149 réponses à ce sujet

[berelinde]

Magdalena11 wrote...

 I usually give my PCs the blood mage specialty because force mage in DA2 and arcane warrior in DAO don't really do much for me.

Are you serious? That Slow spell... Gravitic Ring?... is one of the most useful spells in DA2! And considering how early you can get Fist of the Maker, it's really quite powerful. But Force Mage is mostly useful for crowd control. If you don't use your mage in that role, I can see why you might not find it as appealing as other specializations.

[DarthLaxian]

i agree with you - i loved those force-mage options...i used the "toss them around" spells often to get enemy-spellcasters down and i slowed things with that ring of course

greetings LAX
ps: Arcane-Warrior is good to have for a healer - a healer that can take some damage is always good (and for mage it was IMHO the best thing to take...next to blood-magic, which was just to weak IMHO)

[Nightdragon8]

Maria Caliban wrote...

thats1evildude wrote...

Should we deny the blood magic specialization to a mage PC?

I'd approve of it if they did.

Herr Uhl wrote...

Removing that option for mages would be about as likely as removing Templar for warriors.

Also something I'd get behind.

they removed Arcane Warrior so why not

[RobRam10]

Nightdragon8 wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

thats1evildude wrote...

Should we deny the blood magic specialization to a mage PC?

I'd approve of it if they did.

Herr Uhl wrote...

Removing that option for mages would be about as likely as removing Templar for warriors.

Also something I'd get behind.

they removed Arcane Warrior so why not

cause *snort* "arc4n3 wurrio is a l05t art".

But seriously deniying Blood Magic is foolish! This spec has been the best for mages so far in the 2 games and I want to feel evil with it!

Modifié par RobRam10, 08 juillet 2013 - 11:41 .

[devSin]

berelinde wrote...

Are you serious? That Slow spell... Gravitic Ring?... is one of the most useful spells in DA2! And considering how early you can get Fist of the Maker, it's really quite powerful.

Force mage was awesome, but it made fights a little stale (or maybe it was just DA2 that did that). Every single fight was gravitic ring followed by that firestorm spell and then just fisting the Maker until everybody was dead (I think its impacts were more likely to gib enemies on death, no?).

I really hope they bring it back, with some real physics. I'm normally opposed to realistic physics simulation (just because the calculations are screwy and it always ends up as a worthless gimmick that gets in the way of gameplay), but I think it would work well to smack people around and put some actual Gs on them.

[DarthLaxian]

"fisting the maker" :D:D

thanks that image made me laugh so hard (i don't think the chantry would aprove of that though   hm...i don't think they will include such an option, but if they did, i would do that just to ****** the Divine off )

greetings LAX

Modifié par DarthLaxian, 09 juillet 2013 - 12:22 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

thats1evildude wrote...

2) Learning blood magic should actually be very difficult. Presuming you don't have access to a teacher, the only way to learn blood magic is through contact with a demon, which is how it was handled in DAO. But that also led to a lot of people basically cheating to get the specialization, just as they did with the reaver specialization.

Actually, I've never seen the logic behind needing a demon or a teacher to learn blood magic. I know lore claims that demons were the ones who taught it to mankind in the first place, but I'm not so sure. There's just too much evidence that mages can panic, cut themselves and spontaneously use their own blood as a source of power, even if they can't automagically use high-tier BM spells. Even Anders can say (in DA2, I think?) that accidentally cutting yourself can make you aware of the power in your blood, and further implies you can experiment with that without the need for a teacher.

Specialisations like Reaver and Templar appear to be much more restrictive in what's needed to unlock them, as the source is beyond themselves. Reavers (apparently) need living dragon/wyvern blood, a rare resource. Templars need a steady supply of lyrium.

Mastering blood magic could be difficult, I'd have no problem with that. But access to it? It'd solve problems, but I don't think it makes sense.

It's difficult to model what a blood mage can actually do within the setting. According to lore, blood mages can view the dreams of others and tear open the Veil. A blood mage PC in DAO or DA2 can't do any of that, mostly because it would be totally game-breaking. And it goes further than that: if we're allowing mage PCs to use blood magic, then why don't we also allow them to tow around several slaves and slit their throats whenever the PC needs a power boost?

What, you nver used your companions or dog for that? Pft.

Seriously though, I'll just point at the 'Mastering Blood Magic' thing again. It's not unreasonable to think that people might need demons to help them with the more advanced things.

"Well, maybe Bioware should do more to accomodate blood mages." Well, maybe. The problem with that is I myself don't really favour the mage class; I'm more of a melee person. So are a lot of people. I'm not really keen on the idea of spending a lot of resources to represent a specialization I'm likely to never use.

I don't favour mage either.

The real solution to this conumdrum? You can only play as a dwarf! No mages! Probably no templars either!

