125 réponses à ce sujet

[Dr. wonderful]

Yes and no.

I want people to realize that it's a VERY powerful art but it's rare. I don't want to encounter a map with say, over 100 arcane warriors. I however think there should be a Dalish tribe who teaches this...but dosen't reveal it.

Kind of like renegade Dalish, and if you have a Dalish party member they can be all "What? How could you keep this from the rest of the tribes!?"

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Dhiro wrote...

To be honest, I'd prefer something like an Arcane Duelist. A fast, light armor wearing character dancing around the battlefield with a sword and a fireball.

I sense mage pants, so I approve.

[Beerfish]

As long as there were severe penalties. AW was so over powered it was ridiculous.

[Abraham_uk]

I was thinking, wouldn't it be nice if all classes had access to all weapons, but each had different fighting styles. So even for 2 handed weapons for example, Rogues warriors and mages would have different approaches that fit with their class.


Warriors: They specialise in huge peak damage, powerful blows, wrecking enemy shields, weapons and armour leaving them vulnerable. Warriors also have the unique ability of knocking enemies over. The reason warriors go for a more heavy hitting combat style is because they have more hit points and thus can adopt riskier heavy hitting styles. Warriors don't block and evade as much (they still block, parry and evade) but they very often take the hits without flinching.

Rogues specialise in two types of combat. Fast aggressive combat that deals flurries of blows on the enemies, but each hit does much less damage than warriors. Faster but less damage. The other being stealth, where they perform suprise attacks, critical hits and back stabs. Rogues also have a higher rate of evasion.


Mages can't take many hits, even when wearing heavy armour. Because of this they try to ensure that enemies don't hit them in the first place. Mages excel in blocking magical and physical attacks. They can block and parry melee weapons, stop arrows in mid air (with a 25% chance of success) and block spells (with a 40% chance of success). Mages can't deal very much weapon damage but they can channel their spells through which ever weapon they are carrying.



The way the three classes wield weapons has created a rock paper scissors.


Mages have the upperhand over warriors by being able to block most of the warriors attack and tear warriors apart with destructive and debuffing magic.

Rogues have the upperhand over mages by using stealth to perform killing blows, or by overwhelming mages with fast flurries of attacks that guarantee that the mage will take some damage.

Warriors have the upperhand over rogues due to their intense millitary training which allows them to detect cloaked enemies. Warriors are heavily resistant to the rogues fast flurries of attacks and back stabs.


Whilst it is possible to overcome the shortcomings of each class, it is still a good idea to bare the system in mind.

Modifié par Abraham_uk, 05 novembre 2012 - 10:36 .

[filetemo]

I'd like the Arcane warrior to return, but this time I'd like the specialization to have some melee talents, auto attack all the way was a bit repetitive

[Maclimes]

Dhiro wrote...

To be honest, I'd prefer something like an Arcane Duelist. A fast, light armor wearing character dancing around the battlefield with a sword and a fireball.

This. Something akin to the Sword Mage or Arcane Duelist. A mage who uses a blade as their focus. They don't shy away from physical conflict, but neither are they overpowered tanks. A classic (but OP) example of this is Gandalf.

[Abraham_uk]

You know the mage has that weapon that is both a staff and a spear?

Why not have a melee move set for it?

The mage won't have to trump rogues and warriors (because every class needs to have it's niche), but at the same time the mage can still be very dangerous at close range.

It really isn't that difficult to balance it. The mage will continue to excel at spell casting, but will have a unique set of melee skills that will make it decent (but not powerful) at melee combat.

Modifié par Abraham_uk, 05 novembre 2012 - 10:45 .

[Kileyan]

Yes I want Arcane Warrior back. It would never be my first play through character, but it represents something more than just itself. It means that Bioware had abandoned their boring DA2 style of narrow World of Warcraft/MMO class roles.

I am not sure this is likely to happen since they are pushing multiplayer, they may need to more narrowly define roles for their mplay plans:(

[Zkyire]

Aligalipe wrote...

I find the Arcane Warrior specialization quite awesome. Fighting with both magic and a sword. Partially being in fade. It was very strong and perhaps overpowered but that can be fixed.

