healer.  I  found that trading aggro between the two tanks was a very effective tactic, and a lot of fun.  

Back to the OP, I  definitely wouldn't want Bioware to combine rogues and warriors.  One of my few criticisms of the game is the lack of different classes to play.  Specializations are too minor a change to really count in my mind.  I'd much rather they did split mages from healers, but it really wouldn't make any sense lore wise.  I'd just like more choices.

Modifié par Cadarin, 05 décembre 2009 - 09:54 .

[Jisai]

Seifz wrote...
You're thinking D&D again.  DA:O is not D&D.  It's not based on D&D, it doesn't use D&D's lore, and it doesn't use D&D's combat system.  It has almost nothing to do with D&D at all.

No, it isnt D&D but it used D&D principles, like classes, Talents, Saving Throws, and the like.
I merely meant, as stated, its a basis they used to build from.

The concept of "divine magic" does not exist in Thedas.  There are no divine beings that grant powers.  Indeed, we don't know for certain that there are any divine beings at all.

Again, the basis and ideology of Divine Magic (Faith based magic) is a D&D concept and was again used (healing spells) and expanded upon with Spirit Magic, and Creation Magic, as I aforementioned with the expandability of magic. No, the actual phrase 'Divine Magic' was not used, it was molded to suit the new game and its potential development.

First of all, the idea of Blood Magic isn't new.  It existed in Warcraft lore, and I bet that it exists elsewhere, too.  Even ignoring that, there's a big problem with your claim here.  BioWare does not work exclusively in the realm of D&D.  Indeed, this game has nothing to do with D&D at all!  Really!

Blood Magic is new in regard to this game as the way it is facilitated.
Bioware doesnt work or had not exclusively worked in the realm of D&D?
Funny, that BG, IWD, NWN, and their Ilk were exclusively as such... and they toted such an exclusive license with pride...

Additionally, I am very happy to see them moving on from where they were with D&D Concepts and molding their own lore and world, cheers to Bioware!

[Jassper]

ANY fantasy "Medieval" style game can relate to D&D, so comparing this to D&D is mot

DA has it's own set of rules and it's own lore, quite extensive lore I might add.

Judging DA against D&D is like expecting your apple to taste like an orange just be cause it's round.

and btw, Arcane Warrior allows your mage (acting as a cleric) to where armorer and be "in the thick of it". Also, in DA, the healing does not come from the deities, so it's not Divine, it's magic.

[EDIT]
and Rogues are not warriors, compleatly different persona. Might as well throgh all the talents into a barrel and simply pick and choose as you go. now you are back to the "Jack of all trades, Master of none" class.

Modifié par Jassper, 05 décembre 2009 - 10:06 .

[Faerell Gustani]

It's sad that this thread has been derailed by comparison flaming because the concept of combining rogue and warrior is a fair idea.

In terms of unique abilities, Rogue/Warriors would actually have a comparable amount of abilities to access. A total of 18 ability trees versus the Mage's 17 ability trees.

The detriment to Rogue/Warriors would be that the vast majority of their abilities are still mutually exclusive: the weapon talents. So realistically you decide on a weapon type and a rogue/warrior only really have 9 trees to choose from while a mage still gets the full 17.



Unless the weapon talent trees are somehow expanded to allow multiple trees to be used, the Rogue/Warrior would still be at a disadvantage in terms of raw ability selection.

I had a post on this before including the idea of Hybrid weapons, a single sword style, and hybrid stances.

-effectively, add a 3 tree single sword/single hand talent category

-add Hand-half weapons (bastard swords) and allow them to utilize both Single sword and 2-hander talents (but at lesser attack/damage for both)

-add a 'Florentine' style that allows dual wielders to use shield talents at the cost of off hand attacks

-add an 'offensive shield' style that allows a sword/board to use dual wield talents but at the cost of defense (and having a weak offhand weapon)

[Seifz]

Jisai wrote...

