167 réponses à ce sujet

[ray.mitch7410]

DuskWarden wrote...

Optimal builds in DAO were just as focused on one or two attributes as DA2. Warriors got the required dexterity for their type then just pumped strength. Rogues got a bit of dex/cun then pumped one of them depending on whether you were making a dex tank or cunning backstabber. Mages get a little bit of willpower then pump magic. Since you get to 16 cunning from the fade boosts for master coercion, there was never a need to balance attributes in the slightest.

Certain attributes were effectively linked to certain classes. Even if your strength is already 60 or so as a warrior, an extra point of strength still does more for your build than a point of cunning or willpower. The only way I can see this changing is if increased attribute scores give diminishing returns similar to +% dam types in DA2. Personally I'd rather they left it as it is, I found the diminishing returns thing a bit irritating.

So if it is a problem, it's been a problem since the beginning.

One of my mages was all Magic and Constitution. Another was MAG, CON, and enough STR to wear leather armor. Another still was MAG, CON, 26 DEX and was a dagger weilding arcane warrior bloodmage. And yet another was a heavy tank mage. All of these had 16 CUN, of course.

You could make your warrior more rogue-like and your rogue more warrior-like. And your mage however you wanted. DA2 did away with all that.

[ray.mitch7410]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Remove classes (excpet mage and non-mage). Everything else is down to atteribute/skill choice.

It's simple. It works. It's more believable.

Several people have said this, and it's a great idea. However, I think this should also include allowing the mage class to learn non-magical skills.

Like a young apostate on the run at an early age who is picked up by a band of outlaws. Other apostates help teach the runaway magical skills, and he befriends the other outlaws who offer to teach him archery/stealth/melee weapons/poison mixing etc. You could easily make a myriad of reasons why a mage would know non-magical skills.

Hell, I'm a meteorologist turned engineering student who loves training in martial arts. You're telling me a mage can't workout for 30 minutes and learn to poke things with a dagger? Pfff....

Honestly it wouldn't impact the story (beyond having traits impact your interactions with people, which I'm a fan of) and would allow everyone to play how they wanted to, yet be limited by the number of points they have available. For example, instead of being able to max out two schools of magic, I can max out one school of magic and Two-Handed sword training.

Or you could force me to play a stereotypical mage. Even though you didn't in DAO. Yeah... that's cool...

:/

[Lotion Soronarr]

ray.mitch7410 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Remove classes (excpet mage and non-mage). Everything else is down to atteribute/skill choice.

It's simple. It works. It's more believable.

Several people have said this, and it's a great idea. However, I think this should also include allowing the mage class to learn non-magical skills.

Of course. No artificial restriction that dont' make sense.

If your mage is strong enough, why not wear armor? Good with a blade? Why not?

Of course, since non-mages wouldn't have acess to mage-skills there would have to be a few restrictions for mages too.
Like mages wouldn't have acess to the higest tier of "warrior" skills. Or templar skills.

In other words (and for example), they can't max out the sword skill.
Similarly how in D&D Greater Weapon Focus was restricted to only fighters.
A non-mage could put (for another example) 5 points in weapons proficiency with blades, while mage could "only" 3.

[MichaelStuart]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Of course, since non-mages wouldn't have acess to mage-skills there would have to be a few restrictions for mages too.
Like mages wouldn't have acess to the higest tier of "warrior" skills. Or templar skills.

In other words (and for example), they can't max out the sword skill.
Similarly how in D&D Greater Weapon Focus was restricted to only fighters.
A non-mage could put (for another example) 5 points in weapons proficiency with blades, while mage could "only" 3.

I rather Mages not have they skills limited.
I rather the downsides to being a mage be story related, like people are afraid to trade with you, Templars hunt you and demons try to possess you.

[Lotion Soronarr]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Of course, since non-mages wouldn't have acess to mage-skills there would have to be a few restrictions for mages too.
Like mages wouldn't have acess to the higest tier of "warrior" skills. Or templar skills.

