108 réponses à ce sujet

[Commander Kurt]

I don't get why you guys aren't just turning the game down to easy, that should do the trick. I played arcane warrior once and found myself having to crank the game up to nightmare, and it was still a cake walk. Mind you, I've never ventured past normal before in my life.

I don't think all choices need consequences, but the choice of class does. A mage that isn't squishy? Boring.

[imbs]

You never went past normal in your life? I dont honestly understand that the game was too easy even on nightmare. I am not trying to be arrogant with this post it was one of the game's main problems along with it's balance issues.

On topic yea arcane warriors were totally ****** to play as but so were dw rogues, mages in general, warriors once you got past a certain threshold of dexterity. I have completed solo playthroughs as all classes and it's easily hardest as warrior... untill you hit x dexterity and no one hits you ever. Arcane mage was ofcourse a doddle, the only things that hurt my dw rogue (overwhelm, magic that got through my 80-90% resistance) are pretty ineffective vs arcane warrior.

The balance isnt even the worst part about arcane warrior though. The worst part is how passive the playstyle is compared to other mage builds. So much autoattacking zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Addai]

Commander Kurt wrote...

I don't get why you guys aren't just turning the game down to easy, that should do the trick. I played arcane warrior once and found myself having to crank the game up to nightmare, and it was still a cake walk. Mind you, I've never ventured past normal before in my life.

I don't think all choices need consequences, but the choice of class does. A mage that isn't squishy? Boring.

Uh, you think people only want a hybrid class to make the game easy?  I like spellswords because it presents some variety.  Straight warrior in DAO was godawful boring for me.  The only way I could play a 2H warrior was arcane warrior with a mod to add 2H talents.  Sure it was easy, but I self-limited her spellpower.  It just gave me some variability in gameplay so that I could do something other than wait the interminably long time that it took for a 2H swing to land.

[JaegerBane]

Commander Kurt wrote...

I don't get why you guys aren't just turning the game down to easy, that should do the trick.

I don't get why people still seem to think wanting the Arcane Warrior class back has anything to do with the difficulty of the game. Does turning down the difficulty suddently mean I can play a Spellsword? No. So your advice is neither relevant nor thought-through.

Addai made the point - its about variety.

I don't think all choices need consequences, but the choice of class does. A mage that isn't squishy? Boring.

On normal playing a mage is matter of finding a target, plastering it with AoEs and CCs, rinse, repeat. No tactics, no difficulty. You can't play that then start lecturing people about things being too easy - not if you want your post taken seriously by those who read it, at least.

For the life of me, I've never understood why people cling to the notion that being able to cast spells automatically means that they must be glass. That was an outmoded idea back when Morrowind came out, and yet you still hear it being mentioned.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 30 janvier 2013 - 06:26 .

[Commander Kurt]

@imbs: I was shocked myself. Now I'm playing on hard, but that was the first time I ever changed the difficulty. And I love playing DA:O, but I was honestly so bored that when I faced the arch demon I hadn't cared about tactics for so long that I forgot to bring a rogue. Still no problem, I just hit it 'till it died. On nightmare. That specialization was broken, badly. I must have hit a sweet build, but still.

@addai: Yeah, I know what you mean. I rarely play a warrior for that very reason so I can see someone wanting to mix it up. Still, for me, it just breaks the game when there are no drawbacks at all to a class. It makes that class boring and overpowered. I feel like I'm playing fable. And of course I can just play some other class, but this is how I feel about the experience I had. It could probably be done better, but then we'd just end up with something that's rather useless as both mage and warrior.

@jaegerbane: Well, to be fair, you can switch between your mage, your warrior and your rogue every second, so the same moves are already there at your convenience. No need for any one fighter to master them all when you are playing as four.

Playing a mage on normal is not that hard, I agree. Still, I've never taken down the arch demon without ballistaes that way. As an arcane warrior it was no problems on nightmare. I'm sorry if this offends you in some way, it's my experience and I can't very well change it to suit your tastes. I suspect the reason why people want mages to be made of glass is because mages are really powerful ranged combatants. Every class has pros and cons and they compliment each other. One class having all the benefits and no drawback just makes it very flat and uninspiring.

[FaeQueenCory]

I wouldn't mind.... I loved the arcane warrior spec... though I don't think it was broken.... BY ITSELF.
But given how easily it was abuseable with blood mage... and many people are minmaxers.... it became regarded as the broke. (when in actuality it was both it and blood mage that made things... crazy)
But as to it being in DA3I... I HIGHLY doubt it.

