34 réponses à ce sujet

[Dethares]

So I was thinking that a 4th class should be implemented if we're thinking of adding the concept of an arcane warrior/battlemage/spirit warrior once again such as in origins. Instead of being specializations they should be its own class the Battlemage. This is how it works,

Mage: magic sensative individuals; <breaks down to> wizard and battlemage
Warrior: non-magic sensitive:<breaks down into> soldier and rogue 

the wizard is a complete caster and ranged class where as the battlemage is a melee, instant casts and personal auras type of class

*the soldier is your previous warrior I just like organizing things nicely

many DA:O and DA:A talents can be used to make up the mage this is my organization on the classes

remember within all the disciplines an ability tree exists and disciplines make up schools

Wizard

Arcane- Mastery, Attunement, Telekinetic
Primal- Fire, Frost, Earth, Lightning
Creation- Healing, Glyph, Summoning, *Lifeward
Spirit- Alteration, Drain, Death
Entropy- Debilitation, Hex, Sleep
Forbidden- *Blood, *Demonology, *Shapeshifter

Battlemage

Arcane- Field, Force, Combat, Aura
Primal- Fire, Frost, Earth, Lightning
Creation- Healing, Rejuvenation, Enhancement, Summoning
Spirit- Anti-magic, Drain, *Fade
Entropy- Debilitation
Forbidden- *Blood, *Fearmonger, *Soulbrand

*means it;s a specialization in the sense where you need to go out of your way to discover and learn it

the same discipline doesn't mean they have the same abilities; abilities for the battlemage consists of close range and improving on their melee for example

mage-> fire: fireball
battlemage-> fire: flaming weapons

The amount of specializations should be eliminated and all discplines should fall into the schools of magic. This is more of a Origins take on the issue. I've added another school called Forbidden which really comes from a codex and the study of blood magic. I've decided just to add all the shady disciplines inot this category such as our beloved shapeshifter.

I've only completely made up one which is Fearmonger for the battlemage (which is a control based discpline and blood is more dps oriented for the battlemage unlike the wizard)

Lifeward- it's spirit healer
Demonology- well we know what this would be since many people wanted this as an extension to blood magic but it should be it's own discipline
Rejuvenation- the rejuvenating skillls that fell into healing in DA:O has its own ability tree
Fade- it's simply the arcane warrior idea where you can be half within the fade as you fight creating that ghost look
Soulbrand- it's the spirit warrior specialization that the warrior gained in DA:A where a spirit blesses/fuses with the character (a very shady thing to do since where not supposed to make any dealings with any spirit thus is forbidden)

If you didn't recognize some of disciplines that i didn't mention there in origins fyi

Theres plenty of good stuff in the other games why not just reuse ability concepts and animations to save time and resources? And just tidy it up a bit for that next gen look?

So what do you guys think? Isn't this all categorized so nicely?

[Imp of the Perverse]

I really like the concept of a mage that uses magic to improve their ability with weapons rather than just for casting, I hope Bioware takes the concept as far as they can. Cole from Asunder is basically a rogue version of the Arcane Warrior, seems like you'd end up with three versions of mage - caster mage, warrior mage, rogue mage.

[Steppenwolf]

I would rather see specializations for each class that add attributes of the other classes. Something like the Arcane Warrior but for each combination. Mage/Warrior, Mage/Rogue, Warrior/Mage, Warrior/Rogue, Rogue/Warrior and Rogue/Mage. These specializations could offer unique benefits like dual-wielding for warriors.

[Dethares]

The thing is i also created another concept for rogues and warriors which is they have a specialization ability tree call runic where they're equiped with runes, glyphs, pretty much anythng magical like lyrium markings such as fenris......

Soldier

Combat
Discipline
Medic
*Runic
Archery
Weapon and Shield
Two-Handed
Battlemaster
Warmonger
Champion
*Berserker
Guardian
*Templar
*Reaver

Rogue

Combat
Discipline
Medic
*Runic
Archery
Dual Weapon
Subterfuge
Sabatoge
*Shadow
*Duelist
*Assassin
*Ranger
Scout

In this you can see that I've also added the medic talent tree

I strongly believe that every class should be able to fulfill any role, however there should be classes that fullfil that role better such as when it comes to healing the wizard tops the charts.

I also strongly believe that rogues shouldnt be the only class that is capable of using the ability of lock opening and it shouldn't be a talent or automatic but a skill like stealing in origins. Mages can have some sort of spell that they can cast like in elder scrolls and warriors can bash there way in the treasure chest.

[Dethares]

I'd also like to see again classes being well defined as in DA2. Wizards being a primary caster and a nuke. The battlemage primarily melee with magical buffs. The soldier a master of arms and the rogue a master at unconventional fighting styles such as the use of bombs, explosives, poisons and so on.