In other words (and for example), they can't max out the sword skill.
Similarly how in D&D Greater Weapon Focus was restricted to only fighters.
A non-mage could put (for another example) 5 points in weapons proficiency with blades, while mage could "only" 3.

I rather Mages not have they skills limited.
I rather the downsides to being a mage be story related, like people are afraid to trade with you, Templars hunt you and demons try to possess you.

It is story/lore related.
A mage in order to develop his gifts has to train with magic. Which means he can't dedicate as much time to weapon training.
And also, mages are far less likely to get martial training in the first place OR find people willing to train them.

If you put absolutely no limit on a mage whatsoever, then why pick a non-mage at all?
You want a mage to be a better warrior than a warrior.

So some SENSIBLE limits really do have their place.

[MichaelStuart]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Of course, since non-mages wouldn't have acess to mage-skills there would have to be a few restrictions for mages too.
Like mages wouldn't have acess to the higest tier of "warrior" skills. Or templar skills.

In other words (and for example), they can't max out the sword skill.
Similarly how in D&D Greater Weapon Focus was restricted to only fighters.
A non-mage could put (for another example) 5 points in weapons proficiency with blades, while mage could "only" 3.

I rather Mages not have they skills limited.
I rather the downsides to being a mage be story related, like people are afraid to trade with you, Templars hunt you and demons try to possess you.

It is story/lore related.
A mage in order to develop his gifts has to train with magic. Which means he can't dedicate as much time to weapon training.
And also, mages are far less likely to get martial training in the first place OR find people willing to train them.

If you put absolutely no limit on a mage whatsoever, then why pick a non-mage at all?
You want a mage to be a better warrior than a warrior.

So some SENSIBLE limits really do have their place.

Maybe my mage never learned how to cast spells, maybe my mage is the son of a knight who hid him from the Templars and trained him to use weapons, which give him the discipline to fight resist demons. Still strange things still happened around him, causing people to distrust him, and Templars to suspect him.

I do agree if my mage was trained to both cast spells and use weapons, he wouldn't as good as someone who trained purely in spells or weapons, but if I want to play a mage as a warrior, I should be allowed. Hard limits on skill should never be imposed.

Also, maybe my character is just that badass. Really, if I'm epected to solve the worlds problems with only me and a small group of cannon fodder, shouldn't my character be allowed to be that powerful?
But I suppose thats more of a story problem. 

[Merlex]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Of course, since non-mages wouldn't have acess to mage-skills there would have to be a few restrictions for mages too.
Like mages wouldn't have acess to the higest tier of "warrior" skills. Or templar skills.

In other words (and for example), they can't max out the sword skill.
Similarly how in D&D Greater Weapon Focus was restricted to only fighters.
A non-mage could put (for another example) 5 points in weapons proficiency with blades, while mage could "only" 3.

I rather Mages not have they skills limited.
I rather the downsides to being a mage be story related, like people are afraid to trade with you, Templars hunt you and demons try to possess you.

It is story/lore related.
A mage in order to develop his gifts has to train with magic. Which means he can't dedicate as much time to weapon training.
And also, mages are far less likely to get martial training in the first place OR find people willing to train them.

If you put absolutely no limit on a mage whatsoever, then why pick a non-mage at all?
You want a mage to be a better warrior than a warrior.

So some SENSIBLE limits really do have their place.

Maybe my mage never learned how to cast spells, maybe my mage is the son of a knight who hid him from the Templars and trained him to use weapons, which give him the discipline to fight resist demons. Still strange things still happened around him, causing people to distrust him, and Templars to suspect him.

I do agree if my mage was trained to both cast spells and use weapons, he wouldn't as good as someone who trained purely in spells or weapons, but if I want to play a mage as a warrior, I should be allowed. Hard limits on skill should never be imposed.

