787 réponses à ce sujet

[Thor Rand Al]

LMAO@the male package slider haha, I know the boob slider was just a laugh but a girl can dream can't they

[Thor Rand Al]

cmessaz wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

I also think we need a male companion with a huge package, wearing only a thong through the entire game.

I totally support this. <3

LOL ditto
Not only do we get to adjust the boob size but the male package size, hell ya, I'm game

[Sylvius the Mad]

Maria Caliban wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

This will be just fine from my point of view as long as its not too limited. I want to be free to make bad choices as I am to make good ones and enjoy the repercussions of both. Let me put warrior armor on a mage if I want to. If you don't do that, then you're missing the point... for my part.

The article indicated that there would still be class restrictions.

What do you mean "still"?  There weren't class restrictions before.  There were attribute restrcitions.  Anyone could wear any piece of armour in DAO or DA2 as long as they had the appropriate attributes.

If they're changing that, I want to know about it.  That would be a big deal.

[Thor Rand Al]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

This will be just fine from my point of view as long as its not too limited. I want to be free to make bad choices as I am to make good ones and enjoy the repercussions of both. Let me put warrior armor on a mage if I want to. If you don't do that, then you're missing the point... for my part.

The article indicated that there would still be class restrictions.

What do you mean "still"?  There weren't class restrictions before.  There were attribute restrcitions.  Anyone could wear any piece of armour in DAO or DA2 as long as they had the appropriate attributes.

If they're changing that, I want to know about it.  That would be a big deal.

A mage can't wear rogue/warrior armor in DA2, just like a warrior/rogue can't wear mage items.  I don't remember how it was in Origins considering I never played a mage but there where restrictions to what you could/couldn't wear as far as what you where playing, mage/warrior/rogue in DA2.

Modifié par Thor Rand Al, 14 avril 2012 - 09:42 .

[Maria Caliban]

You're correct. I misremembered. DA II had class restrictions on shields and weapons, but not armor.

Thor Rand Al wrote...

A mage can't wear rogue/warrior armor in DA2, just like a warrior/rogue can't wear mage items.  I don't remember how it was in Origins considering I never played a mage but there where restrictions to what you could/couldn't wear as far as what you where playing, mage/warrior/rogue in DA2.

If you buffed your dexterity, a mage or fighter could wear 'rogue' armor.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 14 avril 2012 - 09:44 .

[Deviija]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

What do you mean "still"?  There weren't class restrictions before.  There were attribute restrcitions. 

If they're changing that, I want to know about it.  That would be a big deal.

There were attribute restrictions (aka stat-based restrictions) *and* class-restrictions in DA2 for the PC.  Followers just stayed with their costumes.  Those aspects went far to the extreme for me in restrictions.  

[Thor Rand Al]

Maria Caliban wrote...

You're correct. I misremembered. DA II had class restrictions on shields and weapons, but not armor.

Thor Rand Al wrote...

A mage can't wear rogue/warrior armor in DA2, just like a warrior/rogue can't wear mage items.  I don't remember how it was in Origins considering I never played a mage but there where restrictions to what you could/couldn't wear as far as what you where playing, mage/warrior/rogue in DA2.

If you buffed your dexterity, a mage or fighter could wear 'rogue' armor.

HMM, your prob right lol, I can't remember cause I used a mod that took restrictions away .  How else was I going to give m!mage Hawke more pants options LOL

Modifié par Thor Rand Al, 14 avril 2012 - 09:55 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Okay, let me put this out here:

• Suppose armor was purely stat dependant, not class. You need X strength to wear this mail, or what have you.
• We make sure that works with the player, but if you go "out of class" on a follower, it looks "okay" but not as one-to-one as if you stuck with the intended class.
  
• So: You take a bunch of strength with your mage, and you move plate onto your mage. His armor looks pretty "heavy" but doesn't look necessarily like plate. It still has all the stats that platemail has, though.
  
• If you moved that armor onto a warrior, it would look closer to how it looks on your player. (Since you'd be back in the expected space for that character's class)

Better? Worse? I ask because something like this might very well be possible.

The system David describes is terrific is the armour is stat-limited rather than class-limited, even if mages in plate armour don't look particularly plate-y.  As long as the armour looks heavier, that would good.

