2177 réponses à ce sujet

[Auintus]

BlueMagitek wrote...

"Man, I can't believe that person who professed that they could not stand blood magic left! D="

Fenris hated blood magic. "To you, Hawke: A finer mage, I've never met."
So, yeah. , you too.

[Xilizhra]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Auintus wrote...

Maybe a character could see it as distasteful, but since it is well applied, they deal with it. Maybe a companion takes an unacceptable edge to it and will leave if you become one. I'd like a little forewarning on that, though.

"Man, I can't believe that person who professed that they could not stand blood magic left! D="

Obnoxious and should be harpooned. Kicking out party members or providing approval caps for a purely mechanical choice like specialization is absurd and unfair.

[BlueMagitek]

Auintus wrote...

Fenris hated blood magic. "To you, Hawke: A finer mage, I've never met."
So, yeah. , you too.

Fenris is clearly lyrium addled; he had it tattooed into his skin for crying out loud!  Now we're going around trusting elves on lyrium, great. 

Also I'm fairly certain he was drinking at that point, yeah?

[BlueMagitek]

Xilizhra wrote...

Obnoxious and should be harpooned. Kicking out party members or providing approval caps for a purely mechanical choice like specialization is absurd and unfair.

Um, specialization isn't purely mechanical.  It's another way to define a character that comes with its own set of abilities.  Think of it as a prestige class.

[Xilizhra]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Obnoxious and should be harpooned. Kicking out party members or providing approval caps for a purely mechanical choice like specialization is absurd and unfair.

Um, specialization isn't purely mechanical.  It's another way to define a character that comes with its own set of abilities.  Think of it as a prestige class.

Your semantics have been noted. Regardless, it strikes me as a remarkably unfair choice. Only one's choice of allegiance should determine that kind of thing, and even then I'm not positive; and being any specialization wouldn't mark one's allegiance necessarily.

[Auintus]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Auintus wrote...

Fenris hated blood magic. "To you, Hawke: A finer mage, I've never met."
So, yeah. , you too.

Fenris is clearly lyrium addled; he had it tattooed into his skin for crying out loud!  Now we're going around trusting elves on lyrium, great. 

Also I'm fairly certain he was drinking at that point, yeah?

I...damn. I can't argue with that. Although, if he really hated me it would have been more of a drunken rage, no?

[silentassassin264]

Xilizhra wrote...

Obnoxious and should be harpooned. Kicking out party members or providing approval caps for a purely mechanical choice like specialization is absurd and unfair.

This.  There shouldn't be an arbitrary you lose companion X just because they hate blood magic or templars or whatever.  Companions are pretty much the most important part in a Dragon Age game and it is stupid to just remove them for that.  Fenris, for example, should not up and leave for you becoming a blood mage.  He should however acknowledge it and be somewhat hostile/rivalryish over it (same with Wynne).  Ultimately, they should be able to leave you or turn on you but it should be a cumilative effect.  If you continually do things with blood magic that Fenris or when would disapprove of, like mind controlling nobles, summoning demons to solve problems, slaves, etc. then you have a confrontation with the companion on the issue.  

Modifié par silentassassin264, 26 octobre 2012 - 02:50 .

[Auintus]

Xilizhra wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...

Um, specialization isn't purely mechanical.  It's another way to define a character that comes with its own set of abilities.  Think of it as a prestige class.

Your semantics have been noted. Regardless, it strikes me as a remarkably unfair choice. Only one's choice of allegiance should determine that kind of thing, and even then I'm not positive; and being any specialization wouldn't mark one's allegiance necessarily.

It is very much related to one's character. Some despise blood mages completely. Therefore, taking up blood magic would earn their ire. Besides, the point is to tie the spec more closely to the character, a story element, not have it be exclusively a game element.

[TheJediSaint]

Auintus wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...

Auintus wrote...