Also, maybe my character is just that badass. Really, if I'm epected to solve the worlds problems with only me and a small group of cannon fodder, shouldn't my character be allowed to be that powerful?
But I suppose thats more of a story problem. 

Balance, balance, balance. If you played a warrior under your system, you'd have a very hard time in combat compared to a mage.

[Merlex]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

ray.mitch7410 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Remove classes (excpet mage and non-mage). Everything else is down to atteribute/skill choice.

It's simple. It works. It's more believable.

Several people have said this, and it's a great idea. However, I think this should also include allowing the mage class to learn non-magical skills.

Of course. No artificial restriction that dont' make sense.

If your mage is strong enough, why not wear armor? Good with a blade? Why not?

Of course, since non-mages wouldn't have acess to mage-skills there would have to be a few restrictions for mages too.
Like mages wouldn't have acess to the higest tier of "warrior" skills. Or templar skills.

In other words (and for example), they can't max out the sword skill.
Similarly how in D&D Greater Weapon Focus was restricted to only fighters.
A non-mage could put (for another example) 5 points in weapons proficiency with blades, while mage could "only" 3.

They could limit the number of talent trees a character could learn. The more warrior trees, the less spell trees.

[MichaelStuart]

Merlex wrote...

Balance, balance, balance. If you played a warrior under your system, you'd have a very hard time in combat compared to a mage.

I have no problem with some character builds being better than others in combat.
I not playing a game aginst a friend, I'm Role Playing in world were the strong rule and the weak suffer.

[Merlex]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Merlex wrote...

Balance, balance, balance. If you played a warrior under your system, you'd have a very hard time in combat compared to a mage.

I have no problem with some character builds being better than others in combat.
I not playing a game aginst a friend, I'm Role Playing in world were the strong rule and the weak suffer.

It's not about it being better. It's about a non-mage being a viable option. You want a DA superman to play. Under your system why even have a non-mage as an option?

[MichaelStuart]

Merlex wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Merlex wrote...

Balance, balance, balance. If you played a warrior under your system, you'd have a very hard time in combat compared to a mage.

I have no problem with some character builds being better than others in combat.
I not playing a game aginst a friend, I'm Role Playing in world were the strong rule and the weak suffer.

It's not about it being better. It's about a non-mage being a viable option. You want a DA superman to play. Under your system why even have a non-mage as an option?

Because its fun to play the underdog

[philippe willaume]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Merlex wrote...

Balance, balance, balance. If you played a warrior under your system, you'd have a very hard time in combat compared to a mage.

I have no problem with some character builds being better than others in combat.
I not playing a game aginst a friend, I'm Role Playing in world were the strong rule and the weak suffer.

Unfortunatly  that's where part the problem is.
Playing to a build is not role palying, it is number management. and regardless of PvP or not  people want to play different things, if possible differently.

IE in DA:2 vanguard berserker is not what i wanted to play, but what i wanted to play was suboptimal and did not work.
in DA:0 I could tune each companion and my char as i wanted the role i wanted them  to be and it worked fine.
So you need each build to be in the same level of efficiency.

From my post it is clear that i don't think that  attribute or class having a direct effect on your in game performances. I 'd tather have attribute and classe  that gives/talents/perks and performance being indexed on the character level
So instead of spending 3 point in strengh, your are getting/improving  3 perks/skill that depends on strenght
and you use them according to your char level.

Same goes for class regarless if we go completly classless or have class limitation where taking a skill/talent of an other class has a premium in trems of creation points.

phil

[Lotion Soronarr]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Merlex wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Merlex wrote...

Balance, balance, balance. If you played a warrior under your system, you'd have a very hard time in combat compared to a mage.

I have no problem with some character builds being better than others in combat.
I not playing a game aginst a friend, I'm Role Playing in world were the strong rule and the weak suffer.

It's not about it being better. It's about a non-mage being a viable option. You want a DA superman to play. Under your system why even have a non-mage as an option?

Because its fun to play the underdog

Well in that case lets make the mage an underdog. you'll have fun playing it..right?