My primary concern is having the armour's appearance suit that character's combat role, and I don't accept that the combat role is established by the class.  I could tank with Leliana in DAO, and I could put her in Massive Armour to do it.  Similarly, I could make Sten into an archer and put him in Medium Armour to do it.

I could also put any of them in ordinary clothing to blend in while walking around Denerim, but that's a different issue.

I don't care how plate-y plate armour looks, as long as heavy armour looks heavy and light armour looks light.  And ideally there will be some consistency in colour across characters (so if I put a blue robe on any character it will look blue).

I would very much like stat-limited armour rather than class-limited armour, and I don't mind if that means that plate armour doesn't always look like plate armour.

[Johnny Jaded]

motomotogirl wrote...

If you get a boob slider then I want a package slider for the dudes.

I'm sure I'm not the only guy who wants a package slider in real life.

[Deviija]

Thor Rand Al wrote...
It just makes me feel like I'm def palying a different sex, I can see it. I may be the only one but I love the distinction between the genders.  Armour, walk/run movements, body shapes, their postures, etc.  It's giving me more freedom to play the game I want by offering these choices.  Instead of seeing a mechanical person who you can't distinguish if there male or female unless they don't have a helmet on.  Again it's offering more freedom.

The thing is: these aren't choices.  Not for the PC and definitely not for followers.  They are defined by the artists and animators and modeling team.  There is no animation choices, no body shapes choices, no posture/stances choices, and do forth in-game, so there is no 'more freedom' by offering these 'choices.'  Because there aren't any.  If you mean that these things give you the freedom to (role)play out the game you want and like, then that's great.  But it limits the game and roleplay and enjoyability for me. 

 
Now if we want to talk about clothing/armor, then sure.  I am very much pro-choice when it comes to appearances.  If someone wants their PC to look sexy, there should be a couple armors/robes/clothing options that give that choice.  (And I'm speaking not just for women PCs, but *men* as well.)  Just as there should be options for head-to-toe armor and plate and reasonable coverage without sexualizing my lady warrior PC.  Options.  Now that is choice.  

When it comes to followers, however, with these custom 'iconic looks' and unique costumes, there is no freedom in choice.  They are designed a specific way, regardless of the audience and regardless of the player's desire to have freedom in being able to put them in other attire (i.e. the whole mages wearing armor discussion and class-restrictions vs. stat-restrictions and so on we've been talking about).  More choices are a good thing.  

motomotogirl wrote...

If you get a boob slider then I want a package slider for the dudes.

Also, yes.  Like Saints Row 3.  A+.  ;P

[twincast]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Borghal wrote...

Ugh... so now we have magical morphing armor pieces, or has Dragon Age gone Sci-fi and this is actually some kind of nano-armor?

The
resulting visual style is of course cool and stylish and all that
sells, but how is it justified from a game world logic standpoint?

Also,
maybe it's just me, but when I put full plate armor of a certain style,
I expect that character to be clad in such armor. But as these concepts
show, put it on one person, you get an open helmet, but put it on
someone else, you get a closed helmet. No consistency sucks :- /

It's
a little weird, sure. However, I consider it to be no weirder than
moving the same armor from Oghren to Sten, who would logically be
-awfully- squished, so it falls into "acceptably gamey" on my personal
radar.

Magically fitting armor pieces to the size and now personality of followers is one thing, the armor set being unrecognizable of being the same is a whole other level. In the two cases shown the only elements identical between the Warden and Seeker versions are the tail on the helmets of the plate armor and the hood of the (semi-)leather armor. Magically molding the armor to fit the bodies and keeping some distinctive elements showing through is totally fine, but none of the detailing between the respective concept arts is identical. Hell, despite especiall the Warden having notably different armor pieces from his base outfit* nothing but the two elements I mentioned (tail/hood) even has remotely the same base form, in fact making the specific armor names beyond plate and leather meaningless. It's really the only problem I have with this compromise, so I really hope it's a matter of the concepts art having being created independently of each other from a common idea instead of one being based on the other, and if not I seriously hope that particular approach changes for the final game(s).

*On a side note, not being able to have them run around town in underwear for a couple of moments of silly indulgence is a minor immersion breaker for me, so I'd appreciate if the base outfit isn't hardwired into being the no armor equipped base body.

