220 réponses à ce sujet

[Kimarous]

From both a lore and gameplay standpoint, I think forcing mages to specialize as healers or attackers is a horrible, horrible move. If one is more or less wielding the power of the cosmos in the palm of their hand, why can't they roast enemies with one hand and patch themselves up with the other?



As someone who doesn't give a flying squirrel about D&D "rules", I say this...



Would you like some cheese with that whine?

[BelgarathMTH]

@Chicken, "stealth and lockpicking" defines a "rogue" to me. If it looks like a rougueduck and quacks like a rogueduck...."



The rogue character class is so clearly and classically "rogue", it defies argument. Same with "warrior". The only catchall character class is "mage". It encompasses "mage", "cleric" and "fighter/mage" or "fighter/cleric".



And I still say that there are missed storytelling and characterbuilding opportunities that exist by not delineating the paths of magic along two separate storylines.

[minamber]

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.

Well I agree that having more origins and stories is always nice, but the writers have to draw the line somewhere, and the DA lore (unfortunately, since I prefer playing mages and having the same origin/story no matter what kind of mage you play is, I admit, slightly disappointing) only allows for one origin for mages, unless you want one for apostates.

[Kaosgirl]

minamber wrote...

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

<sigh>
They're speaking of the archetypical Cleric "role" in combat, not the specific class.  Though it might have been better if they'd gone with a more generic title for it.

And technically, the lore does make (circle) Mages a hybrid of the classic Cleric.  Their magic comes from channeling the power of a Divine Realm (the Fade, which in the lore was once where the home of the Maker resided,)  much like the third-edition D&D ethos-based clerics did.  Magic is also defined as a "gift from the Maker," when it's not being referred to as a curse.
Furthermore: the Circle is tightly linked to the Chantry, an explicitly religious based organization.  All mages who are not of the Circle are considered apostates, again a term with religious undertones, and the Circle itself is overseen by the Chantry.  Templars are always present, both to protect the mages from others and to eliminate those mages who break with the teachings of the Chantry (maleficars) or get posessed.

[ChickenDownUnder]

BelgarathMTH wrote...

@Chicken, "stealth and lockpicking" defines a "rogue" to me. If it looks like a rougueduck and quacks like a rogueduck...."

The rogue character class is so clearly and classically "rogue", it defies argument. Same with "warrior". The only catchall character class is "mage". It encompasses "mage", "cleric" and "fighter/mage" or "fighter/cleric".

And I still say that there are missed storytelling and characterbuilding opportunities that exist by not delineating the paths of magic along two separate storylines.

And yet it is actually possible in this game to create a "rogue" that can wear heavy armor with no skill in lockpicking, stealth, or even trap making.

All I am saying is that instead of just picking a name of a class at level 1, your character is what skills you've chosen, instead of being immediately locked within a certain skill set that may or may not apply. It'd get rid of any problems of why some inconsistances between the three pre-determined classes is possible. 

[DariusKalera]

Well, whether or not clerics are in the lore, they are in the game. At Ostagar, you can see one near the infirmary after you return from the wilds. The tag above the npc clearly says "cleric".

[robertthebard]

I will notice the " " around rogue. If they don't have basic rogue capabilities, they are not a rogue. Dual wielding is not a rogue specialty, so that does not make them one. The further the discussion goes, the weaker the arguements for it get.

[minamber]

Kaosgirl wrote...

minamber wrote...

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

They're speaking of the archetypical Cleric "role" in combat, not the specific class.  Though it might have been better if they'd gone with a more generic title for it.

And technically, the lore does make (circle) Mages a hybrid of the classic Cleric.  Their magic comes from channeling the power of a Divine Realm (the Fade, which in the lore was once where the home of the Maker resided,)  much like the third-edition D&D ethos-based clerics did.  Magic is also defined as a "gift from the Maker," when it's not being referred to as a curse.
Furthermore: the Circle is tightly linked to the Chantry, an explicitly religious based organization.  All mages who are not of the Circle are considered apostates, again a term with religious undertones, and the Circle itself is overseen by the Chantry.  Templars are always present, both to protect the mages from others and to eliminate those mages who break with the teachings of the Chantry (maleficars) or get posessed.