For one reason:
AW is a mage that fights like a warrior.
Therefore it is banned because they want the classes to be hyper unique.
(it's the same reasons why dual-weilding swords and archer warriors will NEVER be a thing again....)

[Reidbynature]

FaeQueenCory wrote...

Therefore it is banned because they want the classes to be hyper unique.
(it's the same reasons why dual-weilding swords and archer warriors will NEVER be a thing again....)

As much as I missed the AW in DA2, I thought those other restrictions were simply cheap.  How about asking the customer or fanbase if they wanted the different classes to feel unique to the point where we can't do things we took for granted like wielding a bow or dual wielding as a warrior?  Those restrictions were completely artificial and DA2 felt constricting because of it.  I say bring back the freedom of Origins and stop trying to force people to play the game you want it to be played.

Back to the Arcane Warrior.  It's a fun class and I don't see a good reason why it shouldn't return either.

[MisterChivalrous]

 The concept of an Arcane Warrior holds much appeal.

I enjoy the thought of a mage channeling magic to augment his physical prowess to become a terror on the battlefield...however, in Dragon Age: Origins, this mechanic didn't have the "style" to match the concept. Whereas warriors had activated talents like Dual-Weapon Sweep or Shield Bash, the Arcane Warrior just stabbed...and stabbed...and stabbed...(when focused on sustainables).

If the Arcane Warrior comes back in DA3,  I propose branching skills. If you want a mage who can wield a weapon like the warriors, at least allow access to certain spells and let it be fluid, not tedious (holstering a weapon before casting the spell, for example). For a mage with armor, maybe allow upgrades which still let them cast a decent amount of ranged spells. Or design a mage which ditches weapons AND armor entirely and goes hand-to-hand, slinging spells from afar, bolstering their party, and augmenting their physical prowess to dodge blows (hello, spirit monk!)

More options, while keeping gameplay fresh and fluid, is key to making the Arcane Warrior a fan favorite again.

[JaegerBane]

Commander Kurt wrote...
@jaegerbane: Well, to be fair, you can switch between your mage, your warrior and your rogue every second, so the same moves are already there at your convenience. No need for any one fighter to master them all when you are playing as four.

The point is that with an AW, you don't have to do it. You have more freedom to take whoever you wish, and you have more freedom to use spells that need you to be close up. It's the same basic idea of any hybrid class in any game.

To be honest you're coming across as sounding like you're not grasping the fundamental concepts of why people actually want arcane warriors back. Using your logic there's no need to complain about any restriction of any class as I can just roll another character or play another game entirely - what we're talking about is a hybrid class that allows the player more freedom. I don't really understand why you think this is such a thing to avoid - the entire Elder Scrolls franchise, NWN2 etc etc all managed to do this without reducing the game down to a snoozefest.

Playing a mage on normal is not that hard, I agree. Still, I've never taken down the arch demon without ballistaes that way. As an arcane warrior it was no problems on nightmare. I'm sorry if this offends you in some way, it's my experience and I can't very well change it to suit your tastes.

Its not really anything to do with 'suiting my tastest' - it's to do with the fact that since your only experience of playing a mage is on spamclick mode, you can't start using game difficulty to justify removing it since, frankly, you have no idea what the actual difficulty of playing the mage is.

Tbh the game difficulty argument lacks any kind of water anyway - freedom to do what you like is not really on the same scale - I was just pointing out that the difficulty is an irrelevant detail since you're already playing easy mode. Put simply, the game is going to require no skill at all with or without the AW spec on that difficulty, so arguing including it is to be avoided doesn't make sense.

I suspect the reason why people want mages to be made of glass is because mages are really powerful ranged combatants. Every class has pros and cons and they compliment each other. One class having all the benefits and no drawback just makes it very flat and uninspiring.

The AW had plenty of drawbacks. Like any Hybrid class, it only gve you some of its parent styles - you were limited to auto-attack and had far less resources to cast spells. It's simply nonsense to say it had all the benefits and none of the drawbacks. I suspect that you haven't really played it properly, since those traits are obvious.

Frankly, every argument for glass mages I've heard always seems to end up in this vein - 'they did it like this before so they should keep doing it', using 'game difficulty' as some kind of boogeyman to justify it whether the game was difficult or not.