How to bring it back with a sensible explanation since it's -sadly- a lost art?The only known practitioner is( or at least has some knowledge of it) the Warden Commander but if he returns in DA:I he can teach it to the player character.

Even if your Warden Commander isn't a mage he can somehow pass it on as he did to his party members when he isn't a mage.

Or someone can rediscover it, What is invented can be reinvented after all. All those mages without templar control, and in war against them,  have more freedom and motives to discover alternative ways to improve their combat effectiveness against templars without resorting to blood magic. It makes sense, actually it makes more sense than no one reinventing it because of those stated motives. After all, they need alternative ways to fight against templars.

I'd love  the concept, and would like it back, but it needs work (it was pretty boring).

[Dhiro]

Maclimes wrote...

Dhiro wrote...

To be honest, I'd prefer something like an Arcane Duelist. A fast, light armor wearing character dancing around the battlefield with a sword and a fireball.

This. Something akin to the Sword Mage or Arcane Duelist. A mage who uses a blade as their focus. They don't shy away from physical conflict, but neither are they overpowered tanks. A classic (but OP) example of this is Gandalf.

One of the reasons why I like Skyrim. An ice spell in one hand, a sword in another, some cloth armor and I had a great deal of fun dancing between melee, range, support and control.

[draken-heart]

Not really, even though I liked the idea, I would rather have the Mage not be able to fight in heavy armor like a warrior. One thing I loved about DA2 was the fact that the class armors were distinctly different.

[Orian Tabris]

NO!

I have nothing against Arcane Warrior, but if they add it in for the sake of appeasing players and don't give it a concrete, well thought out reason for it being in the game, then why not throw sense out the window? If we can play Arcane Warrior, why not Force Mage as well? And while we're at it, give us griffins and another Archdemon!

There must be a reason for bringing it back! BioWare should not just add it so that players won't b!tch and moan about how the game sucks, or how it's not Origins 2!

[Kileyan]

When I played battlemages in other games, it usually wasn't a character that could cast fireballs and meteors while in full plate armor. What I considered an arcane warrior was a melee combatant that used magic to augment his melee, rarely an offensive spell.

They were specialists of buffs(haste and defense). In Dragon Age terms they would have used glyphs of protection or spirit magic for offense and defense. Making targets less likely to hit them and allies, making hits upon the enemy be more often criticals and such. Lots of point blank aoe debuffs and minor damage, etc.

Modifié par Kileyan, 06 novembre 2012 - 12:10 .

[Dhiro]

Orian Tabris wrote...

NO!

I have nothing against Arcane Warrior, but if they add it in for the sake of appeasing players and don't give it a concrete, well thought out reason for it being in the game, then why not throw sense out the window? If we can play Arcane Warrior, why not Force Mage as well? And while we're at it, give us griffins and another Archdemon!

There must be a reason for bringing it back! BioWare should not just add it so that players won't b!tch and moan about how the game sucks, or how it's not Origins 2!

How Force Mage coming back is as "senseless" as Arcane Warrior though?

[Kileyan]

Orian Tabris wrote...

NO!

I have nothing against Arcane Warrior, but if they add it in for the sake of appeasing players and don't give it a concrete, well thought out reason for it being in the game, then why not throw sense out the window? If we can play Arcane Warrior, why not Force Mage as well? And while we're at it, give us griffins and another Archdemon!

There must be a reason for bringing it back! BioWare should not just add it so that players won't b!tch and moan about how the game sucks, or how it's not Origins 2!

Why single out the arcane warrior? I can't really tell what you are saying. In DA2 there was no reason we could do any specialization, the only requirement was that you be level 7 or whatever it was.

I'm all for the game having cool encounters for how you learn a new spec, but it comes with the drawbacks that you might spend the entire game unable to use most of them, unless the first 5 hours of the game is just a string of class spec quests/encounters.

[Orian Tabris]

Dhiro wrote...

Orian Tabris wrote...

NO!

I have nothing against Arcane Warrior, but if they add it in for the sake of appeasing players and don't give it a concrete, well thought out reason for it being in the game, then why not throw sense out the window? If we can play Arcane Warrior, why not Force Mage as well? And while we're at it, give us griffins and another Archdemon!