With that said, I don't really care much about balance in a singelplayer game, but giving mages absolutely no limits is going too far.

And if you want to make a mage that doesn't use magic at all, then why pick a mage at all?
Why wouldn't he use magic? It start manifesting naturally relatively early. Is he completely disinterested? Not even a bit curious?

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 30 août 2012 - 08:38 .

[MichaelStuart]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Merlex wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Merlex wrote...

Balance, balance, balance. If you played a warrior under your system, you'd have a very hard time in combat compared to a mage.

I have no problem with some character builds being better than others in combat.
I not playing a game aginst a friend, I'm Role Playing in world were the strong rule and the weak suffer.

It's not about it being better. It's about a non-mage being a viable option. You want a DA superman to play. Under your system why even have a non-mage as an option?

Because its fun to play the underdog

Well in that case lets make the mage an underdog. you'll have fun playing it..right?


With that said, I don't really care much about balance in a singelplayer game, but giving mages absolutely no limits is going too far.

And if you want to make a mage that doesn't use magic at all, then why pick a mage at all?
Why wouldn't he use magic? It start manifesting naturally relatively early. Is he completely disinterested? Not even a bit curious?

Because Mages would have to deal with things mundane people wonldn't have too.
Basically I be playing a character without all the bad things about being a mage and none of the good.
As for why a character like this wouldn't learn spells, I imagine they couldn't find anyone to teach them, or maybe they just didn't want to learn. 

[Heimdall]

I'll just say that I like having classes. I like having clear divisions between skills and abilities. Ideally, classes would overlap just enough to be faithful to the lore while maintaining their distinction. DA:O failed to sufficiently differentiate warriors and rogues. DA2 put too much distance between all the classes. I'd just like limited skill trees for those weapons one's class does not specialize in and common non-combat skills. That would be great.

[ray.mitch7410]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Of course, since non-mages wouldn't have acess to mage-skills there would have to be a few restrictions for mages too.
Like mages wouldn't have acess to the higest tier of "warrior" skills. Or templar skills.

In other words (and for example), they can't max out the sword skill.
Similarly how in D&D Greater Weapon Focus was restricted to only fighters.
A non-mage could put (for another example) 5 points in weapons proficiency with blades, while mage could "only" 3.

I rather Mages not have they skills limited.
I rather the downsides to being a mage be story related, like people are afraid to trade with you, Templars hunt you and demons try to possess you.

It is story/lore related.
A mage in order to develop his gifts has to train with magic. Which means he can't dedicate as much time to weapon training.
And also, mages are far less likely to get martial training in the first place OR find people willing to train them.

If you put absolutely no limit on a mage whatsoever, then why pick a non-mage at all?
You want a mage to be a better warrior than a warrior.

So some SENSIBLE limits really do have their place.

I actually do not agree with you on that one.

It's like saying just because I'm a former meteorologist and currently an engineering student, I can't be in good shape or practice martial arts. I do all of those things, and I do them well.
Now someone with a masters in meteorology is better than me at that, and someone who is a professional MMAist is better than me at that. Because they've focused on that.

This principle will naturally translate itself. Let's say we can only max out 2 skill trees from DAO.

A non-mage character would be able to max out: (Professional MMA)

• Two-Handed skill tree.
• Warrior skill tree

A hybrid-mage character would be able to max out (Me)

• Two-Handed skill tree
• Primal skill tree

A pure-mage character would be able to max out (Master's degree meteorology)

• Arcane skill tree
• Primal skill tree.

This is of course a simplified example, but it demonstrates the basic principle. All of them would be viable and effective, in different ways, and for different reasons. Clearly the hybrid mage is not a better warrior than the pure warrior, nor is he a better mage than the pure mage. The hybrid mage wasn't able to dedicate as much time to each, and was only able to master some mage techniques and some warrior techniques.

Lotion Soronnar wrote... 