Fenris hated blood magic. "To you, Hawke: A finer mage, I've never met."
So, yeah. , you too.

Fenris is clearly lyrium addled; he had it tattooed into his skin for crying out loud!  Now we're going around trusting elves on lyrium, great. 

Also I'm fairly certain he was drinking at that point, yeah?

I...damn. I can't argue with that. Although, if he really hated me it would have been more of a drunken rage, no?

Maybe he was a happy drunk?

[BlueMagitek]

Xilizhra wrote...

Your semantics have been noted. Regardless, it strikes me as a remarkably unfair choice. Only one's choice of allegiance should determine that kind of thing, and even then I'm not positive; and being any specialization wouldn't mark one's allegiance necessarily.

Not at all.  A specialization marks which ways your character is going.  If my warrior becomes a Templar in DA:O, he must have recognized that magic was dangerous.  If he became a Champion that means he's taken the belief to heart from Eomen.  If my rouge becomes an assassin, there must be some appeal for him in it. Treating a specialization, or any school of magic or ability as just a mechanical thing, is lacking in how you view your character.

And yes, it is a positive to have consequences for your actions. 

[Auintus]

silentassassin264 wrote...

This.  There shouldn't be an arbitrary you lose companion X just because they hate blood magic or templars or whatever.  Companions are pretty much the most important part in a Dragon Age game and it is stupid to just remove them for that.  Fenris, for example, should not up and leave for you becoming a blood mage.  He should however acknowledge it and be somewhat hostile/rivalryish over it (same with Wynne).  Ultimately, they should be able to leave you or turn on you but it should be a cumilative effect.  If you continually do things with blood magic that Fenris or when would disapprove of, like mind controlling nobles, summoning demons to solve problems, slaves, etc. then you have a confrontation with the companion on the issue.  

It wouldn't be arbitrary. It would be against their morals to fight with you and so they leave.
Your idea is probably a better one, but it would be much more difficult to gauge that in the game system, I think. Besides, some would be so hardcore against it that they wouldn't care if you passed out from blood loss saving an orphanage, you would still just be a blood mage.

[BlueMagitek]

silentassassin264 wrote...

This.  There shouldn't be an arbitrary you lose companion X just because they hate blood magic or templars or whatever.  Companions are pretty much the most important part in a Dragon Age game and it is stupid to just remove them for that.  Fenris, for example, should not up and leave for you becoming a blood mage.  He should however acknowledge it and be somewhat hostile/rivalryish over it (same with Wynne).  Ultimately, they should be able to leave you or turn on you but it should be a cumilative effect.  If you continually do things with blood magic that Fenris or when would disapprove of, like mind controlling nobles, summoning demons to solve problems, slaves, etc. then you have a confrontation with the companion on the issue. 

It isn't arbitrary.  Your character, for some reason, has decided to take up blood magic, or templar abilities.  And if a companion truly, truly hates that, that's exactly what you've asked for, them to turn against you. 

Consequences are a good thing, they enhance the experience and give more replayability.

[Xilizhra]

It is very much related to one's character. Some despise blood mages completely. Therefore, taking up blood magic would earn their ire. Besides, the point is to tie the spec more closely to the character, a story element, not have it be exclusively a game element.

If you're earning the loyalty of one's companions, you should have the opportunity to cement it strongly that they can get past that.

Not at all. A specialization marks which ways your character is going. If my warrior becomes a Templar in DA:O, he must have recognized that magic was dangerous. If he became a Champion that means he's taken the belief to heart from Eomen. If my rouge becomes an assassin, there must be some appeal for him in it. Treating a specialization, or any school of magic or ability as just a mechanical thing, is lacking in how you view your character.

Hardly. A templar may take that to gain an edge fighting enemy mages, not for any philosophical reason. A champion... there's really no good mechanical reason for becoming one, so I'll leave it aside. The skillset of an assassin is just a refined way of ending fights more quickly. Ultimately, the point is that while it's not solely mechanical, there are so many reasons one could have and so many ways one could view it that it's not character-defining in and of itself.