[Commander Kurt]

I get the point of hybrids, but playing a vanguard in ME never made me feel like I was the Overlord of both adepts and soldiers. And I'm the first to admit I must have stumbled on a killer build, I wasn't even a blood mage, but I've tried AW once and it was really really broken.

It had drawbacks? They didn't show. I know I missed. A lot. Still couldn't die in a fight no matter who I brought. And of course I can use difficulty as a justification. You are probably better at gaming than me, I actually need to pay attention when playing a mage on normal. That is an enjoyable difficulty for me (to be fair, I now play on hard and find it more enjoyable). Playing AW on nightmare wasn't. If I'm still not being clear enough; AW with the right build makes the game easier than playing a mage on normal (or, to be fair, hard, since I might have been bored playing on normal that go as well). You saying that I'm a bad gamer and that normal requires nothing from the player really just confirms my point. AW requires even less. Less than nothing. On nightmare. It's broken.

I probably haven't played it properly. I don't even know what that means. I just played it, started on normal as I usually do but had to crank it up to nightmare and still felt really uninspired. And, to be clear, I'm not at all opposed to a mage putting points in strenght and equipping gear that requires strenght, or a warrior putting points in dexterity and grasping a bow. What I don't like is flipping a switch and suddenly all the points put in magic are worth dubble (posing as both strenght and magic suddenly).

I haven't even mentioned that they did it like that before. It's an issue of balance, you're making the mage overpowered. That may be fine with you, but to me it destroys that choice. And I can just play a creation mage and not care about how you play your game at all, but the thread is about the fate of AW. For me it would serve the game better to just crank the settings down to easy and use the whole party for those who enjoy it and to develop not quite so broken specializations for the dev's, so that's what I'll write.

EDIT; The most important thing in your post is probably why you want it, and me ranting about why I didn't like it doesn't really respond to that. I get that you liked the variation of having a warrior-mage and I probably would too if it had been done better. I play what I guess constitutes as a rogue-mage in Skyrim. But there every point I spend in magic means I can't spend it in dual-wielding. There is no switch letting me use my points twice.

Modifié par Commander Kurt, 31 janvier 2013 - 08:54 .

[Indoctrination]

Elton John is dead wrote...

This was one of the greatest mage specializations for Origins

I always thought it was one of the worst. All the Arcane Warrior specialization did was turn your mage into a warrior that can't cast spells and can't die. If you don't want to die, play the PC version and use cheats.

[imbs]

Indoctrination wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...

This was one of the greatest mage specializations for Origins

I always thought it was one of the worst. All the Arcane Warrior specialization did was turn your mage into a warrior that can't cast spells and can't die. If you don't want to die, play the PC version and use cheats.

They also had access to insane auras and blood magic. Hell even if you only picked arcane wariror to be able to wear massive gear it was overpowered t b h. Im pretty sure every single minmaxed mage build ever should pick arcane warrior, even if its just for that reason.

[Mornmagor]

This is about the concept of a mage-warrior hybrid, it doesn't have to be the same thing with AW.

Think of the possibilities, a person able to don armor and boost his melee combat prowess through magic, while still maintaining some of the mage utility, plus, what type of magic does he use? He could become anything, someone to bolster himself through blood magic, or weaken his enemies via some necromantic-disease-whatever. It makes you have more options for customizing your character.

It's about freedom, flavor, and breaking away of this boring " straight mage, straight warrior, straight rogue" path that Bioware decided to take.

The fact that AW was powerful, or borderline broken, has nothing to do with an "AW like" specialization for mages.

I want the ability to look for example like a "dark knight" and be magic focused, it doesn't mean i'm gonna be better than a mage in magic and better in melee than a warrior. It's the concept, not the mechanics you should focus on.

JaegerBane, i'm with you on this one, but it seems to me you're talking with a wall. People just don't like some things, and since they don't like it, they won't see why someone else could like it.

No hard feelings with anyone, you're entitled to your opinion, as i am to mine.

It's Bioware's game and they can do whatever they want with its direction.

After that, however, it's up to me how i use my money. And whether i choose to reward Bioware's choices, or not.

If i can't play something that i like, and instead am stranded with this " typical mage, typical rogue, typical warrior" choices, i'm not gonna bother.

One thing i found even remotely interesting in the bland DA class style, the Arcane Warrior spec, sort of close to what i like, but it went away in DA2.

Let's hope something like it comes back.

Modifié par Kuroi Kishin, 31 janvier 2013 - 03:25 .

[JaegerBane]

Commander Kurt wrote...