[Madmoe77]

There's a game called something *cough cough* Dogma that does this already. And I have said before if that game and Dragons Age married, the offspring would make the old god baby a weak link in the evolutionary chain.

[Dethares]

Sometimes i just don't understand. Things seem logical with a one way route on how they should be carried out.... is it about money? It's always about money.

[vortex216]

eh, it's seems complicated. i dont like franchises that add things on to "improve". i think it just ruins things. folllow KISS, keep it simple stupid.

[HTTP 404]

it should be a sub class of mages. Which I think, there should be more emphasis on specializations by expanding the tree and not being able to use more than one specialization tree. Also keeping general skill trees for each of the three classes. The specialization trees should be at least twice as big as the general trees to make each subclass far more unique than others.

For example

Rogue could have three subclasses, melee type, archer type,bard type emphasis on using magic
Rogues could share same skill trees that include sneaking, trap setting, poisons, bomb making.

Mages: Arcane warrior, Summoner/conjuror, heavy Offense only mage,
Mages could share same trees skill trees that include healing, defesnse, rune making, and even blood magic tree.

Warriors: Beserker (no heavy armor, damage focus, faster), Paladin (or templar, allow healing and defensive magic), and Champion (balanced approach to armor and attack)
Warriors still should retain tanking abilities but Board and shield, two handed, duel wield, should be general trees that can be used by the Beserker, Paladin, or Champion.

These are just examples, names can be changed to whatever fits better. The idea would be to expand the differences within the classes of Rogues, Mages, and Warriors by delving deeper between the specializations by providing more options and negating duel specializations.  Also bonus skill trees learned from companions, the world, etc. should be a general skill tree instead of a specialization.

Modifié par HTTP 404, 07 décembre 2012 - 03:10 .

[Imp of the Perverse]

vortex216 wrote...

eh, it's seems complicated. i dont like franchises that add things on to "improve". i think it just ruins things. folllow KISS, keep it simple stupid.

Simple's good to a point, DAO went with the standard warrior/rogue/mage, human/elf/dwarf fantasy staples. Where it gets interesting is where it gets more complicated - qunari, old gods, blood magic, arcane warriors, tranquility. You need complexity for depth, especially in RPGs where you usually have a long game with a lot of replay value.

[Dethares]

vortex216 wrote...

eh, it's seems complicated. i dont like franchises that add things on to "improve". i think it just ruins things. folllow KISS, keep it simple stupid.

How is it complicated? many of the abilities are in DAO for the battlemage its just close up and personal magic that already exist. Some of it is new but not a whole lot. It categorizes everything nicely and has the ability of making all classes versatile in fullfilling any role. Or is that too complicated too? So we should simplify everything to the bone and have no meat? Is that what your saying? And by the way the best music is the one with many layers thats harmonious in its subparts and flows with unquestionable melody and or direction.

[Direwolf0294]

Personally, I've always felt archer/ranger should be an entirely seperate class from rogue.

[Dethares]

@HTTP I see what your saying but it looks to me that your unintentionally going to create more restrictions on players through subclasses. I understand that all core abilities/talents that define that particular class are going to be shared but creating more classes is creating more restrictions.

I mean you can only obtain so many ability/talent points through the game. And to be effective in what you do people will generally get abilities/talents that complement each other to perform a role. Skills are different from abilities and talents btw.

The main reason that I added the battlemage class because the arcane warrior seemed unwhole incomplete and inefficient in origins. When something so different could be improved on with organizing the abilities. The mage went from caster to melee and it changed everything. Most abilities didn't compliment this change but thank the gods that there were so many abilities in origins in which im also including DA:A.

With the Rune Specialization that i made its only enhancing the warrior or rogues way of fighting. Not changing what they already are.

Bottem line is I've developed a system where people have versatility and choice but at the same time have greatly defined classes by the way they play through abilities/talents they have.

Oh yeah and specializations should open up the possibility of new roles such as the shapeshifter is the tanking tree for the wizard and the duelist for the rogue and so on.

[Dethares]

Direwolf0294 wrote...

Personally, I've always felt archer/ranger should be an entirely seperate class from rogue.

error anomalies detected...... calculating.... solution...... wow hunter class.... questionable

[Daerog]

I enjoyed being an Arcane Warrior in DAO and was saddenned to hear that DA2 wouldn't have AW and didn't have melee weapons, but when it came out and I played it, I enjoyed the mage class in DA2. Although, for my canon purposes I made Hawke a warrior/templar to be different from Amell, but similar goals.

Anyway, with the Mage-Templar war and mages no longer being restricted in combat lessons, I can see a mage and a magic-melee class, one who is more of a hybrid. Could call it sorceror or apostate. I don't think it is a must, however, and would be fine if it stayed like DA2.

More talent/skill trees would be nice, though.