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

beermat77 wrote...

Makes sense for store brought armours.

Found armour should be character/size specific.

Eg Elven armour found while exploring wouldn't fit a character the size of sten

Logically, yes.  But this seems like a lot more tedious to implement than I imagine you are assuming.

Games
are ultimately games, and short of turning Dragon Age (or even Bethesda
games which don't make this distinction either) into a full-bore
simulation such diversity in armor fitting is unrealistic.

Funnily, we did
consider this. But I don't think we'll pursue it, as I think there's a
thrill to putting on the new armor you found in the dragon's horde (or
gullet, in our case), right then and there, rather than humping it to
back to a smith to be refitted for your gender.

I honestly find it encouraging you were even considering it. I never expected that and as much as I love that level of realism in P&P and really hardcore CRPG's with a huge selection of physically diverse companions, I don't think especially modern BioWare games with their relatively limited, but densely written group of followers is the right venue for that.

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Sabariel wrote...

A
small, hopeful request... could mages in DA3 maybe be able to wear some
type of light armor or chainmail-y robes and not just cloth robes/ugly
pantsuits? Please? [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/wizard.png[/smilie]

I would also like to see this. I would say the odds are pretty good of it happening, but we wouldn't lose robes entirely.

Yes, please.

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Okay, let me put this out here:

• Suppose armor was purely stat dependant, not class. You need X strength to wear this mail, or what have you.
• We
  make sure that works with the player, but if you go "out of class" on a
  follower, it looks "okay" but not as one-to-one as if you stuck with
  the intended class.
• So: You take a bunch of strength with
  your mage, and you move plate onto your mage. His armor looks pretty
  "heavy" but doesn't look necessarily like plate. It still has all the
  stats that platemail has, though.
• If you moved that armor
  onto a warrior, it would look closer to how it looks on your player.
  (Since you'd be back in the expected space for that character's class)

Better? Worse? I ask because something like this might very well be possible.

That description kind of has steam coming out of my head, but as I understand it, yes.

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Brockololly wrote...
[*]That sounds better, although I'm not clear on what you mean by having the mage with plate armor equipped have a "heavy" look thats not necessarily plate?  Like a "heavy" variant of that companion's default look thats just not customized to the specific armor, but just generically "heavy"?

 

It would be something along the lines ot taking that follower's "heaviest" customization options and create a visual mapping that ties them to anything heavier than cloth. It would be a best-fit kind of thing, and not offer the same level of variety a mage follower would have with robes on. So, yes, something like generically heavy, and probably not looking like full-on platemail.

Another option would be to simply say "If follower armor =/= expected armor for follower class, follower appearance = base"

*ponders* I'll consider it.

Ah, yes. The former wouldn't be ideal, but given how heavy on resources the system sounds I'd really appreciate even that level of customization. The latter however ... if it's got no visual impact whatsoever you may as well better not allow it at all as far as I am concerned.

Modifié par twincast, 14 avril 2012 - 10:15 .

[twincast]

Deviija wrote...

Thor Rand Al wrote...
It just makes me feel like I'm def palying a different sex, I can see it. I may be the only one but I love the distinction between the genders.  Armour, walk/run movements, body shapes, their postures, etc.  It's giving me more freedom to play the game I want by offering these choices.  Instead of seeing a mechanical person who you can't distinguish if there male or female unless they don't have a helmet on.  Again it's offering more freedom.

The thing is: these aren't choices.  Not for the PC and definitely not for followers.  They are defined by the artists and animators and modeling team.  There is no animation choices, no body shapes choices, no posture/stances choices, and do forth in-game, so there is no 'more freedom' by offering these 'choices.'  Because there aren't any.  If you mean that these things give you the freedom to (role)play out the game you want and like, then that's great.  But it limits the game and roleplay and enjoyability for me. 

 
Now if we want to talk about clothing/armor, then sure.  I am very much pro-choice when it comes to appearances.  If someone wants their PC to look sexy, there should be a couple armors/robes/clothing options that give that choice.  (And I'm speaking not just for women PCs, but *men* as well.)  Just as there should be options for head-to-toe armor and plate and reasonable coverage without sexualizing my lady warrior PC.  Options.  Now that is choice.  

