22 réponses à ce sujet

[Eternal Phoenix]

I don't think it makes sense to end up with Templar abilities if you haven't been teached them and it doesn't make sense to end up with blood mage abilities if you haven't made a pact with demons. Both specializations should have story impacts too. I believe the man Gaider said he was looking into this for DA3.

[Dakota Strider]

DAO was like this, and it made sense. My only beef with the DAO system, that if you learned the Arcane Warrior specialization, with your play through as a human warrior, you automatically knew it with your play through as an elven mage.

This is one of the many ways that DA2 was dumbed down. I guess they thought that their target audience had changed.

[andar91]

I don't necessarily think we need to learn them from people, but I like the idea of having a quest that unlocks just one (and you only get one). Plus the greater impact Mike was talking about.

[Meris]

Dakota Strider wrote...

DAO was like this, and it made sense. My only beef with the DAO system, that if you learned the Arcane Warrior specialization, with your play through as a human warrior, you automatically knew it with your play through as an elven mage.

The quest is a major reason why I like playing Arcane Warriors and yeah, I refrained from using it until I actually went into the Brecillian Forest (usually as my third main quest).

I think specializations in general should have a enormous impact both story and gameplay wise. The latter was achieved by the Arcane Warrior in DA:O while most specializations were bags of tricks, the AW opened entirely different gameplay styles (and, more importantly, closed others via the arbitrary restriction on spellcasting).

BioWare is already looking into making specializations more important storywise, prompting reactions from the world and the story itself. 
So making entire quests the go to case for specializing seems a given - it is a more engaging method than simply asking a companion to teach you off-screen.

But then, asking a companion to teach you offscreen is better than buying a manual.

Modifié par Meris, 20 avril 2012 - 12:21 .

[RonixisJK]

I think that there should be some specializations which a party member will have, and for those it makes sense for you to ask them (and have quests for the other ones). For DA2 I don't think it would have made sense for you to have a whole quest where you make a deal with a demon to learn blood magic. Why would Hawke go through all that instead of just asking Merrill?

[Meris]

RonixisJK wrote...

I think that there should be some specializations which a party member will have, and for those it makes sense for you to ask them (and have quests for the other ones). For DA2 I don't think it would have made sense for you to have a whole quest where you make a deal with a demon to learn blood magic. Why would Hawke go through all that instead of just asking Merrill?

It doesn't have to be a quest where Hawke travels to the Fade and fights 40 minutes of filler combat to make the deal, it could be the same with the Arcane Warrior - a brief conversation. It also adds potential for the writers to introduce consequence based on what exact deal you make with which demon (and how that might bite you in the back later on).

Modifié par Meris, 20 avril 2012 - 01:23 .

[andar91]

I actually preferred how DA2 gave each companion a unique tree they got all to themselves. I hated how it blocked out another, but I liked the personal trees. If we learn specializations from people, I don't really want them to be companions.

[Meris]

andar91 wrote...

I actually preferred how DA2 gave each companion a unique tree they got all to themselves. I hated how it blocked out another, but I liked the personal trees. If we learn specializations from people, I don't really want them to be companions.

A companion having a personalized set of blood magic spells and teaching you blood magic, enabling a more generic tree, is perfectly reasonable.

[FaeQueenCory]

andar91 wrote...

I actually preferred how DA2 gave each companion a unique tree they got all to themselves. I hated how it blocked out another, but I liked the personal trees. If we learn specializations from people, I don't really want them to be companions.

I enjoyed the companions having their own unique trees for their specs... but learning the PC specs from them has no bearing on their own unique trees.

Like how Isabela basically has duelist... So it would make sense to learn the slightly different duelist spec from her.
Or blood mage from Merrill.
Or reaver/berserker from Fenris (cause his tree borrows from both).
etc.

Just learning the player version of the spec doesn't mean that the companion can't have that spec with some added flair.
It was one of the many things that I sorely missed from Origins, and, like others, I roleplayed to "unlock" the different specs for every playthrough.

EDIT: ninja'd

Modifié par FaeQueenCory, 20 avril 2012 - 01:47 .

[PaulSX]

I think they should let specialization be chosen upon player creating his character rather than be chosen during the game. And the specialization chosen at the beginning will impact how the game and character progress. DAO's approach is good for the first playthrough but do not make any sense afterwards.

[Meris]

suntzuxi wrote...

DAO's approach is good for the first playthrough but do not make any sense afterwards.

I for one would not pick the Arcane Mage specialization until I went all the way to the Brecillian Temple and actually learned this largely lost piece of magical lore. If there's any problem in DAO's approach is letting you choose the specialization before even having the choice of actually learning it storywise - thus diminishing Choice and Consequence for, say, the Reaver and Blood Mage specializations (though Blood Mage was also diminished by the inclusion of a manual).

Choosing a specialization at character creation would generally imply a background that neither protagonists in either DA games could possibly have access to. Hawke Force Mage from Ferelden? Hawke Templar in Lothering? Warden Shapeshifter in the Circle Tower? Warden Templar in Orzammar?