[Patchwork]

I wouldn't mind if it was removed but I never use it so that's easy for me to say.
As a compromise they could move into the general spells section. It stays as a possibility but they don't have to make it OP.

[Medhia Nox]

Well - since I truly feel blood magic is the single worst concept in the DA IP... I'd love to see it go.

But - two games of it has already entrenched it - so a lot of players expect it.

And who am I to deny people their self-mutilation fetish?

[Nightwriter]

I typically advocate gameplay/story unity in all things. I think gameplay and story should complement each other in a way that strengthens the overall experience, and that they shouldn't feel like separate worlds with radically different laws whose borders you're constantly darting back and forth between. When the game feels like one unified world, it's so much more immersive.

So the idea of being a blood mage in gameplay, but rarely in story or dialogue, isn't something I'm generally for. However, I don't find it a terribly appealing specialization so it's not like it's an immersion breaker that greatly plagues me.

[Hellion Rex]

Medhia Nox wrote...

Well - since I truly feel blood magic is the single worst concept in the DA IP... I'd love to see it go.

But - two games of it has already entrenched it - so a lot of players expect it.

And who am I to deny people their self-mutilation fetish?

Who says it has to be only self-mutilation?

[Twisted Path]

A long time ago on some panel weren't the developers hinting that they wanted to have special quests for specializations? If they do actually do that and the stories and reasoning in those quests is interesting then the PC becoming a bloodmage, templar or reaver might not clash with the rest of the game at all, in story or gameplay.

It never felt awkward with me for Hawke to become a bloodmage since Hawke was just some rudderless mercenary roaming around who could be very evil or just into forbidden lore. It actually seemed weirder to suddenly make your warrior Hawke a templar at level 6 or whenever it was, which supposedly takes super-special training that you're never shown getting.

[Medhia Nox]

@eluvianix: Well - you're the first honest blood mage I've met!

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 09 juillet 2013 - 02:51 .

[Hellion Rex]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@eluvianix: Well - you're the first honest blood mage I've met!

Thanks for the compliment...I think. 

[dragonflight288]

I personally would like to see, since it's been confirmed that we have to quest to get a specialization, that blood magic for a mage has more impact. Say you want to do a ritual similar to what saves Connor, but because of the Orlesian civil war and the Chantry falling to pieces with the mages declaring independence and the templars seceding, we need to have enough lyrium potions, the higher quality of lyrium potions, the less we need, in order to do the ritual OR we can use blood magic and save our lyrium potions, and have our companions and the world at large react to our use or misuse of blood magic itself.

[Magdalena11]

DarthLaxian wrote...

"fisting the maker" :D:D

thanks that image made me laugh so hard (i don't think the chantry would aprove of that though   hm...i don't think they will include such an option, but if they did, i would do that just to ****** the Divine off )

greetings LAX

Thanks for saying it so succinctly.  Nice to know someone else gets it.  I'll try doing a force mage in one of my playthroughs and maybe even try again to get some use out of the arcane warrior tree.

[Maria Caliban]

Give all mages the ability to sacrifice some of their HP for mana.

There, you have blood magic without a quest or specialization and it makes far more sense than needed to speak to a demon for a power that we're told any mage can feel within themselves.

[Sable Rhapsody]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
Actually, I've never seen the logic behind needing a demon or a teacher to learn blood magic. I know lore claims that demons were the ones who taught it to mankind in the first place, but I'm not so sure. There's just too much evidence that mages can panic, cut themselves and spontaneously use their own blood as a source of power, even if they can't automagically use high-tier BM spells. Even Anders can say (in DA2, I think?) that accidentally cutting yourself can make you aware of the power in your blood, and further implies you can experiment with that without the need for a teacher.

The lore is rather inconsistent on the need for a demon to master blood magic.  But in most instances where we see mages use blood magic without any guidance, it's disastrous--not the kind of thing you'd want for a PC specialization. Only PCs, companions, and major NPCs like Flemeth seem able to use blood magic without it immediately going horribly awry, and most of them were taught by someone if not a demon.

Nightwriter wrote...
So the idea of being a blood mage in gameplay, but rarely in story or dialogue, isn't something I'm generally for. However, I don't find it a terribly appealing specialization so it's not like it's an immersion breaker that greatly plagues me.

I've enjoyed blood mages in both DA:O and DA2, but it's always jarring when no one seems to bat an eyelash at it.  I've had my fun at this point; if it's going to be in the game, I'd rather it come up in the story.  Otherwise, not at all.

[nightscrawl]

thats1evildude wrote...

This basically boils down to three arguments:

1) Allowing the PC to use blood magic creates a discrepancy with the setting's established lore.

2) Learning blood magic should actually be very difficult.

3) It's difficult to model what a blood mage can actually do within the setting.