Seifz wrote...
You're thinking D&D again.  DA:O is not D&D.  It's not based on D&D, it doesn't use D&D's lore, and it doesn't use D&D's combat system.  It has almost nothing to do with D&D at all.

No, it isnt D&D but it used D&D principles, like classes, Talents, Saving Throws, and the like.
I merely meant, as stated, its a basis they used to build from.

But it's not.  The setting and combat system are completely original IP and they both draw ideas from a wide variety of sources.  This isn't D&D++ or something. Really.

The concept of "divine magic" does not exist in Thedas.  There are no divine beings that grant powers.  Indeed, we don't know for certain that there are any divine beings at all.

Again, the basis and ideology of Divine Magic (Faith based magic) is a D&D concept and was again used (healing spells) and expanded upon with Spirit Magic, and Creation Magic, as I aforementioned with the expandability of magic. No, the actual phrase 'Divine Magic' was not used, it was molded to suit the new game and its potential development.

You're equating Divine Magic with "healing" magic, and there's no reason for that.  Even in D&D, healing-capable Druids derive their powers from nature and not divine beings.  Clerics, who did use magic granted to them by the divine, were capable of mass destruction via magic.  Ignoring all of that, there's still no reason to equate divine magic with healing.  They're entirely separate ideas.

First of all, the idea of Blood Magic isn't new.  It existed in Warcraft lore, and I bet that it exists elsewhere, too.  Even ignoring that, there's a big problem with your claim here.  BioWare does not work exclusively in the realm of D&D.  Indeed, this game has nothing to do with D&D at all!  Really!

Blood Magic is new in regard to this game as the way it is facilitated.

No, not really.

Bioware doesnt work or had not exclusively worked in the realm of D&D?
Funny, that BG, IWD, NWN, and their Ilk were exclusively as such... and they toted such an exclusive license with pride...

Additionally, I am very happy to see them moving on from where they were with D&D Concepts and molding their own lore and world, cheers to Bioware!

What?  BG and NWN were D&D games, sure, but BioWare never had an exclusive license.  Atari had the license, which is why BioWare published through them.  Further, BioWare also explored other non-original IP such as Star  Wars and Sonic the Hedgehog.  For what it's worth, BioWare didn't even make the IWD games.

Modifié par Seifz, 05 décembre 2009 - 10:14 .

[Faerell Gustani]

Jassper wrote...
[EDIT]
and Rogues are not warriors, compleatly different persona. Might as well throgh all the talents into a barrel and simply pick and choose as you go. now you are back to the "Jack of all trades, Master of none" class.

Maybe in terms of mentality, yes.  However, when it comes down to fighting, rogues and warriors are pretty much the same.
It's funny how people think that there's something super-special about backstabbing someone.  Here's the great secret...when their back is turned or when they're not paying attention, you hit them...HARD.  Aim for the neck, weakpoint in the armor or if all else fails go for the head.  BAM!  Backstab!
Ever read Sun-Tzu?  All warfare is based on deception.  Any warrior should be able to fight dirty.

As for rogues? Knowing how to backstab and fight dirty doesn't mean that you don't know how to fight conventionally as well.

Same thing goes with poisons and stealth.  Medieval warriors would frequently put their swords through fecal matter before entering battle so that infection and disease was likely to occur to the opponents they wounded but didn't kill.  The idea that a warrior can't or doesn't know how to fight dirty is quite preposterous to me.

Modifié par Faerell Gustani, 05 décembre 2009 - 10:25 .

[Kaosgirl]

Brunopolis wrote...

@Slothofdoom

I wonder why. Maybe because...
1. This game has all the classical components of a D&D game(healing, stealth, dragons, magic, etc)
2. This game is supposedly inspired purely from D&D. The game designers even said this.
3. Because D&D-centric games tend to have some semblance of balance. Something this game lacks to a huge extent.

Except that D&D 3e Clerics are at least as broken as the DAO mage; they can buff, heal, tank, do CC, burst-damage, sustained damage... and then with the right build they can do most of what a rogue does as well.  