I know perfectly well what they were talking about, thank you. I've played enough D&D to know what the cleric archetype is. And it doesn't exist in DA, because divine magic doesn't exist.
The mages from the circle may be linked to the Chantry, but considering that there are plenty of mages (Morrigan, the Dalish keepers, the old Tevinter mages, all the blood mages you get to kill, ...) that have nothing to do with religion whatsoever, your argument that mages in DA perform some kind of divine magic is really flawed. The expression "gift from the Maker" doesn't actually mean anything, since the Maker may or may not exist, there is no way (for us) to know.
In case you hadn't noticed the DA setting leaves the existence of any god as an open question. It is kind of hard to have divine magic when there is no god, imho.
As for the cleric role in combat, there is no reason why a healer
should not be a mage, except for the fact that they usually aren't. I
love how so many people claim to want originality, but when a game
gives them some, they automatically criticize it for not being like a
system they were comfortable with.

[Sloth Of Doom]

DariusKalera wrote...

Well, whether or not clerics are in the lore, they are in the game. At Ostagar, you can see one near the infirmary after you return from the wilds. The tag above the npc clearly says "cleric".

Cleric is an English word derived from the latin Clericus.    It has nothng t do with D&D clerics.

Modifié par Sloth Of Doom, 06 décembre 2009 - 01:59 .

[telephasic]

I actually think combining warrior and rogue would have been a good idea. Divide people into "mages" and "mundanes." Hell, let mages take mundane talents as well. It would make for the most realistic system, as no one would be really forced into a particular role - even the mageborn could decide to become effective warriors or rogues if they so desired.



Regardless, no matter what you think from a gameplay perspective, from a lore perspective the game series cannot, and should not, have clerics. The major, ginormous difference between Dragon Age and D&D is there really is no canon when it comes to religion, history, anything really. No one knows if the Maker exists, if Andraste was really holy, if the Qun is the one true faith. For all we know demons and spirits are just extradimensional aliens, and Andraste was a mage "possessed" by one of extreme power. When it comes down to it, everything we learn in the game is just someone's opinion filtered through history. We cannot really trust anything we don't see with our own eyes. Allowing clerics would ruin this fuzziness, because the existence of gods would be directly proven. And I say blargh to that.

[minamber]

Kimarous wrote...

From both a lore and gameplay standpoint, I think forcing mages to specialize as healers or attackers is a horrible, horrible move. If one is more or less wielding the power of the cosmos in the palm of their hand, why can't they roast enemies with one hand and patch themselves up with the other?

As someone who doesn't give a flying squirrel about D&D "rules", I say this...

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

Which is why my preferred solution would be to give incentives to specialize (because it makes sense to me that the more you learn about a school of magic, the better you are at it) rather than artificially preventing anything. A mage could still both heal and cast damage spells, but a jack-of-all-trades just wouldn't be as effective at either than a specialized mage.

[Jassper]

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

No, their not.

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!

That has nothing to do with, nor was it used as a specific in any of my previous post. Nothing wrong with warriors having similar talents - ones that aim for the week spots - But thats not the dispute.

Ever read Sun-Tzu?  All warfare is based on deception.  Any warrior should be able to fight dirty.

Again you are missing the point, Rogues are mostly loners, they don't wear heavy armor, they don't use two-handed weapons, they don't "tank" and seldom use Shields.

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

That's just it, Rogues DON'T fight conventionally.

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.

Never said they shouldn't - Rogues just specialize in it. Dipping in fecal matter was about the exstent of their poison use, Rogues make sure it kills you and not wait for the infection.

I sugest you do some study on Rogues before you try to post anything rational between the 2,
Robin Hood, Zoro, Dick Turpin (a Highwayman), Legolas, Aragorn (Ranger), Jack Sparrow, Smugglers, Bards, Monks are all examples of a Rogue type character.

Kings often used Rogues in combat but never as a front line, but to flank troops and take out the commanders - they were usually "expendable" and never were there services retained afterwords, but if you lived the reward was great.

It was also their specialty to infiltrate and assassinate, I'd like to see your clunky heavy armored rogue sneak, or try to blend with the crowd - This is one of the reason rogues don't ware heavy armor.

Zibon wrote
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

No it's not, did you not read Georg Zoeller's post? (edit: corrected name)
Again ANY fantasy game can fit to the "D&D" parrallel. Anyone not knowing any history about the 2 games could just as easy say that D&D was base heavily on the DA rules.

BelgarathMTH wrote
I agree wholeheartedly with the OP that this game needs a separate class for the healling specialist.

