91 réponses à ce sujet

[zambingo]

Wands are rad. AND THEY MAKE SENSE.

Mage in hiding? Yeah, big stick on my back. Dumbzors. Mage in hiding, wand in my pocket... smart.

Not saying staves shouldn't exist, but like there are single handed swords, knives and two handed weapons... why not staves and wands? Set up a different ability set, pro/con, for both styles just like with other weapon styles.

So yeah. Wands. Want'em. Thanks.

Also ---> <--- Even he likes wands.

Modifié par zambingo, 21 septembre 2012 - 05:11 .

[Sylvanpyxie]

Mage in hiding, wand in my pocket... smart.

"Is that a wand in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?" ....

In all seriousness, it would be nice to have a faster attack, lower damage, weapon like a Wand. Staves are just so... Cumbersome.

[Maclimes]

I've never quite understood the staves thing. Are staves in DA a literal focus of the mage's power, or is it more for show? Is it optional? Can magic be cast without a staff, or perhaps using a different item as your magical focus (say, an enchanted sword or a wand)? And if staves are so necessarily and intricately linked with magic use, why are mages so hard to pick out of a crowd?

[zambingo]

If my mage got to meet Morrigan, it might not just be the wand in his pocket.

But yeah. Faster, lower damage. I can deal with that. Makes sense too. Perhaps the in-story expo would be that there was less area to focus a spell on in comparison to a stave and thus the power of the spell is reduced.

Mac, I've wondered that too. Maybe magic in DA doesn't need a stave or a wand etc... it's just easy for a mage to use something like those things to focus their spells.

Modifié par zambingo, 21 septembre 2012 - 03:07 .

[Conquerthecity]

 I support this option. 

[Angelo2027]

Maclimes wrote...

I've never quite understood the staves thing. Are staves in DA a literal focus of the mage's power, or is it more for show? Is it optional? Can magic be cast without a staff, or perhaps using a different item as your magical focus (say, an enchanted sword or a wand)? And if staves are so necessarily and intricately linked with magic use, why are mages so hard to pick out of a crowd?

 

I really want to know this too why if you are an apostate you will carry a big staff in your back? 

[Maclimes]

Sylvanpyxie wrote...

In all seriousness, it would be nice to have a faster attack, lower damage, weapon like a Wand. Staves are just so... Cumbersome.

Sort of like Staff = Two-handed Sword, Wand = One-Handed Sword style thing? I dig it.

[wsandista]

Maclimes wrote...

I've never quite understood the staves thing. Are staves in DA a literal focus of the mage's power, or is it more for show? Is it optional? Can magic be cast without a staff, or perhaps using a different item as your magical focus (say, an enchanted sword or a wand)? And if staves are so necessarily and intricately linked with magic use, why are mages so hard to pick out of a crowd?

In DAO, magic could be cast without a staff. If I had to guess, staves serve as a focus for a mage to channel power more efficiently. The reason DA2 had (party) mages required to use staves is because spells were determined by basic attack damage(instead of spellpower like in DAO).

[Il Divo]

Pffft

staff>wand any day of the week. Come at me, bro.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Il Divo wrote...

Pffft

staff>wand any day of the week. Come at me, bro.

Agreed.

[Sylvanpyxie]

Can magic be cast without a staff

Well in Origins we know that magic can be cast without the assistance of a Staff. Both in terms of game-play and in terms of lore - Uldrid didn't need a staff to use his magic and neither does a Player.

In Dragon Age 2 there are still cut scenes that have NPCs using magic without the requirement of a Staff, though in terms of game-play it was required due to the damage modifier.

I can only assume that they're a focusing tool of some sort, but they're not required to do magic. At least, not usually.

Sort of like Staff = Two-handed Sword, Wand = One-Handed Sword style thing? 

And yeah, exactly like that. I dislike heavy handed weaponry like staves. It would be nice to have a lighter option available.

Modifié par Sylvanpyxie, 21 septembre 2012 - 03:16 .

[MelRedux]

You can beat someone over the head and break some bones with a staff. You can't do that with a wand.  Best you can do with a wand is give a nasty welt.

Modifié par Mel_Redux, 21 septembre 2012 - 03:18 .

[Wulfram]

Dual wielding wands?

[Dhiro]

I wouldn't mind seeing more weapons for mages. I loved using darts on BG2.

[zambingo]

Mel_Redux wrote...

You can beat someone over the head and break some bones with a staff. You can't do that with a wand.  Best you can do with a wand is give a nasty welt.

If navy seals can kill with their fingers, let alone something like say... a chopstick... then my badass mage should be able to stab an enemy in the neck with his wand if it was an emergency last resort.

With that said however... if your mage is stuck in a hand to hand combat situation, something way wrong has gone wrong, no matter whether they have a stave or wand.

[Jackums]

I cringed.

[coldSnap]

Totally support this. And if not a wand, then something else as a second option for mages.

[Maclimes]

Wulfram wrote...

Dual wielding wands?

http://www.penny-arc...omic/2006/05/19 

[zambingo]

^LOL

BTW, even in Skyrim I wanted wands. So what I did was take the Shivs from Cidna Mine and enchant them. My favorite being a Shiv I enchanted with the Lunar Forge's Silent Moon enchantment. I called it the Eldergleam Wand as a nod to the tree and the wand in Potter. Then I dual wielded it, left hand wand and right hand Dawnbreaker sword.

[MelRedux]

Wulfram wrote...

Dual wielding wands?

I support this and/or dual wielding tickle feathers.

[berelinde]

Yeah, but they are wielded like staves. In other words, on that third strike, the character has to spin around with the wand behind his back, get down on his knees, and slam it into the ground.

Seriously, though, I do like the idea of wands as high-speed, low-damage weapons. But if you get caught with one, you're going to have some explaining to do. A staff is just a big stick, but those templars will never believe that the wand-wielder is a traveling orchestra conductor.

[MelRedux]

berelinde wrote...

Yeah, but they are wielded like staves. In other words, on that third strike, the character has to spin around with the wand behind his back, get down on his knees, and slam it into the ground.

Seriously, though, I do like the idea of wands as high-speed, low-damage weapons. But if you get caught with one, you're going to have some explaining to do. A staff is just a big stick, but those templars will never believe that the wand-wielder is a traveling orchestra conductor.

It's Orlais.  I think a traveling orchestra conductor is totally believable.

[berelinde]

Mel_Redux wrote...

berelinde wrote...

Yeah, but they are wielded like staves. In other words, on that third strike, the character has to spin around with the wand behind his back, get down on his knees, and slam it into the ground.

Seriously, though, I do like the idea of wands as high-speed, low-damage weapons. But if you get caught with one, you're going to have some explaining to do. A staff is just a big stick, but those templars will never believe that the wand-wielder is a traveling orchestra conductor.

It's Orlais.  I think a traveling orchestra conductor is totally believable.

Touche! 

[zambingo]

Yeah if you can explain away a mage's stave, then you can explain away a wand. I mean really. Let's not get silly.

And for those against it, it's not like wands would take away your stave. Come on now. Knives don't take away Swords. Also for those making the point that HEY MAGE WITH WAND, SPINS AROUND AND SLAMS IT ON THE GROUND... come on now. Knives don't have the same animation as Swords. Bows don't have a staves animation. Wands would have a separate animation.

Other than IRL reasons like TIME, BUDGET, ASSETS etc... I see zero reason why wands can't be in the game.