And yes, it is a positive to have consequences for your actions.

Yes, but not these.

But here's an easy way to solve the problem, though it may be a shocker: don't have characters who are that adamantly against blood magic in the party.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 26 octobre 2012 - 02:57 .

[Auintus]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Not at all.  A specialization marks which ways your character is going.  If my warrior becomes a Templar in DA:O, he must have recognized that magic was dangerous.  If he became a Champion that means he's taken the belief to heart from Eomen.  If my rouge becomes an assassin, there must be some appeal for him in it. Treating a specialization, or any school of magic or ability as just a mechanical thing, is lacking in how you view your character.

And yes, it is a positive to have consequences for your actions. 

I will argue that some could take up a templar's skills merely as a tool against mages who threaten them, rather than being set against mages in general. On a similar note, a blood mage could see it as just another school of magic and not consort with demons or sacrifice others at all.

[Auintus]

Xilizhra wrote...

If you're earning the loyalty of one's companions, you should have the opportunity to cement it strongly that they can get past that.

Hardly. A templar may take that to gain an edge fighting enemy mages, not for any philosophical reason. A champion... there's really no good mechanical reason for becoming one, so I'll leave it aside. The skillset of an assassin is just a refined way of ending fights more quickly. Ultimately, the point is that while it's not solely mechanical, there are so many reasons one could have and so many ways one could view it that it's not character-defining in and of itself.

But here's an easy way to solve the problem, though it may be a shocker: don't have characters who are that adamantly against blood magic in the party.

I will agree with the first and the second(except for the remark about champion), but that last one is just blasphemy.

[BlueMagitek]

Xilizhra wrote...

If you're earning the loyalty of one's companions, you should have the opportunity to cement it strongly that they can get past that.

Hardly. A templar may take that to gain an edge fighting enemy mages, not for any philosophical reason. A champion... there's really no good mechanical reason for becoming one, so I'll leave it aside. The skillset of an assassin is just a refined way of ending fights more quickly. Ultimately, the point is that while it's not solely mechanical, there are so many reasons one could have and so many ways one could view it that it's not character-defining in and of itself.
Yes, but not these.

But here's an easy way to solve the problem, though it may be a shocker: don't have characters who are that adamantly against blood magic in the party.

So you're going to wait for endgame to take a specialization?  A bold strategy.

No good mechanical reason?  Is that all you think they are?  You don't seem to actually get the point of specializations then.  Yes, they do offer abilities.  But more, they are a way to develop your character.  Which is what is really important.  

Sorry, I like character variety, so I would prefer to have characters of all sorts in the party with the option to not take them.

Auintus wrote...

I will argue that some could take up a
templar's skills merely as a tool against mages who threaten them,
rather than being set against mages in general. On a similar note, a
blood mage could see it as just another school of magic and not consort
with demons or sacrifice others at all.

You're missing the point I was trying to make; there's some reason that the character took that specialization.  You can justify it however you like, but it's more than just mechanics.  Hence why Alistar comes with the Templar specialization and Oghren starts with the Berserker specialization; it's a part of their characters.

[silentassassin264]

Auintus wrote...

It wouldn't be arbitrary. It would be against their morals to fight with you and so they leave.
Your idea is probably a better one, but it would be much more difficult to gauge that in the game system, I think. Besides, some would be so hardcore against it that they wouldn't care if you passed out from blood loss saving an orphanage, you would still just be a blood mage.

That is why I said people should have preconceived notions but ultimately it should come down to choice.  It can probably be easily implemented to.  Have a set amount of "points" needed to make the companion snap and set certain choices in the game to fullfill a point.  Kind of like how the Templar Supporter/Mage Advocate achievements in DA2 kept track of how many times you sided with side x or like how in order to get peace on Rannoch in ME3 you needed a set amount of points.  Lets say Fenris has a net three blood magey things you can do before he is honor bound to kill you.  That would be much better than losing an entire teammate with teammate questlines, interactions, any items from quest, etc just for picking a specialization you feel is right for a character.  You should be able to prove to Fenris that just because you are a blood mage, you are not trying to be a Tevinter Magister Lord.