It is story/lore related. 
A mage in order to develop his gifts has to train with magic. Which means he can't dedicate as much time to weapon training. 

What I gave you exactly meets the criteria you wanted. There are innate drawbacks to not specializing, especially in a party setting where you might actually prefer a pure warrior and a pure mage over two hybrids for min/max purposes. In the scenario I gave you, for example, the hybrid mage-warrior would be unable to taunt.

This isn't even talking about how the Hybrid will have to divide his Attributes between MAG, STR, CON, WIL. Even if there were an Arcane Warrior option in DA3, this would only bring the Hybrid's issue of spreaing out his attributes up to par with the pure mage and pure warrior, and still wouldn't change the fact that the pure warrior would be a better warrior, and the pure mage would be a better mage.

[Lotion Soronarr]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Well in that case lets make the mage an underdog. you'll have fun playing it..right?

Because Mages would have to deal with things mundane people wonldn't have too.
Basically I be playing a character without all the bad things about being a mage and none of the good.
As for why a character like this wouldn't learn spells, I imagine they couldn't find anyone to teach them, or maybe they just didn't want to learn. 

Magic is natural. A lot of the mages are self-learned. Wynne torched a barn as a child wihout even trying.
A mage not even attempting to control his powers is dumber than a rock.
And again - why choose a spellless mage at all? Other than novelty...

[Lotion Soronarr]

ray.mitch7410 wrote...
I actually do not agree with you on that one.

It's like saying just because I'm a former meteorologist and currently an engineering student, I can't be in good shape or practice martial arts. I do all of those things, and I do them well.
Now someone with a masters in meteorology is better than me at that, and someone who is a professional MMAist is better than me at that. Because they've focused on that.

And a mage will never focus on melee the same as a fighter because he MUST master his magical skills.
Uncontroled magic is a danger to him and those around. It draws demons. It can cause horrible accidents.
A mage, by his very nature, must dedicate a significant amaount of time to controling his talents.

This principle will naturally translate itself. Let's say we can only max out 2 skill trees from DAO.

A non-mage character would be able to max out: (Professional MMA)

• Two-Handed skill tree.
• Warrior skill tree

A hybrid-mage character would be able to max out (Me)

• Two-Handed skill tree
• Primal skill tree

A pure-mage character would be able to max out (Master's degree meteorology)

• Arcane skill tree
• Primal skill tree.

What's stoping a mage for maxing out two warrior trees in your system?
Which effectively makes him a fighter. If he CAN'T select another tree that isn't magic, than thats even more of a limitation than the other system.

The hybrid mage wasn't able to dedicate as much time to each, and was only able to master some mage techniques and some warrior techniques.

And I'm of the oppinon that mage shouldn't be able to achieve grand mastery or warrior techniques at all.
Grand Mastery implies the best of the best.

What I gave you exactly meets the criteria you wanted. There are innate drawbacks to not specializing, especially in a party setting where you might actually prefer a pure warrior and a pure mage over two hybrids for min/max purposes. In the scenario I gave you, for example, the hybrid mage-warrior would be unable to taunt.

This isn't even talking about how the Hybrid will have to divide his Attributes between MAG, STR, CON, WIL. Even if there were an Arcane Warrior option in DA3, this would only bring the Hybrid's issue of spreaing out his attributes up to par with the pure mage and pure warrior, and still wouldn't change the fact that the pure warrior would be a better warrior, and the pure mage would be a better mage.

Not really. I aks again - is there a limitation on a mage so that he has to pick one magic tree? If not, you can make a mage that is equal to a warrior by simply picking two warrior trees.

I think my proposal is far better. It allows more diversity as a mage would be able to learn many different techniques, without being tied to a "tree".

[Cultist]

Gameplay wise spelless mage is a bad idea. It would be nice in ideal RPG, but with real RPG we have to deal with common idea, that different classes would specialize. I'm ok with Warrior-Rogue-Mage concept as it works quite well. The point of this topic is that attributes could be made versalite and useful for every class, instead of making only few a viable option.
I would like to see crit-mages, bow-rogues, dex-based mages etc. so all that different build will add to replayability.

