22 réponses à ce sujet

[LinksOcarina]

I don't mind adding staff proficency, but it needs a bit more fleshing out in the end. Plus, it does need to provide a magic bonus to mages, or else they will never pick it, even if it gives you role-playing outs.

Now if they add crossbows back in as a warrior tree...I will be really happy.

[Treacherous J Slither]

Honestly i'm tired of mages uses staves period. In the Dragon Age universe, a mage uses the staff to channel magic power but why not use a sword or a dagger to do the same thing? Why not simply enchant some rings or a pair of gloves?

I'd like it if there wasn't a specific "mage weapon" and instead you shot basic attack blasts barehanded. You could also enchant various weapons, jewelry, or gloves to give your basic attack a boost.

Also, if you're wielding a weapon, you should have access to it's skill tree. Regardless of character class.

[Renmiri1]

Warrior Mages FTW!

[Rawgrim]

I think everyone should be able to wield any weapon. No matter how poor their skills are at it. It shouldn`t be impossible for a rogue to pick up an axe and swing it, or a mage picking up a sword if need be.

[Its_a_Catdemon]

JSlither wrote...

Honestly i'm tired of mages uses staves period. In the Dragon Age universe, a mage uses the staff to channel magic power but why not use a sword or a dagger to do the same thing? Why not simply enchant some rings or a pair of gloves?

I'd like it if there wasn't a specific "mage weapon" and instead you shot basic attack blasts barehanded. You could also enchant various weapons, jewelry, or gloves to give your basic attack a boost.

Also, if you're wielding a weapon, you should have access to it's skill tree. Regardless of character class.

I'll agree with this, I've never understood why apparently all mages used staves, especially apostates, if mages were the only ones who would use such a weapon, it certainly wouldn't help avoid the templars. Considering the way staves were useful in melee for DA2 though, I find it strange that no other class would want to use them, the bladed staves looked right at home in a warriors hand, reminiscent of a lance or other polearm. The hands do seem to do most of the magic controlling anyway, so why can we only shoot from staves?

That said, as for the original post... I completely approve of staves having their own skill tree for melee. Just like any other weapon, not every user would be a master of it. Using physical stats such as strength makes sense for melee, and would help make those attributes less useless. Battle mage type robes don't really need a whole new category, although more of them would be nice, as most robes (or equipment in general) look horrible.

[MagmaSaiyan]

i always thought that if anything mages should have a choice whether they have a staff or be bare handed, if we go that route, i feel some kinda tree with new powers ought to be different when not using a staff

[Madmoe77]

Empty handed casting could be done very well. Think of having the effect just outside of the hand, as if it was being generated or manipulated around the character. Instead of the overdone glowing hands. It would be easier to institute as an animation if the power remains at staff length in presentation.

This may look like an absent staff but with some tweaking it would be like a dance sort of. We should avoid the 'air bender' effect though! Cool not corny. But I really missed the mage who could wear armor in DAO. Cross class bonuses would be nice too; like finishing the game in Mass Effect allows you to sample another classes power as a bonus.

Modifié par Madmoe77, 04 septembre 2012 - 03:07 .

[philippe willaume]

yes every one should be able to use any weapon or any skills for that matter.
and having a dedicated staff/pole ams tree is not a bad idea

class limitation should come from inherent benefits of a given item for the class.
if we wanted to "limit" mage to use a staff we could make the staff a tool where you could store mana to use when you exhaust yours.
ie if your mage want to use a sword he can use it properly, ie like a warrior or a rogue depending on how the game is made. so he gain in mele but he has a smaller mana reserve than a "traditional" mage.

phil

[MichaelStuart]

I would just class staffs has a two-handed weapon

[TamiBx]

I do like the idea of making it available for mages to use a sword or dagger, but it would be a pain if when casting spells, the mage had to put away their sword (like in DA:O and some spells).
I hated it, so I always ended up using a staff.
Plus they weren't that bad in DA2; you could use them as malee weapons if the enemy was too close.

[Heimdall]

JSlither wrote...

Honestly i'm tired of mages uses staves period. In the Dragon Age universe, a mage uses the staff to channel magic power but why not use a sword or a dagger to do the same thing? Why not simply enchant some rings or a pair of gloves?

I'd like it if there wasn't a specific "mage weapon" and instead you shot basic attack blasts barehanded. You could also enchant various weapons, jewelry, or gloves to give your basic attack a boost.

Also, if you're wielding a weapon, you should have access to it's skill tree. Regardless of character class.

Mages can't actually enchant, in Dragon Age, they need tranquil or dwarves for that.

[Treacherous J Slither]

Lord Aesir wrote...

JSlither wrote...

Honestly i'm tired of mages uses staves period. In the Dragon Age universe, a mage uses the staff to channel magic power but why not use a sword or a dagger to do the same thing? Why not simply enchant some rings or a pair of gloves?

I'd like it if there wasn't a specific "mage weapon" and instead you shot basic attack blasts barehanded. You could also enchant various weapons, jewelry, or gloves to give your basic attack a boost.