Thats fine, but thats not the discussion. The issue is combining the Warrior and the Rogue into one class - It just doesn't work. However lumping "Cleric" magic and "Mage" magic does. I'm not insisting that they should be that way - just that it's fine the way it is - thus no reason to seperate the 2.

The total story and lore of DAO is diminished by assuming that mages must fill two of the classic roles.

How?

Note, there is someone already working on a Cleric class build that can be added to the game so there will be a mod for it soon.

Modifié par Jassper, 06 décembre 2009 - 02:11 .

[robertthebard]

minamber wrote...

Kimarous wrote...

From both a lore and gameplay standpoint, I think forcing mages to specialize as healers or attackers is a horrible, horrible move. If one is more or less wielding the power of the cosmos in the palm of their hand, why can't they roast enemies with one hand and patch themselves up with the other?

As someone who doesn't give a flying squirrel about D&D "rules", I say this...

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

Which is why my preferred solution would be to give incentives to specialize (because it makes sense to me that the more you learn about a school of magic, the better you are at it) rather than artificially preventing anything. A mage could still both heal and cast damage spells, but a jack-of-all-trades just wouldn't be as effective at either than a specialized mage.

So where is the need to force this through game rules, as this is already true.  You can enforce this yourself by spell selection on the mages provided by the game, or the PC Mage.  Why change the Warrior and Rogue trees into one big cluster xxxx to "balance" it?  Wynne is a terrible dps mage, but an outstanding healer when you first pick her up.  The reverse is true about Morrigan.  You can equip shields on rogues, and plate mail, if you want to invest in the str required to do so.  So all these changes that have been suggested are already within the game rules, you just have to gimp your character to get there, and if you think for one minute that combining warrior and rogue trees won't result in gimped characters, you're deluding yourself.

People will try to get as many skills from all the trees as they can, thus forcing gimped characters.  Look at skill requirements, and ask yourself how you're going to have str and dex both high enough to combine a rogue and a warrior's trees, w/out giving up something else.  What else are you giving up?  Cunning?  This renders rogue talents to almost base values, which may not be good enough.  Constitution?  Then what's the point in calling yourself a warrior, if you you can't take any more hits than a mage?  This would result in an overall less game experience.

[DariusKalera]

Sloth Of Doom wrote...

DariusKalera wrote...

Well, whether or not clerics are in the lore, they are in the game. At Ostagar, you can see one near the infirmary after you return from the wilds. The tag above the npc clearly says "cleric".

Cleric is an English word derived from the latin Clericus.    It has nothng t do with D&D clerics.

Never said it did.  I just stated a simple fact that there are "clerics" in game.

Jassper wrote...

Again
you are missing the point, Rogues are mostly loners, they don't wear
heavy armor, they don't use two-handed weapons, they don't "tank" and
seldom use Shields.

I sugest you do some study on Rogues before you try to post anything rational between the 2,
Robin
Hood, Zoro, Dick Turpin (a Highwayman), Legolas, Aragorn (Ranger), Jack
Sparrow, Smugglers, Bards, Monks are all examples of a Rogue type
character.

Aragorn could only be called a rogue because the ranger specialization is a sub class of the rogue in DA:O.

Other than for that, what you mention as rogues not doing, using two handed weapons, heavy armor,etc., he does do.  Though, his use of two handed weapons or sword and shield totally depend on which version you want to use.  In the movie, his weapons were two handed, in the book, his sword is one handed and he uses a shield.

Modifié par DariusKalera, 06 décembre 2009 - 02:37 .

[ushae]

Creat Mage >> Arcane Warrior >> Spirit Healer >> Complete Creation Tree as appropriate.



That's a cleric in a nutshell. Besides, this game isn't based around the D&D universe, its a novel creation (and a damn good one at that). In DA magic whether its healing, offensive or otherwise is viewed all in the same distrusting light. So it makes sense to me that Mage remains as a single starting class, as opposed to a cleric.



Also your point about mixing Warriors with Rogue's is quite a valid one in my opinion, but at the same time Rogue's do have a very different style of fighting i.e. flanking, stealth etc.



Mage, Warrior and Rogue fits every play style, since those three are the roots of D&D gaming.

[Kaosgirl]

minamber wrote...

Kaosgirl wrote...

minamber wrote...