I get the point of hybrids, but playing a vanguard in ME never made me feel like I was the Overlord of both adepts and soldiers.

I know i'm starting to sound like a broken record but... well, put it this way - a Singularity Vanguard in ME1 is commonly known as being the strongest biotic. As much as I like Hybrids, ME and Vanguards, Vanguards pretty much allowed you the best of both worlds. The ME series was a downright easy trilogy, though, so its not particularly important.

It had drawbacks? They didn't show. I know I missed. A lot. Still couldn't die in a fight no matter who I brought. And of course I can use difficulty as a justification. You are probably better at gaming than me, I actually need to pay attention when playing a mage on normal.

I wouldn't say that I'm a better player at all, its just that with friendly fire turned off a great deal of the difficulty of playing a mage evaporates. Stick Arcane Shield on, stand in the middle of a Glyph of Repulsion and simply spam everything you've got. IIRC Mages came in for an almighty bashing from the Nerf Brigade back when it came out.

None of this really has any relevance to what I was saying though - really, it boils down to the fact that you're clearly not bothered about being challenged in the game but using a alleged reduction of challenge to argue for a class to be kept out. I can see the argument from some die-hard nerf-seeker wanting rid of it - I still wouldn't agree, as what they're effectively saying is that they want eveyone else to be denied the option because they don't like it. But this - I just don't get it.

I probably haven't played it properly. I don't even know what that means.

By that I meant that you didn't sound like you played it enough to know how it works. I mean, you say it has all the benefits and none of the weakenesses, yet an hour's play would teach you that your spellcasting is splatted (Combat Magic and a decent suit of armour will have you at 70% fatigue and missing a huge chunk of mana) while you're restricted to auto-attack.

You could minimise these disadvantages of course, but only using crazy overpowered kit.

I just played it, started on normal as I usually do but had to crank it up to nightmare and still felt really uninspired. And, to be clear, I'm not at all opposed to a mage putting points in strenght and equipping gear that requires strenght, or a warrior putting points in dexterity and grasping a bow. What I don't like is flipping a switch and suddenly all the points put in magic are worth dubble (posing as both strenght and magic suddenly).

Somewhat. It's worth pointing out that an optimal DPS Arcane Warrior will have a signifianct level of dexterity to wield a good dagger and, really, the whole Magic/Strength thing was more a product of how kit worked in DA:O.

I get that you liked the variation of having a warrior-mage and I probably would too if it had been done better. I play what I guess constitutes as a rogue-mage in Skyrim. But there every point I spend in magic means I can't spend it in dual-wielding. There is no switch letting me use my points twice.

Partially. Combat Magic doesn't allow you to use your points twice, at all - at best, it compensates for bad attack rating by making all your spells cost more to cast. I'm afraid it just isn't accurate to say that there's no downside to it. Frankly, DA:O is a very easy game. My suspicion is that you're giving AW the credit for something the game itself does.

[JaegerBane]

Kuroi Kishin wrote...
JaegerBane, i'm with you on this one, but it seems to me you're talking with a wall. People just don't like some things, and since they don't like it, they won't see why someone else could like it.

It isn't so much the fact he doesn't like it. I just prefer it if people dislike the class to just be honest about it, rather than construct some argument about balance or difficulty when it doesn't work with their own stance.

That, and people who dislike a class can simply choose to ignore it, but actually asking for it to be removed is effectively making the decision for everyone. It's something I've never understood.

[esper]

JaegerBane wrote...

Kuroi Kishin wrote...
JaegerBane, i'm with you on this one, but it seems to me you're talking with a wall. People just don't like some things, and since they don't like it, they won't see why someone else could like it.

It isn't so much the fact he doesn't like it. I just prefer it if people dislike the class to just be honest about it, rather than construct some argument about balance or difficulty when it doesn't work with their own stance.

That, and people who dislike a class can simply choose to ignore it, but actually asking for it to be removed is effectively making the decision for everyone. It's something I've never understood.

Because we only get a very limited number of specialization and you getting the specalization hightens the risk of me being forced into either spirit healer or blood mage.

I don't want the Arcane Warrior back because I don't like cross classing in dragon age, (espically since it would mean mean only mean mage/warrior or mage/rouge, a rouge/warrior would offer little, both lorewise and game play wise) and I don't want the specialization to take away from the already precious few option of specalizations we got.