Also, if you're wielding a weapon, you should have access to it's skill tree. Regardless of character class.

Mages can't actually enchant, in Dragon Age, they need tranquil or dwarves for that.

What is it exactly that tranquil and dwarves do that enable them to enchant that a mage or mundane can't do? I'm curious.

[Rylor Tormtor]

JSlither wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

JSlither wrote...

Honestly i'm tired of mages uses staves period. In the Dragon Age universe, a mage uses the staff to channel magic power but why not use a sword or a dagger to do the same thing? Why not simply enchant some rings or a pair of gloves?

I'd like it if there wasn't a specific "mage weapon" and instead you shot basic attack blasts barehanded. You could also enchant various weapons, jewelry, or gloves to give your basic attack a boost.

Also, if you're wielding a weapon, you should have access to it's skill tree. Regardless of character class.

Mages can't actually enchant, in Dragon Age, they need tranquil or dwarves for that.

What is it exactly that tranquil and dwarves do that enable them to enchant that a mage or mundane can't do? I'm curious.

From my understanding, the extended exposure to the amount of raw lyrium needed to enchant such items would result in something like toxic shock if one were not dwarven (i.e. immune to MOST of its long term effects [see the jewelery merchant in Orzzamar]) or tranquil (cut off from the Fade, like dwarves, but being essentially lobotomized, they may not display psychological symptons of over-exposure). 

EDIT: Must... close....  paratheneses...

Modifié par Rylor Tormtor, 06 septembre 2012 - 09:48 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Then, you remove class restrictions on equipment.

Time to monk.

[Treacherous J Slither]

Rylor Tormtor wrote...

JSlither wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

JSlither wrote...

Honestly i'm tired of mages uses staves period. In the Dragon Age universe, a mage uses the staff to channel magic power but why not use a sword or a dagger to do the same thing? Why not simply enchant some rings or a pair of gloves?

I'd like it if there wasn't a specific "mage weapon" and instead you shot basic attack blasts barehanded. You could also enchant various weapons, jewelry, or gloves to give your basic attack a boost.

Also, if you're wielding a weapon, you should have access to it's skill tree. Regardless of character class.

Mages can't actually enchant, in Dragon Age, they need tranquil or dwarves for that.

What is it exactly that tranquil and dwarves do that enable them to enchant that a mage or mundane can't do? I'm curious.

From my understanding, the extended exposure to the amount of raw lyrium needed to enchant such items would result in something like toxic shock if one were not dwarven (i.e. immune to MOST of its long term effects [see the jewelery merchant in Orzzamar]) or tranquil (cut off from the Fade, like dwarves, but being essentially lobotomized, they may not display psychological symptons of over-exposure). 

EDIT: Must... close....  paratheneses...

I was thinking the same thing myself, but how then do they put specific magic effects into things seeing as how they have no magical power or knowledge of magic?

[Ianamus]

JSlither wrote...

I was thinking the same thing myself, but how then do they put specific magic effects into things seeing as how they have no magical power or knowledge of magic?

Perhaps mages create the runes that carry the enchantments but Dwarves and tranquil are the only ones who can physically apply them to the equipment?

[Treacherous J Slither]

EJ107 wrote...

JSlither wrote...

I was thinking the same thing myself, but how then do they put specific magic effects into things seeing as how they have no magical power or knowledge of magic?

Perhaps mages create the runes that carry the enchantments but Dwarves and tranquil are the only ones who can physically apply them to the equipment?

The mage would have to be exposed to lyrium to make the rune. So nothing would be preventing said mage from also applying the rune to weapons or armor. The hard part is making the rune itself which I believe lies in the sole realm of the mages. The next part would be it's application which any skilled laborer could do. Mages included.

Seems to me mages could very well enchant their own weapons/armor/clothing/jewelry/etc. What do mages need mundanes for? Anything a mundane can do, a mage can do. The reverse however, is not true. Superioty ftw!

[wowpwnslol]

simfamSP wrote...



3) To balance this out, the skills will require strength and dexterity to do any good. Meaning mages who focus on this will be locked out of the better skills in the magic trees.Of course, this means making the requirements for these better skills higher than they are in DA2.

So basically no one will bother with this....

Requiring to spread your stats is an awful idea. Your staff mage will be a gimp warrior wannabe and a pathetic spellcaster to boot.

[Its_a_Catdemon]

wowpwnslol wrote...

simfamSP wrote...



3) To balance this out, the skills will require strength and dexterity to do any good. Meaning mages who focus on this will be locked out of the better skills in the magic trees.Of course, this means making the requirements for these better skills higher than they are in DA2.

So basically no one will bother with this....

Requiring to spread your stats is an awful idea. Your staff mage will be a gimp warrior wannabe and a pathetic spellcaster to boot.

That all depends on how the game is balanced, if they did it well, we wouldn't have to be forced in to the same pathetic builds of pouring all of any Mage's points into Magic, Will, or Con, every single time. Make versatility worthwhile.