I'm now well into Act 1 and a bit surprised at how well the party does without the mage artillery and healing options.
Combat wise. Mage Damage is quite second rate in Dragon Age II, at least when compared to the insane single damage of Rogues and the constant AoE damage of Warriors, and potions are so easy to come by that i never suffered when playing without Mages.
I'm currently running a Templar Reaver Sword and Shield Warrior through to side with the Templars and, while i sometimes have Merrill around, i don't really *need* a Mage, at least not at the moment. Potions are just so easily available and Sword/Shield offers a lot of protection and control, mobs drop like flies when you have Rogues focusing damage, and control, as well.
Story wise i like having Mages around.. The first time i sided with the Templars, convinced i was never going to do it, was actually during my first play-through. I was playing a Mage and i'd decided she would be a bit naive and innocent.
She started out in Act 1 as a ditsy, kind, charmingly naive little girl. She was siding with Mages on pretty much everything, even agreeing with Merrill that Blood Magic could perhaps be controlled. As the game progressed and she saw more corrupt Mages appearing through-out Kirkwall her opinions began to change.
By the time Act2 was half way through, her opinions had already shifted dramatically, along with my own opinions (as an avid mage supporter i never believed i'd agree with the Templars by the end of the game ).
When Mother Hawke died, she changed drastically. She became aggressive and angry. Her opinion on Mages changed completely and she believed whole-heartedly that they needed to be controlled and the Templars were the only ones who could do it.
She was my first, and favourite, Hawke, she was lost to a broken hard drive. I'm probably going to recreate her after my Warrior run.
Modifié par Sylvanpyxie, 05 août 2012 - 04:25 .