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

They're speaking of the archetypical Cleric "role" in combat, not the specific class.  Though it might have been better if they'd gone with a more generic title for it.

And technically, the lore does make (circle) Mages a hybrid of the classic Cleric.  Their magic comes from channeling the power of a Divine Realm (the Fade, which in the lore was once where the home of the Maker resided,)  much like the third-edition D&D ethos-based clerics did.  Magic is also defined as a "gift from the Maker," when it's not being referred to as a curse.
Furthermore: the Circle is tightly linked to the Chantry, an explicitly religious based organization.  All mages who are not of the Circle are considered apostates, again a term with religious undertones, and the Circle itself is overseen by the Chantry.  Templars are always present, both to protect the mages from others and to eliminate those mages who break with the teachings of the Chantry (maleficars) or get posessed.

I know perfectly well what they were talking about, thank you. I've played enough D&D to know what the cleric archetype is. And it doesn't exist in DA, because divine magic doesn't exist.

That just tells me you've got the wrong idea about what they're talking about.

It's not about the source of magic.  It's about the combat role one plays.  "Cleric" is just a reference to the original class associated with one of the four traditional combat roles.

The rest was me babbling.  

minamber wrote...
The mages from the circle may be linked to the Chantry, but considering that there are plenty of mages (Morrigan, the Dalish keepers, the old Tevinter mages, all the blood mages you get to kill, ...) that have nothing to do with religion whatsoever,

The Keepers are adherents to Elven religion, pretty much just Cardinals of an alternate faith.  Tevinter Mages were the bloody clerics of the old Imperium, and the lore indicates they've pretty much taken over the Tevinter chapter of the Chantry - so they're still religiously tied as well.
This leaves Morrigan and the Blood Mages, but Morrigan has her own belief structure as well.  A cleric of a philosophy, much like D&D 3e allowed for.  Blood mages vary, but one could boil them down the same way.

And they all channel power from the Fade.  This is more like the Cleric than the traditional Mage.

minamber wrote...
your argument that mages in DA perform some kind of divine magic is really flawed. The expression "gift from the Maker" doesn't actually mean anything,

It speaks to the social realities of being a mage.  Which admittedly have little to do with the physical realities, but in the eyes of the populace all mages have a connection to the Divine.  Whether positive (a gift) or negative (a curse.)  

minamber wrote...
In case you hadn't noticed the DA setting leaves the existence of any god as an open question. It is kind of hard to have divine magic when there is no god, imho.
As for the cleric role in combat, there is no reason why a healer
should not be a mage, except for the fact that they usually aren't.

The reason why I tried to distinguish between class-structure was to avoid that bit of misinterpretation.  Looks like I failed.

Should one character be able to fulfill every combat role?  If he does so, he makes the rest of the party irrelevant.  So whether or not the Mage acts like a "classic mage" or a "classic Cleric" in terms of his combat use isn't an issue;  the issue is whether one single Mage  can do *both,* making other characters either redundant or irrelevant.

minamber wrote...
I love how so many people claim to want originality, but when a game
gives them some, they automatically criticize it for not being like a
system they were comfortable with.

I love how some people conflate the arguments of two seperate groups of critics into one and then accuse this non-existent unified group of 'hypocrisy' or inconsistency...

[Seifz]

BelgarathMTH wrote...

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 gave up caring about this topic a while ago when I realized that it's impossible to get D&D our of everyone's heads, but I do want to respond to this.  It's completely wrong.

1.  As far as the Chantry (and by extension, its Templars) is concerned, all magic exists to serve mankind.  There's no logical reason for them to separete Creation Magic from, say, Primal Magic.  All magic exists to serve mankind, and all of it needs to be controlled strictly to prevent a repeat of the Tevinter Imperium..  The only magic that they separate further is Blood Magic, which they believe has no purpose serving mankind because it allows one to control the mind of another.  The lore would make no sense at all if Creation Magic was separated further.

2.  Star Wars doesn't have magic. Star Wars has the Force, and some Force powers seem like magic.  Certainly the Emperor's lightning is similar to magic.  However, there is no clear distinction here between "healing" powers and "destructive" powers in the traditional sense.  There's only "good" and "evil."  Do you think that all "clerics" should be good and all "mages" should be evil?  That would suck in DA:O and it wouldn't at all fit the lore.