When it comes to followers, however, with these custom 'iconic looks' and unique costumes, there is no freedom in choice.  They are designed a specific way, regardless of the audience and regardless of the player's desire to have freedom in being able to put them in other attire (i.e. the whole mages wearing armor discussion and class-restrictions vs. stat-restrictions and so on we've been talking about).  More choices are a good thing.  

motomotogirl wrote...

If you get a boob slider then I want a package slider for the dudes.

Also, yes.  Like Saints Row 3.  A+.  ;P

This. All this.

[Thor Rand Al]

Deviija wrote...

Thor Rand Al wrote...
It just makes me feel like I'm def palying a different sex, I can see it. I may be the only one but I love the distinction between the genders.  Armour, walk/run movements, body shapes, their postures, etc.  It's giving me more freedom to play the game I want by offering these choices.  Instead of seeing a mechanical person who you can't distinguish if there male or female unless they don't have a helmet on.  Again it's offering more freedom.

The thing is: these aren't choices.  Not for the PC and definitely not for followers.  They are defined by the artists and animators and modeling team.  There is no animation choices, no body shapes choices, no posture/stances choices, and do forth in-game, so there is no 'more freedom' by offering these 'choices.'  Because there aren't any.  If you mean that these things give you the freedom to (role)play out the game you want and like, then that's great.  But it limits the game and roleplay and enjoyability for me. 

 
Now if we want to talk about clothing/armor, then sure.  I am very much pro-choice when it comes to appearances.  If someone wants their PC to look sexy, there should be a couple armors/robes/clothing options that give that choice.  (And I'm speaking not just for women PCs, but *men* as well.)  Just as there should be options for head-to-toe armor and plate and reasonable coverage without sexualizing my lady warrior PC.  Options.  Now that is choice.  

When it comes to followers, however, with these custom 'iconic looks' and unique costumes, there is no freedom in choice.  They are designed a specific way, regardless of the audience and regardless of the player's desire to have freedom in being able to put them in other attire (i.e. the whole mages wearing armor discussion and class-restrictions vs. stat-restrictions and so on we've been talking about).  More choices are a good thing.  

Fair enough,  I see your point n I do see a diff on how you rp and I rp.  For me I'm just leary of going back to the way the females where portrayed in DAO, Some of the armors I wore had me goin O_o lol but again that's just me probably.  I just saw more of a change from DAO females to DA2 females, even right down to the armors.  They were improved very much in DA2 and how they were more distinguished in 2.

Deviija wrote...

motomotogirl wrote...

If you get a boob slider then I want a package slider for the dudes.

Also, yes.  Like Saints Row 3.  A+.  ;P

Ok now you got me wanting to try Saints Row 3,

Modifié par Thor Rand Al, 14 avril 2012 - 10:34 .

[PinkShoes]

Mike Laidlaw wrote...

Okay, let me put this out here:

• Suppose armor was purely stat dependant, not class. You need X strength to wear this mail, or what have you.
• We make sure that works with the player, but if you go "out of class" on a follower, it looks "okay" but not as one-to-one as if you stuck with the intended class.
• So: You take a bunch of strength with your mage, and you move plate onto your mage. His armor looks pretty "heavy" but doesn't look necessarily like plate. It still has all the stats that platemail has, though.
  If you moved that armor onto a warrior, it would look closer to how it looks on your player. (Since you'd be back in the expected space for that character's class)

Better? Worse? I ask because something like this might very well be possible.

Personaly i really like this. Like i never changed Morrigan because she never looked right in anything else so i do want the party members to have their own person looks so i'm glad it will be a mix between DAO and DA2. Also glad the mage will be able to wear more stuff, especially my male mage. I really hated all teh robes for him they always looked silly and all the robes for women looked the same. Even the trousers for mages looked so plain and boring. It sucks when you find a really cool sounding robe and its like a chantry robe. im like "oh..." its really vaine but i wont put my characters in anything that doesnt look badass lol is that bad? 

[Nurot]

I apologize if this has been asked before. I didn't have time to read the whole thread.

I want to know if it is possible to "lock" your favorite armor look? Sometimes you find a piece of armor that you really love the look of, but it is crappy stat wise, so you can never use it or at least not use it as long as you like. I would like to be able to keep my favorite looks, but still be able to upgrade/change my armor stat wise. In Dragon age Jouneys, they did this with soemthing I think they called "vanity slots" that could override the look of an armor piece or a weapon, but did not change the stats of that piece/weapon. It was a brilliant solution I would love to see this for DA3. It is totally optional too, so no one would be forced to use it.