1 - I don't think it does, but it all depends on how it's handled and written. Even within DA2, disregarding blood magic specifically, there was supposed to be more content available to a mage Hawke, but it got cut. They are supposedly working on ways to better handle class specializations, and to make the choice more significant, which is one reason they are moving to a single spec. I think as long as they can establish the appropriate level of reactivity from the world having the spec should be just fine.

2 - I agree about the "cheating" aspect. This was especially bad in DA2 where you only got a point at levels 7 and 14. At least in DAO there were some quests or dialog to unlocking a given spec. Buying a book has got to go though. While I think that it's possible to study the techniques and/or concepts of a given spec from a book, the idea is rather lame and uneventful.

3 - This is the largest problem, in my view, considerably more than issues 1 or 2. As you say, some blood magic abilities can be game breaking, and finding a solution to those things seems contrived -- as a way to get around the problem -- or involves hand waiving. Neither of which are fun, or allow the blood magic spec to live up to its fear-inspiring potential in the games.

I want to stress that I'm not arguing blood magic can't be used at all by the PC as a plot point, like when you have Jowan send either the PC or a party member into the Fade using blood magic, or when you have Gaspard use blood magic to find Leandra. That's fine.

I do really like opportunities like this. Multiple ways to do a quest are always a bonus, in addition to the RP value that the decision adds. I would have liked a bit more reactivity from Anders, Fenris, or Sebastian on asking Gaspard to track the blood. It didn't have to give rivalry points or anything, but an errant comment from them such as, "But Hawke... *sigh* never mind," because they would know that arguing over this would be fruitless. Having them say nothing at all was disappointing.

"Well, maybe Bioware should do more to accomodate blood mages." Well, maybe. The problem with that is I myself don't really favour the mage class; I'm more of a melee person. So are a lot of people. I'm not really keen on the idea of spending a lot of resources to represent a specialization I'm likely to never use.

Although mage (NOT blood spec) is my preferred class, I agree with this. Unfortunately the lore is designed around the mage class being a special snowflake and provides more significant story opportunities than for warrior or rogue. Aside from the fantasy setting, I don't think they should have allowed the mage class to be in the game in the first place if this is the level of significance they were going to place on it in the lore. They could very well have designed both games around our PC being a non-mage, and then determining our views on the issue as we went on missions and met the various NPCs.

But it's done now, and I doubt that other than some huge world-altering event that eliminates mages, or makes everyone have some magical abilities (perhaps like witchers), that it will happen.

I think they need to do things to make the other two melee classes feel more valuable as a story commodity, alongside their mage counterpart.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 09 juillet 2013 - 01:29 .

[berelinde]

nightscrawl wrote...

I think they need to do things to make the other two melee classes feel more valuable as a story commodity, alongside their mage counterpart.

You don't think the templar specialization has value as a story commodity?

DA2 introduced Templar Hunters, rogues with templar abilities, as a non-playable specialization. That might also fill the need for more parity.

[nightscrawl]

berelinde wrote...

You don't think the templar specialization has value as a story commodity?

DA2 introduced Templar Hunters, rogues with templar abilities, as a non-playable specialization. That might also fill the need for more parity.

But that still revolves around the whole mage thing though. So even if you can play a mage counter class, it still puts mages in a better position as far as the story goes because you wouldn't need the mage counter class without the mages.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 09 juillet 2013 - 08:40 .

[berelinde]

nightscrawl wrote...

berelinde wrote...

You don't think the templar specialization has value as a story commodity?

DA2 introduced Templar Hunters, rogues with templar abilities, as a non-playable specialization. That might also fill the need for more parity.

But that still revolves around the whole mage thing though. So even if you can play a mage counter class, it still puts mages in a better position as far as the story goes because you wouldn't need the mage counter class without the mages.

So... jack up the DA logo and drive a new game universe underneath?

Dragon Age is all about magic, on one level or another. Darkspawn, international politics, religion, everything involves magic, although sometimes only tangentially. Removing magic, and therefore mages, from the game would kinda make the game something else, like Mount and Blade, but with better graphics.

It would be possible to make mage an unplayable class, but that would kinda suck the fun out of the game for a lot of people.

[nightscrawl]

berelinde wrote...

So... jack up the DA logo and drive a new game universe underneath?

Dragon Age is all about magic, on one level or another. Darkspawn, international politics, religion, everything involves magic, although sometimes only tangentially. Removing magic, and therefore mages, from the game would kinda make the game something else, like Mount and Blade, but with better graphics.

It would be possible to make mage an unplayable class, but that would kinda suck the fun out of the game for a lot of people.

