106 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

In DA2 I'd count healing as actually well balanced. Nice to have, but you can do without it.

Modifié par Wulfram, 05 mars 2013 - 02:59 .

[brushyourteeth]

This reminds me of when I was a kid and mom told me using this would keep the monsters away.

http://t3.gstatic.co...LAMcgiT1VOl-Fxa

[Medhia Nox]

@brushyourteeth: Good one - trying to fool me that it doesn't. It's kept the monsters away for decades... you can't fool me...

[Xaero-Avenger]

The whole, "Healing harms undead" thing shows up in a lot of things, in Dungeons and Dragons (I think the original example, though not sure) it was due to healing being positive energy and undead being powered by negative energy, but it worked the other way as well (Harm spells healed undead) so if you want the heal damage in trade for harm heal I'd agree, gotta trade something for it.

Plus why are all undead considered evil all the time, pretty sure that's...Pulseist.

Modifié par Xaero-Avenger, 05 mars 2013 - 03:19 .

[gonzalez.melissa53]

If we are only allowed one specialization I agree with OP. Mages that are going to focus mainly on the healing tree will need some sort of defense spells early on. It will depend on how things are going to be set up in-game however. We still don't have too much, if any information in this regard.

[AngryFrozenWater]

If healing should damage the undead then damaging the undead should make them stronger.

*tries to see if Hawke can harm a skeleton by kissing it*

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 05 mars 2013 - 03:38 .

[Bfler]

Hm, if you can combine the heal spell with the fade burst talent of the spirit warrior in Awakening it should give you the desired spell. Heals living creatures and damages creatures of the fade.

Modifié par Bfler, 05 mars 2013 - 04:32 .

[Zkyire]

Hanz54321 wrote...

This is some dungeons and dragons anti-logic. It has never made sense. I cast a spell that heals and repairs tissue, but somehow it damages undead tissue?

Nonsense. I vehemently do not want to see this again in any sword and sorcery type games.

Kill it with fire. THAT makes sensse.

The Undead are usually revived by Necromancy, so the "healing" is countering that, as opposed to the tissue itself.

[Herr Uhl]

Filament wrote...

I would say Dispel Magic and Glyph of Neutralization and the like would be more lore appropriate unconventional anti-undead weapons. It would also provide some much needed extra utility for Dispel. (perhaps an upgrade, "exorcise")

This would be neat.

[Realmzmaster]

Undead are possessed corpses in DA. Dispel Magic or Glyph of Neutralization assumes that magic was used in the possession.

[LinksOcarina]

Ok...

Why?

[Herr Uhl]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Undead are possessed corpses in DA. Dispel Magic or Glyph of Neutralization assumes that magic was used in the possession.

I'd argue that possession itself involves magic.

[Chiramu]

Although I do like facing an undead boss in FF and using a Pheonix Down on him I don't think it will look that great with Dragon Age. I think just because Final Fantasy is Final Fantasy and Dragon Age is Dragon Age. They are two completely different types of games. Also healing in Dragon Age isn't a "Holy" spell, so it wouldn't really work on undead units in Dragon age, I think the only reason it worked in FF is because it's a type of Holy spell. So it's like a Smite, but we already have Templars for all that .

[-TC1989-]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Yeah why would I waste a heal spell on undead when I can just hurl a fireball at them or heal my allies?

Yep, too much at a mages disposal to concentrate on healing being an offensive attack spell. Besides isn't their an entire mage tree dedicated to spirits/undead/demons?

[Darth Death]

Makes sense. Healing spells promote life & when cast upon the undead damage is dealt.

[PsychoBlonde]

Orian Tabris wrote...

MisanthropePrime wrote...

sunnydxmen wrote...

 In final fantasy games healing undead enemies harms them ,skyrim dawnguard dlcdlc adds spells to healing where you can harm the undead with them ,i think spirit healer needs to be like that they should be also to damage demons who are spirits.

Since when did Bioware make final fantasy games? I mean their female characters are whiny but at least they're not incompetant.

This coming from the guy who spelt 'incompetent' wrong?


I heartily approve of this idea. I'd also like to be able to heal allies who aren't technically in the party. I think you could in Origins, but for some reason you can't in DA2.

You could in Origins if you used the direct single-heal on them.  Not with group heal.  In DA2 there was no point in healing allies who weren't in the party because they were unkillable.

As for healing damaging the undead--there's no reason why it should, and in the context of DA2's setup this would be laughable because your damaging spells did FAR more damage than any amount of healing you could kick out, since, you know, enemies had 10-50 times more health than you did.  That, and there weren't that many "undead", anyway.  But, hey, if you REALLY want to waste a cooldown on Heal to do 175 damage when you could throw a fireball and do over a thousand, go for it.

[Huge_Beaver]

Immediately thought of Warcraft 3, awsome game but as most other said i don't think that sort of magic would fit in Dragon Age.

[TheBlackBaron]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

D&D logic was that healing magic stemmed from positive energy, and the undead were powered by negative energy. Thus positive energy spells, like Heal, would be damaging to the undead, while negative energy spells would renew them.

I don't see it making sense in Dragon Age however.

This.

There's no basis for it in Dragon Age, which doesn't have some of the many pecularities and conventions D&D has built up over the decades - not to mention that it is trying, almost obstinately so in some cases, to not be D&D. Let it do its own thing.

[ObserverStatus]

Healing shouldn't do anything to undead. Healing is essentially cellular growth, and dead cells cannot grow or divide.