Count me in as one that does not want my mage characters to wear a robe ever again. I was one (of the few) that really loved the new running animation for female characters. Finally, my PC doesn't run lika a man! (My eyes hurts when I replay DAO with a female warden, after playing with female Hawkes). But when I put on a robe I can't see half of that animation any more. I like the animations of the male characters too, so no robes for them either, please.

[twincast]

There's got to be an actually believable middle ground between manwalk and dislocated hip syndrome... one can only hope BioWare finally discovers it.

[Pasquale1234]

Thor Rand Al wrote...
For me I'm just leary of going back to the way the females where portrayed in DAO,

And I would love to go back to that.  I always felt like FemHawke was desperately trolling for sexual attention with that exaggerated sashay.  I found it incredibly distracting, and not in a good way.

twincast wrote...
There's got to be an actually believable middle ground between manwalk and dislocated hip syndrome... one can only hope BioWare finally discovers it.

If it were up to me, I'd be fine with what you might call the manwalk - because it more closely resembles the way a trained athletic woman would be likely to walk, especially in armor.

Modifié par Pasquale1234, 14 avril 2012 - 11:28 .

[Thori]

I don't understand what's wrong with Battlemages? Mages wearing heavy armor that LOOKS and IS heavy. I mean. Rogues can't wear heavy armor cause they need speed and agility. Warriors wear heavy armor cause they rely on brute strenght. Mages need none of those to cast spells. They aren't physically bound to robes. If any, than MAGE class of all should be able to wear whatever they wanted. Not just robes in which they look like nannies. If a player wants his mage to look like a flaming juggernaut, why not? I understand how that would diminish importance of classes, but you don't have to change the look. Change the stats in accordance with class.

Sterling breastplate for warrior = X armor X strenght X stamina X Constitution
Sterling breastplate for rogue = X armor X agility X dexterity X cunning
Sterling breastplate for mage = X armor X magic X willpower X Constitution

[slashthedragon]

Thori wrote...

I don't understand what's wrong with Battlemages? Mages wearing heavy armor that LOOKS and IS heavy. I mean. Rogues can't wear heavy armor cause they need speed and agility. Warriors wear heavy armor cause they rely on brute strenght. Mages need none of those to cast spells. They aren't physically bound to robes. If any, than MAGE class of all should be able to wear whatever they wanted. Not just robes in which they look like nannies. If a player wants his mage to look like a flaming juggernaut, why not? I understand how that would diminish importance of classes, but you don't have to change the look. Change the stats in accordance with class.

Sterling breastplate for warrior = X armor X strenght X stamina X Constitution
Sterling breastplate for rogue = X armor X agility X dexterity X cunning
Sterling breastplate for mage = X armor X magic X willpower X Constitution

I'd love to see an arcane archer, with some nice leather armors.

[Thori]

slashthedragon wrote...

Thori wrote...

I don't understand what's wrong with Battlemages? Mages wearing heavy armor that LOOKS and IS heavy. I mean. Rogues can't wear heavy armor cause they need speed and agility. Warriors wear heavy armor cause they rely on brute strenght. Mages need none of those to cast spells. They aren't physically bound to robes. If any, than MAGE class of all should be able to wear whatever they wanted. Not just robes in which they look like nannies. If a player wants his mage to look like a flaming juggernaut, why not? I understand how that would diminish importance of classes, but you don't have to change the look. Change the stats in accordance with class.

Sterling breastplate for warrior = X armor X strenght X stamina X Constitution
Sterling breastplate for rogue = X armor X agility X dexterity X cunning
Sterling breastplate for mage = X armor X magic X willpower X Constitution

I'd love to see an arcane archer, with some nice leather armors.

Heh, well, now. I'm up for everyone can wear every armor. But I still think weapons should be restricted to the classes that can use them.
Unless my mage has Origin in which his father tought him to use bow and arrow, I see no reason why my mage would wanna choose bow over fireballs. But I see reason why he would choose not to wear some nanny clothes. Hes not Merlin after all.