[Xilizhra]

I will agree with the first and the second(except for the remark about champion), but that last one is just blasphemy.

Why?

[Auintus]

Xilizhra wrote...

I will agree with the first and the second(except for the remark about champion), but that last one is just blasphemy.

Why?

I was trying to be funny...Sorry about that.

[Auintus]

BlueMagitek wrote...

You're missing the point I was trying to make; there's some reason that the character took that specialization.  You can justify it however you like, but it's more than just mechanics.  Hence why Alistar comes with the Templar specialization and Oghren starts with the Berserker specialization; it's a part of their characters.

Yes, but it doesn't always have to be a personality-embodying thing. They could just think it would be useful.

[Auintus]

silentassassin264 wrote...

That is why I said people should have preconceived notions but ultimately it should come down to choice.  It can probably be easily implemented to.  Have a set amount of "points" needed to make the companion snap and set certain choices in the game to fullfill a point.  Kind of like how the Templar Supporter/Mage Advocate achievements in DA2 kept track of how many times you sided with side x or like how in order to get peace on Rannoch in ME3 you needed a set amount of points.  Lets say Fenris has a net three blood magey things you can do before he is honor bound to kill you.  That would be much better than losing an entire teammate with teammate questlines, interactions, any items from quest, etc just for picking a specialization you feel is right for a character.  You should be able to prove to Fenris that just because you are a blood mage, you are not trying to be a Tevinter Magister Lord.

That's what replays are for. You can't side with the templars in Broken Circle without losing Wynne. Can't spoil the Sacred Ashes without losing Leli. Descions have an impact and who you are as a character is one of them.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

My Cousland was a Berserker-Reaver. How'd that embody his personality?

It didn't. He was a nice guy, I just felt like being ironic that playthrough. 

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 26 octobre 2012 - 03:09 .

[silentassassin264]

BlueMagitek wrote...

You're missing the point I was trying to make; there's some reason that the character took that specialization.  You can justify it however you like, but it's more than just mechanics.  Hence why Alistar comes with the Templar specialization and Oghren starts with the Berserker specialization; it's a part of their characters. 

It is a part of their character but it shouldn't be all that defines them.  I had a Hawke in Kirkwall who chose the Templar spec.  True she was kind of sympathetic to them although Bethany did guilt trap her into siding with the mages, but the main reason she chose the spec was because Kirkwall was filled with insane mages and she wanted to protect herself from magic.  Just because she was a templar did not mean she believed that mages should be locked up in the Gallows or Tranq'd or murdered or whatever.  You can see the range in the Templar characters themselves.  Ser Karras is quite gung ho about removing the mage threat by any means necessary but Thrask is a templar that believes in mercy up to letting mages go free and working with a known blood mage (Grace).  You can't just say, "oh you chose templar so you hate mages.  Any Anders like companion you get in DA3 leaves immediately."  And likewise for blood mage.

[Auintus]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

My Cousland was a Berserker-Reaver. How'd that embody his personality?

It didn't. He was a nice guy, I just felt like being ironic that playthrough. 

Yeah, but specs are gonna take a more characterizing role in DA3. Probably.

[silentassassin264]

Auintus wrote...

That's what replays are for. You can't side with the templars in Broken Circle without losing Wynne. Can't spoil the Sacred Ashes without losing Leli. Descions have an impact and who you are as a character is one of them.

Yeah you can.  And the Wynne situation was one of the things I hated the most in DA:O.  Sometimes I killed her even when I saved the mages just so I didn't have to have her ruin my party.  >_<