48 réponses à ce sujet

[Hiero_Glyph]

Grumpy Old Wizard wrote...

I am already very disappointed that unarmed monks have been added to the lore... don't push this as far as a class of its own. Make it a warrior specialization. I doubt there was ever a wartime monk who went to battle unarmed. Weaponless fighting was always meant as side skill for worst case scenarios, but fantasy-settings and films perverted it into bs-wannabe-gods, that can't be harmed...

I doubt anyone ever went to battle casting spells. I doubt anyone ever fought an actual dragon or dark spawn.

No one ever suggested that a monk be a god.

There are already combos that are gods however.

Oh yeah, if a another class is introduced, you can always limit yourself to playing only the rogue/warrior/mage classes if you don't like the variety.No one would be forcing you to play a monk or whatever.

Yeah, there was actually a weapon called a sword breaker or parrying dagger that was designed to disarm an opponent.  In some scenarios it was tactically necessary to infiltrate a position without the use of weapons or to defeat an opponent with your bare hands.  Many warriors often trained in unarmed combat as a backup to using a weapon but you would be surprised how often a weapon would be lost, break or be discarded during combat.  Even with all the blood effects in games it hardly captures the violence of a true medieval war.

The Monk class fits in well with the storyline of DA:O and you could even use a cestus weapon type in place of gloves for armor.

[wwwwowwww]

My thoughts for what they are worth.



New classes, no I don't think we need anymore. I do think being able to dual or multi-class would be good though.



I definately agree with more talents, skills and specializations, or at least you could break some of them up. For instance:



Coercion could easily be broken up into Intimidate and Diplomacy or something similar.





For specializations, I'd like to see a swashbuckler type or a scout type for rogues and warriors

[biomag]

Hiero_Glyph wrote...

Grumpy Old Wizard wrote...

I am already very disappointed that unarmed monks have been added to the lore... don't push this as far as a class of its own. Make it a warrior specialization. I doubt there was ever a wartime monk who went to battle unarmed. Weaponless fighting was always meant as side skill for worst case scenarios, but fantasy-settings and films perverted it into bs-wannabe-gods, that can't be harmed...

I doubt anyone ever went to battle casting spells. I doubt anyone ever fought an actual dragon or dark spawn.

No one ever suggested that a monk be a god.

There are already combos that are gods however.

Oh yeah, if a another class is introduced, you can always limit yourself to playing only the rogue/warrior/mage classes if you don't like the variety.No one would be forcing you to play a monk or whatever.

Yeah, there was actually a weapon called a sword breaker or parrying dagger that was designed to disarm an opponent.  In some scenarios it was tactically necessary to infiltrate a position without the use of weapons or to defeat an opponent with your bare hands.  Many warriors often trained in unarmed combat as a backup to using a weapon but you would be surprised how often a weapon would be lost, break or be discarded during combat.  Even with all the blood effects in games it hardly captures the violence of a true medieval war.

The Monk class fits in well with the storyline of DA:O and you could even use a cestus weapon type in place of gloves for armor.

I also learned how to fight without weapons while training escrima thats absolutely normal and part of any serious weapon training. We trained unarmed against different weapon combinations. But I also remember that no unarmend-martial art would suggest to enter a fight unarmed. Every single sifu or master/trainer I met said that he would rather run than fight an unexperienced but armed fighter.


@there is magic in DA:O: Yes. There is. But there is also a sword that cuts. Sneaking and backstabing. Bows and Crosbows. Axes are slower than knifes. Shields are used to hit. So the combat seems to be pretty realistic, does it not?`And guess what, shaolin monks, the main inspiration to all fantasy battlemonks, also fought using weapons and not primally empty handed. The Japanese version of warriormonks looked like samurai on the field. Crusaders were also battle monks.
Unarmed fighting is a side skill and no one would be stupid enough to charge an armored and armed experienced fighter unarmed without being desperate. All those monk-skills people want, would work with weapons too, so why should monks act like idiots and not use weapons?


We can agree to disagree because there is no chance I am going to be convinced that unarmed fighting should be introduced as main fighting skill into this or any other medieval game. A skilltree for a one-handed weapon and an empty hand would be a good idea. Also something like "Chi" or "Kai" skills based on a specialization, but I see no need for a monk class.

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

This is DAO, not DnD when will people realise this?

David Gaider has already stated that 'Clerics' in the DnD sense cannot truly exist in this world due to how they got their spells. You can easily create a shaman style character with the current setup, so without meaning any real offence to anyone I find it laughable when they get mentioned. Same with druid (which could easily equate to a dalish mage), shapeshifter/spirit healer

What we need is an improvement on the current specialisations and some new ones that will fit into the world.

As someone else mentioned, I think there could be room for a 'monk' specialisation under the warrior class but am not sure how they would fit in lore wise?

No to more classes, yes to more specialisations that will fit in with the lore.

Oh and to the person whom suggested Pirates, what do you think Isabela is?