[Xewaka]

Thori wrote...
I don't understand what's wrong with Battlemages? Mages wearing heavy armor that LOOKS and IS heavy. I mean. Rogues can't wear heavy armor cause they need speed and agility. Warriors wear heavy armor cause they rely on brute strenght. Mages need none of those to cast spells. They aren't physically bound to robes. If any, than MAGE class of all should be able to wear whatever they wanted. Not just robes in which they look like nannies. If a player wants his mage to look like a flaming juggernaut, why not? I understand how that would diminish importance of classes, but you don't have to change the look. Change the stats in accordance with class.

A steady diet of studying spells and mind training doesn't leave much time to build muscle mass. It'd be more likely for rogues to use the heavier stuff (speed and agility coming from muscle mass and coordination, thus requiring more fitness) than mages (who do little to no physical training).
Granted, you want your mage to carry heavy stuff? Have him build the muscle. His magic will resent, yes. But that's your choice to make. Getting everything for free because "MAGIC!" doesn't cut it.

[Angangseh]

In DA:O I never changed Morrigan out of her iconic robes (the robes you attain from flemeth's hut don't count as they use the same model) as I thought it just looked wrong even though the stats weren't the best on them, I couldn't bare seeing her walk around in some other robe that didn't "suit" her character. In DA2 I liked that they all had iconic looks that "suited" their personality and characters well, but I didn't like the facts that you couldn't customize the stats on their armor.
The proposed idea for DA3 is a very nice compromise between the two previous systems.

As for the whole light armor vs heavy armor having different looks on different character I think that the armor should look like light armor if that's what it is regardless of the class. For example, if you equipped heavy armor on a warrior it should look like heavy armor but if you the equipped it to a mage it should still look like it is heavy armor and not look like a normal robe which gives barley any armor/protection. (Hope I explained that alright)

Edit: Clarification and typos 

Modifié par Angangseh, 15 avril 2012 - 12:45 .

[Thor Rand Al]

Thori wrote...

I don't understand what's wrong with Battlemages? Mages wearing heavy armor that LOOKS and IS heavy. I mean. Rogues can't wear heavy armor cause they need speed and agility. Warriors wear heavy armor cause they rely on brute strenght. Mages need none of those to cast spells. They aren't physically bound to robes. If any, than MAGE class of all should be able to wear whatever they wanted. Not just robes in which they look like nannies. If a player wants his mage to look like a flaming juggernaut, why not? I understand how that would diminish importance of classes, but you don't have to change the look. Change the stats in accordance with class.

Sterling breastplate for warrior = X armor X strenght X stamina X Constitution
Sterling breastplate for rogue = X armor X agility X dexterity X cunning
Sterling breastplate for mage = X armor X magic X willpower X Constitution

Ok minus the "flaming juggernaut" look for my mage I'm all in agreement.  It just seems like mages are portrayed heck Idk lol.  But DA are the first mages of all the game's I've played that run around in robes.  I'd love the battlemage look because tech that's how I rp my mages, not some soft wimpy bookworm, (please don't take that personally anyone). 
There needs to be an inbetween I think for mage clothing.  No, not the juggernaut or even very heavy armor, nor the soft robe like material.  Something inbetween so if my mage does have to get personal with an enemy who came towards them then they can defend themselves better. (that didn't make sense sorry) Anyways I just want to see more armour armour for my mages and less robes lol.

[Thor Rand Al]

Angangseh wrote...

In DA:O I never changed Morrigan out of her iconic robes as I thought it just looked wrong even though the stats weren't the best on them, I couldn't bare seeing her walk around in some other robe that didn't "suit" her character. In DA2 I liked that they all had iconic looks that "suited" their personality and characters well, but I didn't like the facts that you couldn't customize the stats on their armor.
The proposed idea for DA3 is a very nice compromise between the two previous systems.

As for the whole light armor vs heavy armor having different looks on different character I think that the armor should look like light armor if that's what it is regardless of the class. For example, if you equipped heavy armor on a warrior it should look like heavy armor but if you the equipped it to a mage it should still look like it is heavy armor and not look like a normal robe which gives barley any armor/protection. (Hope I explained that alright)

I did, there's a really pretty outfit you get somewhere in the game, I forget where but Morrigan looked really nice in it, the colors complimented her lol.