I never once argued that the solution is to remove the mage class. As I said, my preferred class IS MAGE. I specifically said that "it's done now," mages are a part of the game, so we need to move on and find another solution. My other statement regarding some event that either eliminates mages or gives everyone magic is nothing less than what has been suggested on these very forums regarding Sandal's prophecy, especially as a solution to the DAI mage/templar conflict.

I certainly think that the DA writers are fully capable of finding ways to make the warrior and rogue players feel just as valued as the mage players, which is what my original statement was about.

Because the mages class is so entwined with the lore, and since DA2 specifically with world changing events, it does give the warrior and rogue a back seat. Players like thats1evildude (the OP), as well as many others don't WANT to make a mage, or even a templar. They want to make the kind of standard melee class that we are all familiar with: a person who hits things with a weapon. And IMO those players deserve to have their chosen class have just as much importance as the mage.

[berelinde]

nightscrawl wrote...

I never once argued that the solution is to remove the mage class. As I said, my preferred class IS MAGE. I specifically said that "it's done now," mages are a part of the game, so we need to move on and find another solution. My other statement regarding some event that either eliminates mages or gives everyone magic is nothing less than what has been suggested on these very forums regarding Sandal's prophecy, especially as a solution to the DAI mage/templar conflict.

My reading skills may not be as good as they could be, but any event that eliminates magic is going to remove the mage class, so yeah, it does sound as if you are advocating its removal, even if that isn't what you intend. An event that gives it to everyone would render it meaningless. That would remove the conflict - if everyone can do it, there's no point hating mages anymore - but there might not be any incentive to play them anymore, either. If the only way that mages differ from warriors or rogues is that they are completely incapable of using martial weapons, stealth, or disarming traps, what's the point? Allowing non-mages minor spell-like abilities is fine, but if you're going to go that route, it would only be fair to offer mages minor access to warrior and rogue talents, too. I'm not sure this would be the best solution, but it could be a solution, of a sort.

I certainly think that the DA writers are fully capable of finding ways to make the warrior and rogue players feel just as valued as the mage players, which is what my original statement was about.

I'm not arguing against this. It should be fun to play different classes. I am curious about what would make them feel just as valued. More elite societies that only warriors or rogues (different ones for each) could join? More prominent NPCs who identify as specifically rogues or warriors? More problems that have purely physical solutions? Not necessarily combat, puzzles or trap-based plot solutions, too.

I'm not crazy about the idea of nuking one class to the ground to make another class feel more powerful, but so far, they've been avoiding that well enough. They made good progress with rogues in DA2, although it does seem like warriors are now falling behind.

Because the mages class is so entwined with the lore, and since DA2 specifically with world changing events, it does give the warrior and rogue a back seat. Players like thats1evildude (the OP), as well as many others don't WANT to make a mage, or even a templar. They want to make the kind of standard melee class that we are all familiar with: a person who hits things with a weapon. And IMO those players deserve to have their chosen class have just as much importance as the mage.

The big problem I have is that it's hard to find ways to define and exalt non-mage classes in a way that doesn't reference magic when they're put forth as classes that don't have magic. How do you define something without referencing the thing they're presented in opposition against? They kind of get lumped together, and I think that creating more separation between them - more unique warrior roles or more unique rogue roles - would do more for making those classes feel important to the world than reducing their individuality further by giving them magic. 

What kind of world changing events would make warriors and rogues feel more unique and important? I'm not being dismissive. I agree that every class should be fun to play and feel relevant. I just don't think diluting the uniqueness of all classes is going to help.

Most of my characters in the past have been mages and it is my favorite class, but lately, I've been branching out. Of the games I have currently underway, 60% are rogues, 30% are mages, and 10% are warriors. The reason for the lack of warriors is not their lack of relevance. I began playing RPGs with tabletop DnD, and my characters were always clerics, wizards, or sorcerers. I just don't enjoy playing non-casters as much and never have.

What makes a warrior fun to play? What makes a rogue fun to play? What would make each more fun?

[Mornmagor]

Why not?

Because blood magic is "iconic", since Bioware made it so, means i'm stuck with one out of three specs beeing a blood mage? And the other being a spirit healer?

So what is left is one specialization for me?

They focus too much on this templar vs mage thing, mages turning to blood magic all the time as a result, and it is tiring.

On DA2 we had the same Blood mage, same spirit healer, and the force mage, which as far as concept goes, is far behind a shapeshifter or an arcane warrior. The Druid-like mage, and the "Gish", are much more iconic for fantasy lovers than force mage.

So, all in all, if they remove blood mage, tough luck, deal with it, like we did when they removed Arcane Warrior and Shapeshifter. I would not mind, but they're not going to do it. They chained themselves with this spec, so rest assured, you'll play your Blood Mage.

P.S. Ditch the Spirit Healer and bring a Cleric-like, healer in plate.

Modifié par Kuroi Kishin, 09 juillet 2013 - 12:48 .