Quote from the Wiki

"Isabela is the captain of a pirate ship named The Siren's Call"

[13obitus13]

aye no more classes love the low class choise whit more spec opertunitys instead, maby 2 new spec´s for every class and 1-2 new talent/spell in every spec/talent line summat.

[biomag]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...


As someone else mentioned, I think there could be room for a 'monk' specialisation under the warrior class but am not sure how they would fit in lore wise?

@Monks: Saddly there are unarmed monks in the lore. The silent sisters (or how these dwarfs are called) seem not to use weapons in "The Calling". I guess those from the proving used them because there is no class or specialization at the moment.

@Rest: Signed. What skills should pirates get anyhow? Something like dirty fighting? Or dueling?... Same for shamans and druids. People are just screaming for "names" and not missing classes, as most of them are playable. You can make a lot more than some imagine.

[Jasco11]

I can support more classes, specialization, and skills.



NO to hybrids.... absolutely not.

[Paperpirate]

I don't see what kind of classes you would need to add and also like the 3 class system honestly.

I can think of specialisations, but would like see the possibility to choose a second "level" of your specialisation instead of chosing a second one. Basic these would be specialisation which require other specialisations to take.

Monks or somekind decent unarmed and unarmored would be nice to have as a possibility to play, but honestly I think they should save them for when they create a campaign outside of Ferelden and where they would make more sense and fit in.
Unarmed fighting might make more sense in a land where carrying weapons can have negative consequences, either in peoples reactions, or monsters which are attracted by metal.

I would like to a duelist spec for the warrior, basicly a warrior who uses a bit more cunning and a bag of (cheap) tricks, but still holds his ground toe-to-toe. Maybe with skills that could reposition melee enemies and disarm. Altough these would be great of a second level of duelist as well

[Kipferl]

Runemaster. Dwarf only.
Creates Runes and throws them upon enemies or uses them to help allies.
Rune creation works with stamina, effects depend on stamina score.
How far runes can be thrown and how many at the same time depends on dexterity.

[Akimb0]

I'd like to see:

Dual class: With the only awkward part being the inclusion of mages as most mages belong to the Circle. One you dual class, you'd be able to access that classes specializations as well. I will have my fighter/rogue/duelist.

More specializations: Necromancer, Paladin, Dragon Cultist, Monk/Pugalist, Lyrium Fiend, Agent/Emmisary, to suggest but a few. It'd be nice if they added more than 4 skills as well though. 8 would be nice, as would the ability to take more specializations.

I think the game works fine with the base 3 archetypes, Warrior, Rogue and Mage, and that building off of that base with specializations is the way to go.

Modifié par Akimb0, 10 janvier 2010 - 05:32 .

[imikedoyle]

Paperpirate wrote...

I don't see what kind of classes you would need to add and also like the 3 class system honestly.

I can think of specialisations, but would like see the possibility to choose a second "level" of your specialisation instead of chosing a second one. Basic these would be specialisation which require other specialisations to take.

I think this is a good idea.

Unarmed fighting might make more sense in a land where carrying weapons can have negative consequences, either in peoples reactions, or monsters which are attracted by metal.

Elves in Denerim and other places with elven ghettos (aka alienages), the elves are forbidden to bear weapons. So, a style of unarmed combat might make sense there, and in-game, it should be taught by an city-elf elder

[imikedoyle]

Regarding the topic of this thread - I think three base classes is fine. Monte Cook, one of the original design team for DnD 3rd Edition said this:

"What kind of characters do people want to play?" Well, there's the skillful guy, there's the guy who uses magic rather than physical force, and there's the big tough guy with a sword. D&D addresses these roles by providing the rogue, the wizard, and the fighter.

( From his article "Build a better fighter": http://www.montecook...e.cgi?mc_diary7)



More advanced specialisations with 4 or 8 possible skills/spells though... that would be nice.

Especially a spell for replenishing a fighters' stamina (not just increasing stamina recovery rate)

[Moonstryder]

New specs sounds like fun in the new expansion, some new ideas that I would find interesting are

New Warrior Specialization: Lycantrope
-Spec Bonus = +5 combat health Regen/Unable pass Persuade checks with Humaniod Races,
The Warriors form is permenantly altered into a Werewolf giving him access to un-natural ablities that were previously unable to accomplish in human form

Ability 1: Savagery (Buff)
  The warrior gains enhanced movement speed while active, any attack the warrior makes while this mode is active restores partial health per attack based up the current cunning level of the user.

Ability 2: Dominance (Passive)
  The Warrior's savage nature is amplified even more with enhanced agility to avoid missle and melee attacks 1/6 of the time and gains the ability to use landmark locations that only a mabari could use

Ability 3: Brutality (Ability) 
 The Warrior has filtered and refined the curse within him to harness it and pass it on to others. A living creature targeted by this ability is transformed briefly into a werewolf, If an ally is targeted they are treated as 80% effective as the Warrior who cast the ability (Health/Stamina/Str and have access to 3 new abilities) if an enemy is targeted and they fail a mental check, they will turn against all other enemies in the area

Ability 4: Curse Renewed (Passive)
 The Warrior's time spent as a Werewolf has perfected his body beyond of the human threshold, The Warriors gains an extra +3 Health Regen, +2 str/dex and Will now be able to Dual Wield two-handed weapons, or wield a 2 handed weapon with a shield
 

Modifié par Moonstryder, 10 janvier 2010 - 10:10 .