If that's your model of a balanced system, you need to take a step back and re-evaluate.

[Kaosgirl]

Faerell Gustani wrote...

Jassper wrote...
[EDIT]
and Rogues are not warriors, compleatly different persona. Might as well throgh all the talents into a barrel and simply pick and choose as you go. now you are back to the "Jack of all trades, Master of none" class.

Maybe in terms of mentality, yes.  However, when it comes down to fighting, rogues and warriors are pretty much the same.

I find that problematic itself.  

As I see it:  Warriors are supposed to be martial specialists.  The guys who shine in combat, whether melee or ranged.  Rogues are supposed to be the utility skillmonkeys; the ones who shine outside of combat.  

Backstab, I believe, was a bone thrown to the utility-character for a game-model that's combat heavy.  Giving him situational combat power so he won't be a third wheel when the fighting inevitably starts.  You give a good argument for why that wasn't the best idea later, but don't really explain why the two archetypes should be the same.

Faerell Gustani wrote...
It's funny how people think that there's something super-special about backstabbing someone.  Here's the great secret...when their back is turned or when they're not paying attention, you hit them...HARD.  BAM!  Backstab!
Ever read Sun-Tzu?  All warfare is based on deception.  Any warrior should be able to fight dirty.

As for rogues? Knowing how to backstab and fight dirty doesn't mean that you don't know how to fight conventionally as well.

As I said above, there's a good explanation for why "backstab" and dirty-fighting may not have been the right bone to throw.  But it doesn't really do a good job of explaining why the Skillmonkey and Combat-Specialist should be the same thing.

What you're arguing for is, essentially, a step towards a classless design system.  And that's not a bad thing IMO, but it balances in a different way.  The skill-monkey still isn't the combat specialist, because specializing in one means less proficiency in the other.

[Zibon]

You people are getting too caught up in the specifics and completely missing the point.

For one, D&D is simply a ruleset. The setting (Forgotten Realms is what I imagine people are thinking of) is divorced from it. D&D can adapt to any setting.

Two, the "lore" is irrelevant. "Why" clerics can't exist in DAO is irrelevant. The OP wasn't complaining about that.

Three, DA is HEAVILY influenced by D&D rules. One only needs to look at the parallels of the skills and talents (feats) for evidence of this.  classes were consolidated, prestige classes (or kits) made into specializations, etc.  It's just been streamlined to increase accessability.

Now as for why not merge rogue and warrior. There are certain combinations of talents that I believe would be overpowered if combined with warrior talents. For example, just consider Dirty Fighting and Below the Belt. Obviously these are considered core rogue talents that work to differentiate their playstyle from that of a warrior. You get an instant stun and an instant melee attack that work regardless of what weapon you're using. It creates more interesting gameplay to keep them separate, otherwise every melee character would be using those abilities. Rogues also had some skills shifted into talents to shift their focus away from direct combat.

I think the game would be better with deeper specializations (instead of more classes.) Right now they just make you more powerful, but don't really change your role; this was the big strength of prestige classes. It would create more replayability not only with your own character, but also by further differentiating the abilities of your party members.

Modifié par Zibon, 05 décembre 2009 - 11:50 .

[Kaosgirl]

Zibon wrote...

You people are getting too caught up in the specifics and completely missing the point.

For one, D&D is simply a ruleset. The setting (Forgotten Realms is what I imagine people are thinking of) is divorced from it. D&D can adapt to any setting.

Two, the "lore" is irrelevant. "Why" clerics can't exist in DAO is irrelevant. The OP wasn't complaining about that.

Three, DA is HEAVILY influenced by D&D rules. One only needs to look at the parallels of skills and talents (feats) for evidence of this.  

Funny, I can find them just as easily in GURPS - a system which is to D&D what Chaos is to Law.

[BelgarathMTH]

IMO, the classical D&D quartet of specializations is a set of archetypes that transcends any specific game. To wit, you can specialize in 1)armored fighting, "tanking" 2)bows, sneaking, opening locks, and disarming traps, 3)healing, protecting, secondary fighting 4)magically damaging or disabling what physical power cannot, as well as knowledge of lore.