[Commander Kurt]

We're both sounding like broken records. Fact is I was challenged by playing a mage on normal. I'm not really anymore and you're right about your assessment regarding friendly fire; after having played with it it's really hard to go back to playing without it.

I played for a full playthrough as AW, it was fine at first but once I had been to denerim for the first time I just couldn't get into it anymore. It was too easy. I'm not sure if you think I'm lying or what the problem is; you keep saying that it isn't broken and that there are in fact drawbacks but the truth of the matter is that it became too simple for me to enjoy. Why you think I would care enough about this to make stuff up, I don't know. I'm not even the only person saying it and still you just treat it like fabrications.

It baffles me, almost as much as you being so educated about AW and NOT noticing that it's pretty much impossible to loose a fight when you have it. I feel like I'm insisting that water is wet to someone claiming it's not. Regarding there being a way for mages to wear armor and wield swords, I'm all for it. As you know by now. Regarding me wanting to be rid of it, it boils down to me not seeing the value in it. You could have MORE variation just taking the time to switch between your mage and a warrior, and I get that you don't want to but to dedicate a specialization to those who just can't be bothered..? I'm not for it. IF it was done well, I would be. Donning an armor and picking up a sword once the strength requirements are met would be a nice feature, what do you think about that?

[Serillen]

Commander Kurt wrote...

We're both sounding like broken records. Fact is I was challenged by playing a mage on normal. I'm not really anymore and you're right about your assessment regarding friendly fire; after having played with it it's really hard to go back to playing without it.

I played for a full playthrough as AW, it was fine at first but once I had been to denerim for the first time I just couldn't get into it anymore. It was too easy. I'm not sure if you think I'm lying or what the problem is; you keep saying that it isn't broken and that there are in fact drawbacks but the truth of the matter is that it became too simple for me to enjoy. Why you think I would care enough about this to make stuff up, I don't know. I'm not even the only person saying it and still you just treat it like fabrications.

It baffles me, almost as much as you being so educated about AW and NOT noticing that it's pretty much impossible to loose a fight when you have it. I feel like I'm insisting that water is wet to someone claiming it's not. Regarding there being a way for mages to wear armor and wield swords, I'm all for it. As you know by now. Regarding me wanting to be rid of it, it boils down to me not seeing the value in it. You could have MORE variation just taking the time to switch between your mage and a warrior, and I get that you don't want to but to dedicate a specialization to those who just can't be bothered..? I'm not for it. IF it was done well, I would be. Donning an armor and picking up a sword once the strength requirements are met would be a nice feature, what do you think about that?

I don't think anyone that wants the Arcane Warrior back wants it to be overpowered like it was in DAO. They want it back because they like the concept of someone who fights with sword(or axe, or mace...) and magic. The main reason I'm abivalent about having it is essentially what Esper said. There are a limited number of specializations and I dont see Bioware ditching Spirit Healer and Blood Mage as an option no matter how bored I am of those two specializations. I would love to see Battlemage, Arcane Warrior and Force Mage as three of the options for DAI, but I just don't think it will happen.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Commander Kurt wrote...

I don't think all choices need consequences, but the choice of class does. A mage that isn't squishy? Boring.

Well that's how the mage in DA2 was even without the AW spec....

[Mornmagor]

esper wrote...

Because we only get a very limited number of specialization and you getting the specalization hightens the risk of me being forced into either spirit healer or blood mage.

I don't want the Arcane Warrior back because I don't like cross classing in dragon age, (espically since it would mean mean only mean mage/warrior or mage/rouge, a rouge/warrior would offer little, both lorewise and game play wise) and I don't want the specialization to take away from the already precious few option of specalizations we got.

Or they could just give the Mage, an ability through talents-skills-whatever to spend points and be able to wear armor and use weapons, avoiding the need for an extra specialization.

If AW is in, we all get what we want, at least partially. You get to play as a mage, and me as a mage-warrior, and we both have to cope with the fact that spirit healer or blood mage is something we don't like, but we'll deal with it, as a second specialization.

If AW is not in, and there is no way in game to make a Mage don heavy armor through talents or specs, then you get what you want partially again, since you still might have to cope with the other specs you might not like, and there is no guarantee the extra spec is going to be to your liking, and we get nothing.

You don't want AW for your reasons.

We do want him though.


P.S. I'm in for a balanced way for mages to become mage-warriors in-game, like Kurt suggested. Give me the ability to wear armor and use weapons, potentially having less magic since i need to meet requirements for them, and i'm game. If i can play how i want, i'm prepared to make sacrifices. Of course, some reqs might need to be tweaked, since to wear heavy armor you need to have tons of strength, maybe a skill that evens it out.