[Its_a_Catdemon]

I agree and like the idea that mages can master some melee skills in addition to magic, but also agree that they're pretty much required to learn some magic, story wise. With all of the entries in the series so far, your character had a partially predetermined back story, and so did your companions, and all of those stories wouldn't have given the mages time to learn warrior or rogue talents too much. So no, having full access to such things has reasons other than balance. And no matter what, all the mages so far received some magic training, so you can't do whatever you want in that regard, this isn't Skyrim.

A thing we should keep in mind with all of the topics in this thread is that Dragon Age is a party based RPG, so even if you don't think balance is important in a single player game, it will mean that the party will become extremely unbalanced. I build all my characters and companions based on what I think fits their personality and back story, I've never once cared about being powerful, but they should be all similar in usefulness, even if for different purposes. For example, I'd build a character with high magic and cunning, good strength and endurance, but low dexterity and willpower, and it would be nice if that was just as good as any other build, as it more specifically represents them.

I don't like the way stats have to be so focused right now, the stats seem so fake, as if not really representing the character right now. Every person has to have all their points in two attributes or be weak in comparison to others. Attributes should be part of the role playing, not just some fiddling around with numbers. I don't think it's realistic that for the series will change to a new system like some are suggesting, but I think the benefits of each attribute can be changed to mean more to a variety of classes.

Modifié par Its_a_Catdemon, 31 août 2012 - 10:41 .

[MichaelStuart]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Well in that case lets make the mage an underdog. you'll have fun playing it..right?

Because Mages would have to deal with things mundane people wonldn't have too.
Basically I be playing a character without all the bad things about being a mage and none of the good.
As for why a character like this wouldn't learn spells, I imagine they couldn't find anyone to teach them, or maybe they just didn't want to learn. 

Magic is natural. A lot of the mages are self-learned. Wynne torched a barn as a child wihout even trying.
A mage not even attempting to control his powers is dumber than a rock.
And again - why choose a spellless mage at all? Other than novelty...

Because I would enjoy playing as one. What other reason do I need when playing a game?
The only point I'm trying to make is don't like having my Role Playing limited my classes, so I want the option to build my character the any way I want, reguardless if makes the game unbalanced.
It wouldn't stop anyone else from building a balanced class if thats what they wanted.

[Merlex]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Well in that case lets make the mage an underdog. you'll have fun playing it..right?

Because Mages would have to deal with things mundane people wonldn't have too.
Basically I be playing a character without all the bad things about being a mage and none of the good.
As for why a character like this wouldn't learn spells, I imagine they couldn't find anyone to teach them, or maybe they just didn't want to learn. 

Magic is natural. A lot of the mages are self-learned. Wynne torched a barn as a child wihout even trying.
A mage not even attempting to control his powers is dumber than a rock.
And again - why choose a spellless mage at all? Other than novelty...

Because I would enjoy playing as one. What other reason do I need when playing a game?
The only point I'm trying to make is don't like having my Role Playing limited my classes, so I want the option to build my character the any way I want, reguardless if makes the game unbalanced.
It wouldn't stop anyone else from building a balanced class if thats what they wanted.

You're talking about power building, not role playing. I can see a mage who can use a great sword, but  it's give and take. There has to be limits. If a character is spending time learning spells, then their martial skills suffer. If they are learning to use a sword, then they don't have time to learn as many spells.

I'm all for dropping classes to 2 groups, mages and fighters. Putting lockpicking, trap disarming, and stealth in it's own talent tree(s). I can even see hybrid characters. But talent master skills, should remain with the specific class, the same with specializations. IMHO. I also believe there should be a limit to the number of talent trees a character can learn.

Look if any character could use any skill and cast any spell, it would be lore breaking. What would that do to your 'roleplaying'.