Modifié par DaerogTheDhampir, 07 décembre 2012 - 04:28 .

[Madmoe77]

For the benefit of conversation and not plugging a game. In Dragon's Dogma they had three starter classes with three advanced versions and three blends. The 3 main, mage, strider fighter advancing to warrior, sorcerer, strider; finally lending to a hybrid class of magic archer, mystic knight and assassin. The hybrids basically all gained some magic in some way and the base classes.

What made this genuinely cool was each felt superior in it's own ways. There wasn't a class that felt completely overpowered. Equipment was appropriately assigned or class specific often letting it cross classes based on stats. I made a statement earlier about the game that people should at least try. It lead me right back to Dragon Age when I had taken a hiatus. DA has a lot of potential and versatility in it's classes already as the OP has stated so the learning curve or separation of classes wouldn't be an issue. The new dynamic may even open up the classes for greater replay value.

One thing that the game allowed also was the ability to respec or retrain classes. Dragon Age had a superior story and charcters but even with the gameplay 'improvement' in DA2 it still wasn't near as reactive as what you get in Dogma.

[d4eaming]

Dethares wrote...

Direwolf0294 wrote...

Personally, I've always felt archer/ranger should be an entirely seperate class from rogue.

error anomalies detected...... calculating.... solution...... wow hunter class.... questionable

Don't you be hating on my hunter. He's not like rogues, at allllll. Well except he stole rogue stealth bwahahaha. And we stole our bows back from rogues and warriors, BOOYA.

[d4eaming]

We could go the route of NWN and add in prestige classes. Dragonspawn, weapon master, assassin, with expanded class skills and weapon uses. Say, a weapon master's attack animations are different from a standard fighter animations, even wielding the same exact weapons.

[Viktoria Landers]

I am against it. Please keep classes separate to each other. The Arcane Warrior is just a mage who uses his magic in a different way. But that doesn't mean that he isn't still a mage.

[Shevy]

Mike mentionend that they're likely doing a "only one, but more significant specialisation" route. So, maybe they'll play in such a different way that they feel like different under classes. In that case I would be fine with warrior, rogue and mage as major classes.
If not, I would love to see a forth or even fifth class. A little variation is always great.

[hexaligned]

Shevy_001 wrote...

Mike mentionend that they're likely doing a "only one, but more significant specialisation" route. So, maybe they'll play in such a different way that they feel like different under classes. In that case I would be fine with warrior, rogue and mage as major classes.
If not, I would love to see a forth or even fifth class. A little variation is always great.

I had the same thought, hopefully the specs will be flushed out to a degree that they provide some unique mechanics that change how you go about playing the base classes.  The class system in both of the previous games was painfully bland, at least as far as my taste in class systems goes.  At the very least I would like to see hybrid combinations of the three existing classes.  
Those are wants though, an absolute must for me to even consider getting the game, is for them to get rid of the weapon restrictions DA2 had, at least in DAO I could kind of create custom "classes" with some sub-optimal stat distribution.  But gimped characters actualy made the game more fun for me.

I'm not against the restrictions in general terms, there are games I play that have worse restrictions than that.  They also have alot more going on for them mechanic wise though.  DA mechanics are just way too simplistic for me to get any enjoyment from, without being able to tinker around with them a bit myself.

Modifié par relhart, 07 décembre 2012 - 05:05 .

[vortex216]

Dethares wrote...

vortex216 wrote...

eh, it's seems complicated. i dont like franchises that add things on to "improve". i think it just ruins things. folllow KISS, keep it simple stupid.

How is it complicated? many of the abilities are in DAO for the battlemage its just close up and personal magic that already exist. Some of it is new but not a whole lot. It categorizes everything nicely and has the ability of making all classes versatile in fullfilling any role. Or is that too complicated too? So we should simplify everything to the bone and have no meat? Is that what your saying? And by the way the best music is the one with many layers thats harmonious in its subparts and flows with unquestionable melody and or direction.

no, im saying keep it simple. key word- KEEP. whch means stay the same, not scrape off all the deatils to leave paper-thins characters and no plot.  adding an entire new class to an aleady good series (in my opinion) is too much. why do you want to change something that is already good? it might make it bettter and improve things, or it might make it worse. i think battlemage would be a better spec. bioware already said they will go more in-depth with specs (i think).
i dont want to start ANOTHER fight which ends in lockdown, so please do not take thiis the wrong way. but i dont think you can interperut all of what you said in my 3 sentences. and some of your comments seemed a bit offensive and rude. next time, please do not go ballistic. i do not not know that what you said was intended in such a manner, but it seemed so.

[sunnydxmen]

the 4 class should be a psionic psychic power class.

[Helena Tylena]

Dethares wrote...
and the rogue a master at unconventional fighting styles such as the use of bombs, explosives, poisons and so on.

None of those have ever been rogue-exclusive things.