There are a lot of talents or skills that could be used to help a build like that, even if it doesn't have its own spec.

I would of course, first and foremost prefer a spec for it, balanced.

But anything works.

Another idea would be to drop the "Mage, Warrior, or Rogue" requirement for equipment, and instead just have stat requirements, possibly tweaked so that even "hybrids" would be able to meet them at some balanced point.

Modifié par Kuroi Kishin, 01 février 2013 - 09:32 .

[Commander Kurt]

Serillen wrote...

I don't think anyone that wants the Arcane Warrior back wants it to be overpowered like it was in DAO. They want it back because they like the concept of someone who fights with sword(or axe, or mace...) and magic. The main reason I'm abivalent about having it is essentially what Esper said. There are a limited number of specializations and I dont see Bioware ditching Spirit Healer and Blood Mage as an option no matter how bored I am of those two specializations. I would love to see Battlemage, Arcane Warrior and Force Mage as three of the options for DAI, but I just don't think it will happen.

I do too! I'd love to be able to play a mage who can have just a few points in strength and dexterity, wear light armor and use a sword for some basic damage (maybe even first-level warrior talents?). To me it's logical that mages could learn this if they took time away from their study of magic.

Do I want it to be a specialization? No. Do I want an arcane warrior like the one in DA:O? Goodness grief, no.

This is the third time I'm stating this by the way. I'm honestly confused why noone is responding to it as people are explaining to me that they want the combo and are open to drawbacks. Is it a bad idea, is that why? Or am I just not being clear that I don't mind a mage that can swing a sword (in fact, I want one too)?

Elton John is dead wrote...

Commander Kurt wrote...

I don't think all choices need consequences, but the choice of class does. A mage that isn't squishy? Boring.

Well that's how the mage in DA2 was even without the AW spec....

I noticed. In fact, I got some really powerful equipment (can't remember if it was a ring or a pendant) last playthrough granting me tons of health and the beating I could take after that was insane. Mages are also dealing massive amounts of damage quite early on, but somehow ALL the classes seem overpowered in DA2.  I guess it's because of the sheer number of enemies faced in every encounter.

[Commander Kurt]

Kuroi Kishin wrote...

Of course, some reqs might need to be tweaked, since to wear heavy armor you need to have tons of strength, maybe a skill that evens it out.

There are a lot of talents or skills that could be used to help a build like that, even if it doesn't have its own spec.

Another idea would be to drop the "Mage, Warrior, or Rogue" requirement for equipment, and instead just have stat requirements, possibly tweaked so that even "hybrids" would be able to meet them at some balanced point.

But do you really need heavy armor as a mage? I'm not saying it's wrong, but I do see a problem when you combine heavy armor with the classic armor spells that mages are privy to. Why should a mage be more fortified than a seasoned warrior who only exists to be on the front line? To account for lower health?

Also, dropping the requirements for equipment is what I'm suggesting. I think.  Isn't it?

[Mornmagor]

It's for aesthetics mostly.

Armor should be a value that does not stack with armor spells. You get the highest rating depending on the armor value of your armor, or the armor spell you use.

So yeah, i agree that a mage-warrior in armor should not achieve more armor rating than a warrior.

And yeah, i agree about the reqs.

Of course, even if a mage could achieve more armor rating, it would come with other costs, and generally he will have lower health, plus will be unable to use shield skills.

In general, balancing is in order, so that another arcane warrior-like equivalent is not broken.

I don't mind toning it down to be balanced.

I only care about the aesthetics of it, being able to play the character i like best.

Modifié par Kuroi Kishin, 01 février 2013 - 03:00 .

[Commander Kurt]

Then I'm totally with you, good Sir.

[Addai]

Commander Kurt wrote...

But do you really need heavy armor as a mage? I'm not saying it's wrong, but I do see a problem when you combine heavy armor with the classic armor spells that mages are privy to. Why should a mage be more fortified than a seasoned warrior who only exists to be on the front line? To account for lower health?

Also, dropping the requirements for equipment is what I'm suggesting. I think.  Isn't it?

Battlemages are seasoned warriors who exist to be on the front line- or they can be, at least.  You should think of battlemage spells as another weapon, no different than a swordplay technique or secondary weapon that they can use to complement their arsenal.  It's just a different fighting style.