[Tylyanhar]

I would rather see more skills, talents, and specializations than more classes.

[Bishoppx]

Shapeshifter needs to not suck.

[Mr_Raider]

I wouldn't mind seeing a Kotor 2 style prestige classes. After level 15 you can branch out in to an "improvement" of your base class or specialization.



Also, the game desperately needs a rogue version of the Arcane warrior, something like the arcane trickster.

[ladydesire]

Mr_Raider wrote...

I wouldn't mind seeing a Kotor 2 style prestige classes. After level 15 you can branch out in to an "improvement" of your base class or specialization.

Also, the game desperately needs a rogue version of the Arcane warrior, something like the arcane trickster.

I believe that the DA-TNG project will provide something to your liking, as they are intent on bringing D&D into Dragon Age; personally, unless it's being done for a D&D based setting using the DA engine (like the NWN2 OC project or the BG2 one) I don't see the point of adding classes that exist in D&D to this game, or changing existing ones to line up with what the community feels they should be based on how they were done in D&D.

[Sloimpreza]

I think the classes are OK as how they relate to what kind of base stat they focus on. Would like to definitely see more specializations and stuff that may have been left out b/c of time constraints or specializations that doesn't seem to have significant enough difference.



unarmed specialization, unarmored specializations

single handed weapon specialization - higher crit, and when I say single weapon does not mean that it has to be wielded with one hand all the time. But this specialization could offer ppl faster attack rate over sword and shield but lose the extra defense bonuses. A fair trade off and middle road to 2h and sword and shield.



Since magic is based on lyrium and technically anyone can use magic if they do enough of the stuff - I would like to see magic based rogues and warriors.

For example, you could have a rogue using magic. Allow stealth and have his talents based on close range magic damage. I think burst damage with stealth would be too overpowered, but maybe offer stuns, status effects like poison, curse (effects of pain for example), some minor dots. You could restrict weapon use to single weapon with only 4 skills in combat or something like that.

How about a warrior based arcane warrior - higher penalties to heavy and massive armor. Able to enchant own weapons (instead of frost, flame, penatration offer straight magic damage and nature damage, stuff that mages can't do right now) or summon weapon. Summon weapon could be it's own skill tree where its active abilities are weapon shapeshifting attacks

- like a sword changing into a battle axe so it can offer a 2h sweep

- turn into twin daggers and can be thrown as projectile weapons

- turn into a gigantic 2h sword and do an overhead strike to hit 3 ppl infront of character

this might be too overpowered so maybe when choosing this specialization, you will actually be penalized for using regular weapons

Obviously the first skill in this specialization would be to activate the sustainable magic weapon.



I know designers want to offer ppl the most options to make their own build but I think the more powerful a specialization can be, the more restrictions you need to apply - for balance issues. So I think there needs to be some stat requirements for some of the specializations.

[SusanStoHelit]

I could live with more classes IF they fitted into the gameworld, but I don't see them as necessary at all. New specialisations would be great. And the idea of greatly expanding the specialisations that we do have is also very good.



If they implemented the ability to take only one specialisation (if one so chose) and then to expand on that, as a kind of 'super specialist' that would give us more de facto specialisations. Someone with two specialisation points in Champion would have access to more talents and would be significantly different from a Champion/Templar or Champion/Berserker, and so forth.

[Moonstryder]

Arcane Blood Warrior.... SOLD

[EverlastingFantasy]

Yes

[wwwwowwww]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

This is DAO, not DnD when will people realise this?

While this is quite true, it doesn't mean that some base ideas cannot be drawn from D&D to add to DAO. I agree that there should be no new classes, the reason for this is sound.

I do however believe you can break up some skills a bit using the D&D system though, best example is this:

Coercion could easily be broken into Intimidate and Diplomacy.

Also talents, I believe backstab could be a talent that you have to put points into in order to increase it's usefulness. (that's just a personal opinion that I'm sure a lot won't share) 

You could easily add a lot more specializations though, and you could just as easily pull inspiration from D&D for those.

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

Oh and to the person whom suggested Pirates, what do you think Isabela is?

Quote from the Wiki

"Isabela is the captain of a pirate ship named The Siren's Call"

So Isabela is a pirate, but her specialization is a Duelist, not Pirate.

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

But my point was that pirates are catered for with that.



Captain Jack Sparrow would be a duelist too

[wwwwowwww]

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

But my point was that pirates are catered for with that.

Captain Jack Sparrow would be a duelist too

I would have to disagree with him being a duelist, more along the lines of a swashbuckler, however in the end I don't think it really matters. I think if someone is looking to add more specializations the you can easily find specific talents unique to a "pirate" or any other specialization your looking at.

Personally I do not believe the Duelist should be a Rogue specialization anyways, that would be more fitting a warrior dex build if you ask me.