[MichaelStuart]

Merlex wrote...

You're talking about power building, not role playing. I can see a mage who can use a great sword, but  it's give and take. There has to be limits. If a character is spending time learning spells, then their martial skills suffer. If they are learning to use a sword, then they don't have time to learn as many spells.

I'm all for dropping classes to 2 groups, mages and fighters. Putting lockpicking, trap disarming, and stealth in it's own talent tree(s). I can even see hybrid characters. But talent master skills, should remain with the specific class, the same with specializations. IMHO. I also believe there should be a limit to the number of talent trees a character can learn.

Look if any character could use any skill and cast any spell, it would be lore breaking. What would that do to your 'roleplaying'.

If all you want is for your character to have limits, why not just have self imposed limits, and let people don't want character limits to do want they want?

I see nothing lore breaking about a mage that mastered both magic and weapons.  
Really, I suppose it just comes down to how much your willing to suspend your sense of disbelief.
Me personally, I can believe that a mage was just that much of a talented person.

[Lotion Soronarr]

MichaelStuart wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Well in that case lets make the mage an underdog. you'll have fun playing it..right?

Because Mages would have to deal with things mundane people wonldn't have too.
Basically I be playing a character without all the bad things about being a mage and none of the good.
As for why a character like this wouldn't learn spells, I imagine they couldn't find anyone to teach them, or maybe they just didn't want to learn. 

Magic is natural. A lot of the mages are self-learned. Wynne torched a barn as a child wihout even trying.
A mage not even attempting to control his powers is dumber than a rock.
And again - why choose a spellless mage at all? Other than novelty...

Because I would enjoy playing as one. What other reason do I need when playing a game?
The only point I'm trying to make is don't like having my Role Playing limited my classes, so I want the option to build my character the any way I want, reguardless if makes the game unbalanced.
It wouldn't stop anyone else from building a balanced class if thats what they wanted.

And I would enjoy playing a deaf, blind, mute quadriplegic. Must be a great idea so BioWare must support it.

Really, I told oyu before - such a character doesn't even make sense FLUFF WISE. This isn't D&D where magic is something you learn. You either have it or you don't. And it manifests by itself.

You really want to tell me you want to roleplay a character who has obvious magical abilities that can kill him and everyone around him, and he doesn't care and doesn't even try to understand or control them? You want to roleplay a retard?

There is a limit as to what the developers of a game should support.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 31 août 2012 - 01:18 .

[MichaelStuart]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Well in that case lets make the mage an underdog. you'll have fun playing it..right?

Because Mages would have to deal with things mundane people wonldn't have too.
Basically I be playing a character without all the bad things about being a mage and none of the good.
As for why a character like this wouldn't learn spells, I imagine they couldn't find anyone to teach them, or maybe they just didn't want to learn. 

Magic is natural. A lot of the mages are self-learned. Wynne torched a barn as a child wihout even trying.
A mage not even attempting to control his powers is dumber than a rock.
And again - why choose a spellless mage at all? Other than novelty...

Because I would enjoy playing as one. What other reason do I need when playing a game?
The only point I'm trying to make is don't like having my Role Playing limited my classes, so I want the option to build my character the any way I want, reguardless if makes the game unbalanced.
It wouldn't stop anyone else from building a balanced class if thats what they wanted.

And I would enjoy playing a deaf, blind, mute quadriplegic. Must be a great idea so BioWare must support it.

Really, I told you before - such a character doesn't even make sense FLUFF WISE. This isn't D&D where magic is something you learn. You either have it or you don't. And it manifests by itself.

You really want to tell me you want to roleplay a character who has obvious magical abilities that can kill him and everyone around him, and he doesn't care and doesn't even try to understand or control them? You want to roleplay a retard?

There is a limit as to what the developers of a game should support.

Do tell, what is the limit of what a game should support?

To me, the limit is when it becomes physical impossible for game developers.