I agree wholeheartedly with the OP that this game needs a separate class for the healling specialist. The total story and lore of DAO is diminished by assuming that mages must fill two of the classic roles.



The story would only be enriched by having the Chantry and the Templars placing separate governance on Creation magic versus all the offensive forms of magic. Such division is supported by the lore of Star Wars, and Jordan's Wheel of Time (where males practice Fire and Earth Primal/Entropy and Females practice Creation/Spirit/Air and Cold Primal, and male magic is restricted similarly to all DAO magic).



I posted a thread about this a few weeks ago which could probably be resurrected by clicking on my profile.

[nicethugbert]

One class for all magic use is brilliant! It's what I would have done with D&D had I designed D&D. There are enough factors in the game to prevent this from becoming a problem.



One class for both rogue and warrior I am not opposed to it's just that I don't have a specific mechanism in mind to make it work. Well, I guess you can use the elements already provided by DA. Str controls armor and weapon use, etc.

[minamber]

Mage and Cleric were not combined because there was never a cleric class in the DA lore.

Gameplay-wise, I think that rogues and warriors play differently enough that merging them is a bad idea.

I do agree that mages are somewhat overpowered compared to the other two classes, mostly because of their polyvalence. But there is no need to split them into two classes to solve that problem.

All that is needed is to give strong incentives for mage characters to specialize in a spell tree, which would give them a specific role (damage for primal, healing for creation, crowd-control for entropy). So nerf all the spells, but make each spell in a particular tree give bonuses to all other spells of that tree (similar to Diablo 2's synergies).

That would reduce the overall power of the class (which come mainly from the ability to cherry-pick the best spells) while still keeping specialist mages very powerful at what they do. There is no need for a new class, just some refinement on the class mechanics.

[BelgarathMTH]

@minamber,



I still think that there is a missed storytelling opportunity in not having separate origins and stories for "mages" who specialize in healing and protection vs. "mages" who specialize in destruction.

[robertthebard]

Wow. Rogues are front line fighters? Hmm, I should reevaluate my play style then. I was thinking that all those skills that give them bonuses to flanking meant they were shady backstabber types, instead of tankers. Alistair, and Sten to a lessor degree, will be relieved to know that my leather armor wearing rogue is actually the tank for the group. All the magic in this game is relegated to a class that bears a name that screams magic, you know, Mage?



For all the forced playstyle talk, all the races, you know, elves and humans, that can play mages start in the mage tower, and the origin story is exactly the same for either. Of course, you could try to make a human mage and try to take the noble origin, you'll be greatly disappointed. Just another crying about mages being OP'd thread, as far as I can tell. Explain to me exactly how making warrior/rogue into one class is going to establish some kind of balance?

[nicethugbert]

Mages can be nerfed in so many ways already. So why bother with a separate class for ner****e?

[Iramyr]

BelgarathMTH wrote...

@minamber,

I still think that there is a missed storytelling opportunity in not having separate origins and stories for "mages" who specialize in healing and protection vs. "mages" who specialize in destruction.

Im sorry but no. In DA:O a mage is a mage, the only people that sees a mage in good lights is another mage hence why the majority of people think that being born with magic powers is a curse not a gift.

[ChickenDownUnder]

Or you can just get rid of all pre-determined class definitions, allowing the player to decide what traits and skills to add points to, keeping only the specialized classes like Assassin and Spirit Healer. It's already described in the game that all characters have at least some affinity/resistance to magic.

A character would be considered a rogue because the player puts X amount of points into stealth and lockpicking, not because of a predetermined class you pick at level 1. Your character is an assassin because X amount of poison skill and so on. A character is a mage because X amount of spells where chosen. Anything else can just be roleplayed.

Would be more difficult to code, but it'd get rid of the dnd notion of classes entirely.

Modifié par ChickenDownUnder, 06 décembre 2009 - 01:17 .