There must be a reason for bringing it back! BioWare should not just add it so that players won't b!tch and moan about how the game sucks, or how it's not Origins 2!

How Force Mage coming back is as "senseless" as Arcane Warrior though?

TBH, it wouldn't be senseless for Force Mage to come back, seeing as how it is used in various locations in Thedas, but primarily used in Kirkwall. But to add it in without a reason beyond doing it just to have a variety of specialisations, is just stupid and annoying (not to mention not very lore-friendly). With Arcane Warrior, it's a very very rare magic school, and so it should be next to impossible to find it, thus being able to use it in DA3. Lore is important in a series like Dragon Age, where it (the lore) is rather unique.

[Orian Tabris]

Kileyan wrote...

Orian Tabris wrote...

NO!

I have nothing against Arcane Warrior, but if they add it in for the sake of appeasing players and don't give it a concrete, well thought out reason for it being in the game, then why not throw sense out the window? If we can play Arcane Warrior, why not Force Mage as well? And while we're at it, give us griffins and another Archdemon!

There must be a reason for bringing it back! BioWare should not just add it so that players won't b!tch and moan about how the game sucks, or how it's not Origins 2!

Why single out the arcane warrior? I can't really tell what you are saying. In DA2 there was no reason we could do any specialization, the only requirement was that you be level 7 or whatever it was.

I'm all for the game having cool encounters for how you learn a new spec, but it comes with the drawbacks that you might spend the entire game unable to use most of them, unless the first 5 hours of the game is just a string of class spec quests/encounters.

Well it boils down to how BioWare handle it. If they do it like in DA2, I will be fine with it, even if there's a new and hard to find spec. How it was handled in Origins is probably better, though people probably prefer DA2's way. I just want BioWare to think how they implement specialisations through, rather than keeping something popular in, for the sake of the fans. I'm actually starting to question Reaver's place in the game, as well, but it wasn't overpowered, and I love it too.

[Herr Uhl]

Not that fussed, but other people seem to like it, so I wouldn't be opposed.

[Patchwork]

I can handwave the mages spces in DA2. It's conceivable that Malcolm taught the theoretical basics to his mage kids. I have a harder time with some of the rogue and warrior specs.

[DragonAgeLegend]

I hope we get around 6 specs to choose from, containing:

Arcane Warrior
Shapeshifter
Blood Magic
Spirit Healer

And two other new ones?

[Chaos Lord Malek]

Orian Tabris wrote...

Dhiro wrote...

Orian Tabris wrote...

NO!

I have nothing against Arcane Warrior, but if they add it in for the sake of appeasing players and don't give it a concrete, well thought out reason for it being in the game, then why not throw sense out the window? If we can play Arcane Warrior, why not Force Mage as well? And while we're at it, give us griffins and another Archdemon!

There must be a reason for bringing it back! BioWare should not just add it so that players won't b!tch and moan about how the game sucks, or how it's not Origins 2!

How Force Mage coming back is as "senseless" as Arcane Warrior though?

TBH, it wouldn't be senseless for Force Mage to come back, seeing as how it is used in various locations in Thedas, but primarily used in Kirkwall. But to add it in without a reason beyond doing it just to have a variety of specialisations, is just stupid and annoying (not to mention not very lore-friendly). With Arcane Warrior, it's a very very rare magic school, and so it should be next to impossible to find it, thus being able to use it in DA3. Lore is important in a series like Dragon Age, where it (the lore) is rather unique.

If Mage class works similar to what it was in DA2, then Force Mage will definitely return - as its a mage with maker esque spells - like Fist of the Maker. Also its playstyle was very unique and it could combine itself very well with both Spirit Healer and Blood Mage speces. Since we will be Inquisition, i am pretty sure the Force Mage will at least be option, if not right away base class for mage.

[Dukemon]

Arcane Warrior is my favoriet specialisation

[Xilizhra]

No. I want robed mages still.

[andocrack]

Dual-wielding swords is probably more important to me, but I loved the arcane warrior. It was powerful, but it was fun.