[Amycus89]

I agree with OP, lets learn them from companions, or through quests. But whatever you do, DO NOT make it in DA2 where they were all automatically available from the start, with no explenation whatsoever.

[Asch Lavigne]

I liked that your companions had their own specializations. But the way Hawke knew his/hers automatically was a let down.

Modifié par Asch Lavigne, 20 avril 2012 - 05:05 .

[RonixisJK]

Meris wrote...

RonixisJK wrote...

I think that there should be some specializations which a party member will have, and for those it makes sense for you to ask them (and have quests for the other ones). For DA2 I don't think it would have made sense for you to have a whole quest where you make a deal with a demon to learn blood magic. Why would Hawke go through all that instead of just asking Merrill?

It doesn't have to be a quest where Hawke travels to the Fade and fights 40 minutes of filler combat to make the deal, it could be the same with the Arcane Warrior - a brief conversation. It also adds potential for the writers to introduce consequence based on what exact deal you make with which demon (and how that might bite you in the back later on).

I didn't mean that in terms of a long quest. What I meant was that it doesn't seem reasonable to go through the risk of making a deal with a demon to get this knowledge when you have a friend who already knows it.

I like the quest idea you proposed, though, and the consequences sound like they could be interesting. I just don't think it would make sense to do it if you have a friendly blood mage companion.

[PinkShoes]

yeah they should be learned.

[haroldhardluck]

Dakota Strider wrote...
DAO was like this, and it made sense. My only beef with the DAO system, that if you learned the Arcane Warrior specialization, with your play through as a human warrior, you automatically knew it with your play through as an elven mage.

This was an idea that made no sense on a second play and DAO with its multiple origins encouraged second plays. On the second plays I simply skipped the quests when possible. So my human noble never met Isabella because she was so lower class.   I skipped the conversations with Leliana and Zevran that gave their specialties.

A better solution would be to have trainers in the game that the player can go to. Pay the trainer a fee and you are trained in the specialty. Specialties become like the high power weapons, staffs, etc. that the player can chose to buy or not.

The DM can impose restrictions on the training so no mage can be a templar but a rogue could be.

Harold

[Annie_Dear]

It'd be nice if people noticed that your mage was a blood mage for once...

[goofyomnivore]

I think certain specializations should be reflected in the story. In acquiring them and using them. But not every specialization should be treated as such. There really isn't anything special about being a Force Mage or Assassin when they're a dime a dozen in Kirkwall.

For example, in Act 1 you did some mage/blood magic related side quests and came across five plot flags giving you one point, minus a point or no points each depending on what you picked in conversation, actions or whatever. And then finally at the end of the act when you face a demon you can get three plot points for accepting its offer or minus three for denying it.

Finally, between the end of the act and the start of the next act it calculates your score. If you have a positive point total lets say a short side quest becomes available that eventually leads to a choice to take or not take the Blood Magic specialization. Or if you not a mage maybe the events of the quest could bolster your stats via Blood Magic if you sided pro blood mage. If you denied both maybe you got a handsome amount of gold.

If you didn't endorse the mage/blood magic plot flags another quest comes up that eventually leads to another specialization like say Templar specialization or a crafted weapon of your choice. If you denied both maybe you got a handsome amount of gold.

I'm not sure how you could fit rogues into this content wise since they don't have a stand out specialization that is really story centric. Maybe Duelist? Since they're highly trained and rare outside of Orlais IIRC?

Modifié par strive, 20 avril 2012 - 08:23 .

[Xerxes52]

andar91 wrote...

I don't necessarily think we need to learn them from people, but I like the idea of having a quest that unlocks just one (and you only get one). Plus the greater impact Mike was talking about.

I agree with this. Playing through a special quest to learn a specialization would be good imo.

Also I agree on only being able to have one specialization, but have that specialization be more in depth (maybe twice as large as the current skill trees?) and have a greater impact on the story would be even better.

[Cultist]

I prefet specialization to be available only after completing the Quest. Player should put some effort before just deciding to become a Blood Mage.

[The Elder King]

Even if the companions have their unique specializations, that doesn't mean that they can't teach to the PC. Merril could've easily teached blood magic to Hawke, as well as Isabela the duelist spec, or Anders the spirit healer spec.
Plus, some other spec could've been learnt by some NPC during the game. Especially in the Templars specialization's case, it'd been impossible to learn alone, without someone teaching you.

[haroldhardluck]

Annie_Dear wrote...
It'd be nice if people noticed that your mage was a blood mage for once...

Becoming a blood mage does not mean that there is some mark that appears on you that says "Blood Mage". You do not know that Merrill is a blood mage until she invokes the demon to open the barrier to the graveyard. Jowan hid the fact that he was a blood mage until he used a blood magic spell. Unless you do something that shouts you are a blood mage, people would not know you are a blood mage. Given the antipathy towards blood mages, your blood mage character is wise to not adviertise that fact.

Harold