3.  Your analysis of magic in The Wheel of Time is what prompted me to respond to this topic.  In short, there are five types of power (earth, air, water, fire, spirit) and all channelers can use all of them.  Indeed, they must use all of them if they are to weave the most complex "spells."  While it's true that females tend to be strong in water and air while males are stronger in earth and fire, that doesn't always hold.  For example, Elaine is exceptionally good with earth.  Further, RJ places great emphasis on combining all five powers into one complex weave to achieve the greatest healing effects (Nynaeve's new healing).  In addition, the most destructive weave, Balefire, is fire and spirit.

Again, both sexes can use all five types of the power and both sexes need all five types to form more complex weaves.  Females (Aes Sedai) use destructive weaves and males (Ashaman) use healing frequently in RJ's novels.  There is absolutely no separation of creation and destruction, and nor should there be!  In fact, I can't really think of a setting where the two are separated.

In short, there is no logical reason to separate creation magic and destruction magic in Thedas and even D&D does not do this.

[minamber]

robertthebard wrote...

minamber wrote...

Which is why my preferred solution would be to give incentives to specialize (because it makes sense to me that the more you learn about a school of magic, the better you are at it) rather than artificially preventing anything. A mage could still both heal and cast damage spells, but a jack-of-all-trades just wouldn't be as effective at either than a specialized mage.

So where is the need to force this through game rules, as this is already true.  You can enforce this yourself by spell selection on the mages provided by the game, or the PC Mage.  Why change the Warrior and Rogue trees into one big cluster xxxx to "balance" it?  Wynne is a terrible dps mage, but an outstanding healer when you first pick her up.  The reverse is true about Morrigan.  You can equip shields on rogues, and plate mail, if you want to invest in the str required to do so.  So all these changes that have been suggested are already within the game rules, you just have to gimp your character to get there, and if you think for one minute that combining warrior and rogue trees won't result in gimped characters, you're deluding yourself.

People will try to get as many skills from all the trees as they can, thus forcing gimped characters.  Look at skill requirements, and ask yourself how you're going to have str and dex both high enough to combine a rogue and a warrior's trees, w/out giving up something else.  What else are you giving up?  Cunning?  This renders rogue talents to almost base values, which may not be good enough.  Constitution?  Then what's the point in calling yourself a warrior, if you you can't take any more hits than a mage?  This would result in an overall less game experience.

I never actually advocated merging rogue and warrior, I also think it's a terrible idea, since their playstyle is quite different. Unless you actually think a classless system is a good idea (and it can be, but not for DA I think), there would be very little point in merging the two, except for gimmicks like allowing warriors to pick locks.

I was responding to people who wanted to split the mage class into mage and cleric, and saying that if they wanted more specialized roles for mage, it could be implemented within the class instead. The problem with mages right now, imho, is that they can be a healer, a dpser and a crowd controller at once, and they suffer nearly no loss of effectiveness for it. Still, that's a discussion for another topic, not this one.

[Jassper]

DariusKalera wrote...

Aragorn could only be called a rogue because the ranger specialization is a sub class of the rogue in DA:O.

Other than for that, what you mention as rogues not doing, using two handed weapons, heavy armor,etc., he does do.  Though, his use of two handed weapons or sword and shield totally depend on which version you want to use.  In the movie, his weapons were two handed, in the book, his sword is one handed and he uses a shield.

Yah, Aragorn was probably a bad example.

[robertthebard]

Actually, his sword is a typical one handed Long Sword, in the book and the movie, and I have had an actual replica of the move version in my hands. Pommel length on any longsword allows the wielder to use it with two hands, which is a lot of what you see in the movie, for extra power in the swings. By the description above, all katanas are two handed swords, simply because somebody uses them with two hands.



@minamber I should have broken my thoughts up a bit differently there. However, the rest of that does apply to the topic. As far as mages go, the most powerful mage that I've had in my party was my PC mage, and while I tried to focus on one school, I didn't do it well enough to get the achievement, that time...Maybe next time. Which ties into another topic, I suppose. However, I have found that mages are a long way from my definition of OP, barring two specific specs mixed together, and I haven't played them at the same time. I don't think I unlocked one of them yet. I will say that the character that unlocked getting through the achievements for both the initial quest lines w/out falling and killing xxx enemies w/out damage was my mage. My single biggest damage hit, I have the 250 dmg unlocked in a single hit, was by my Ranger. The same Ranger that one shotted a Yellow Alpha Hurlock in the final battle. Arrow of Slaying can be brutal, when it works. Does this mean, then, that Rangers are OP'd?

[BelgarathMTH]

@Seifz,



My contention is that a qualitative division of accessing Magic/the Weave/the Source/the Force is a universal archetype in fantasy that is not well-served by DAO's lumping together of all "magic" and losing said qualitative division.



On Jordan's take, what you say about males and females weaving the same elemental essences may be true, but then why draw a distintion at all between Saidar and Saidin? I would argue that Saidar and Saidin are supposed to be two qualitatively different and mutually exclusive means of accessing the Source.



The same archetypal division in fantasy is seen in Darkside/Goodside use of the Force, and in D&D arcane/divine use of Magic. Though there are differences in particulars from fantasy system to fantasy system, this basic Taoist Yin/Yang division in the Source is a universal archetype in all well-written fantasy systems.



Thus I had put forth my original thesis that DAO's system of thought on Magic/the Source/the Weave/the Force is made less/diminished/impoverished by not carrying through with the archetypal Dialectic of the Hegelian Universe.

[minamber]

@robertthebeard To me, OP has little meaning in a single-player game, so no. What I find a bit sad about mages is that the schools of magic mean virtually nothing except for RP purposes, and that some spells are bugged (Cone of Cold, Force Field), making them too powerful.

That being said, I still very much enjoyed playing my mage. I was just suggesting a possible solution for those who do find them OP.

[nicethugbert]

BelgarathMTH wrote...

@Chicken, "stealth and lockpicking" defines a "rogue" to me. If it looks like a rougueduck and quacks like a rogueduck...."

The rogue character class is so clearly and classically "rogue", it defies argument. Same with "warrior". The only catchall character class is "mage". It encompasses "mage", "cleric" and "fighter/mage" or "fighter/cleric".

And I still say that there are missed storytelling and characterbuilding opportunities that exist by not delineating the paths of magic along two separate storylines.

But, you don't need a classes for that.  You can use the skills, talents, and spells, etc. , to qualify for membership in an organization or just about any other affiliation.

[Brunopolis]

@George Zoeller



You caught me. They said the inspiration for Dragon Age was Baldur's Gate. That game is based on the D&D universe and in essence you could say D&D helped refine many of the concepts in Dragon Age Origins. What I said was probably a little too strong.



I have the link I saw it from here - http://old.dragonage...ngle/1216122600



Regardless, my original point was not to split the mages into two seperate classes(one for healing/buffing and one for combat/CC). My idea was to combine rogues and warriors into a single physical combat class.

It's only to balance the options warriors and rogues have with mages. Also, mages share ZERO abilities with warriors/rogues yet warriors and rogues share like half their abilities between each other. This means Mages have tons more abilities than Warriors/Rogues do. Let's not forget about half the warrior/rogue abilities are passives on top of that.



If that's not an option then why not actually USE the school of magic system that seems to present in Dragon Age Origins? I mean I can put 3 points into primal magic to pick of Cone of Cold, then throw go down 4 points into the creation magic school to pick up Mass Rejuvenation and all the heals involved, and finally go down the other school to get Crushing Prison.



This lets a mage do absolutely everything all at once. I was just suggesting combining warriors/rogues as the alternative to reducing the large viability mages have.



The lore can say mages are supposed to be more powerful than the average fighter. This is true. However, we're not talking about regular fighter we're talking about the Grey Warden, hero of Ferelden!(assuming the PC picks Warrior/rogue as his main class) He shouldn't be so limited compared to his mage companions.

[DariusKalera]

robertthebard wrote...

Actually, his sword is a typical one handed Long Sword, in the book and the movie, and I have had an actual replica of the move version in my hands. Pommel length on any longsword allows the wielder to use it with two hands, which is a lot of what you see in the movie, for extra power in the swings. By the description above, all katanas are two handed swords, simply because somebody uses them with two hands.

Longswords are generally used with two hands, not one.  These are pics from the fighting manual produced by Hans Talhoffer in 1459.  Those are long swords in the pics.

http://www.thearma.o...459Editions.htm

In the books, Aragorn is described as using a shield with his sword in some battles.  With the size of the sword used in the movies, that would be nearly impossible to do since it would take two hands to control it properly.

Honestly though I think it would have been alot cooler if Bioware had used some historic fighting styles when it came to the two handed swords.