149 réponses à ce sujet

[Tenshi]

Plaintiff wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

According to "lore", warriors shouldn't be able to knock people over by shouting, and non-mages shouldn't be able to summon animals out of thin air, or call down a hail of arrows. But those things still occur.

Are we sure about that?

I've heard devs talk about the rogue's 'teleporting' as being an abstraction of moving fast, but that was because it broke one of the rules of the setting.

The Reaver's Devour lets my non-mage absorb the lingering life essence of corpses on the battlefield to regain health. Why can my Champion's War Cry literally knock people down?

Pretty sure. I know combat is just an an abstract representation of events, but I can't begin to guess what summoning a bear in the Deep Roads is supposed to be an abstract of.

My understanding of Reavers was that drinking dragon blood gave them some measure of powers similar to that of a blood mage. If Bioware has an explanation in the lore for why CHampions have the powers that they have, then I'd love to hear it.

But I don't need an in-lore explanation for any particular game mechanic. I'm perfectly okay with thngs being included for the sake of Rule of Cool.

comparing how champion *breaks the lore* and how pc being blood mage *breaks the lore* is like comparing fireworks to nuclear missile.

[The Baconer]

While I would be very displeased at the loss of the casting-from-hp mechanic, I wouldn't really mind as long as there's still a spec that allows for tank-mage builds.

Of course, if we're basing this off of the lore I don't see how a Reaver would fare much better in the eyes of our peers. The application of power is almost the same, conceptually.

[Lord Gremlin]

You can also remove powerups from Mario, dragons from Skyrim, alchemy from Witcher. You don't do it for a reason.
Improve blood magic instead. Make it a cheat mode that locks you out of half the story, but makes PC ludicrously overpowered.

[AstraDrakkar]

OP it wouldn't bother me, since i prefer fireballs and lightning bolts anyway.

[Thomas Andresen]

thats1evildude wrote...

1) Allowing the PC to use blood magic creates a discrepancy with the setting's established lore. If you have a party member who aligns with the Chantry or at least holds a belief in the Maker, they should at least be hesitant about working with you. They might even be obligated to kill you. And that would hold true for many other NPCs. And yet, in both DAO and DA2, nobody really cares about the PC using blood magic.

I can recognize the logic behind that decision: it would be wrong to give the players a choice and then make it impossible to finish the game because of that choice. But still, it's a problem, and one that people frequently complain about.

It's a problem, yes. And it's an issue that the devs have recognized and will work to improve. What they proposed back when they were still talking about the "hypothetical third game" was that specializations would be a single and irreversible choice, which would make it easier for them to make the narrative recognize it.

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.

That is simply not true. Ever heard of books? Yes, it is completely possible to learn blood magic by reading. Who's to say Hawke never had access to that kind of material?

thats1evildude wrote...

3) 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?

And why should the game let you do everything that's possible according to lore. Tearing the veil open would have the potential to break the narrative (not that that's a good example, given what we know about DA:I). But again, there are many things mages can do, according to lore, not just blood mages, that has the potential to break the narrative, or would be counter-intuitive for the player to be able to do.

Any ability the player are to have must have a purpose within either the narrative or combat game-play, if it doesn't have a purpose in combat, and the narrative doesn't support it, there's no sense in keeping it in the game.

Plaintiff wrote...
... Rule of Cool.

'Tis the most important rule.

AstraDrakkar wrote...

OP it wouldn't bother me, since i prefer fireballs and lightning bolts anyway.

Well, the primary purpose of blood magic is still to empower other schools of magic, so using blood magic shouldn't stop you from unleashing primal and elemental magic.

[cjones91]

To be honest I want Blood Magic to be a very important part of the story.I want to see it being very powerful but it comes at a extreme cost like certain companions will leave if they see you use it.

[thats1evildude]

Some recent threads that touch on topics I raised in the opening post have prompted me to raise this thread from the grave.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 09 septembre 2013 - 08:15 .

[Uccio]

Tootles FTW wrote...

It seems inherently counterintuitive to our role as an Inquisitor to be using condemed magic (what with it's ties to the Chantry)...but perhaps the Inquisition is like the X-Force of Dragon Age and they allow illicit magic and likewise morally dubious tactics to justify their ends?  That would be interesting, especially if your use is acknowledged in-game.

Personally, I bleed enough each month.  I don't need to prolong it by having my mage use blood magic. 

Who says player is going to be pro-templar chantry obedient? My pc will be freedom loving blood mage for with a goal of destroying both the chantry and templars.

[Taleroth]

I think people really don't understand what Blood Magic is. It's two fairly simple things.
1) Use of blood instead of mana/lyrium. Lyrium is expensive and rare. Your own mana is limited. Blood is EVERYWHERE. Get a few thousand slaves, you can cast whatever you want. That's how the Magisters tore the veil. It wasn't something special about blood magic, it's that they were able to harness so much magical power they could unmake reality. Unless they're going to start letting us use variable mana costs to cast spells with more power and cart around slaves, there's no difference from how it's already handled mechanically.
2) Blood manipulation. This is the real part the chantry gets into a tiff about. It can be used to control and influences minds by altering the flow of blood in the brain. There may be parts of the control that blood doesn't account for, but kind of wave that or assume it's jointly working with more common magics. The chantry and people are terrified of having their minds taken over and thoughts forced on them. But there's ways to protect against it, like the Litany of Adralla. And if someone's enough of an authority figure, people tend to give them a pass on just about any crime. Crime is for peasants.

[Eveangaline]

People would complain.

[DarthLaxian]

Eveangaline wrote...

People would complain.

and they would be right to IMHO

as for me, it is bad if NPC-Mages can do things the PC can't (at least in regular combat - if they do ridiculously complicated rituals and stuff that is ok (i would like the option to do some of those, too of course))

and blood-magic is a very important part of the DA-Lore, because the art of blood-magic is important for so many things, from lasting protections/seals (Corypheus's-Prison-Seals), to phylacteries (although i would want those to be gone as they are to easy to abuse IMHO), to the warden-joining etc.

so i want blood-magic to be available (even if i only use it to power my normal spells - in order for templars to have less chance of taking my mage-character out) to the player

as for companions reacting to it:

well, it has been done to death (nothing against them warning the PC about the dangers or counceling him to give it up or something - but not outright leaving or wanting to fight him IMHO)

characters can think for themselves (i mean: Alistair didn't kill you when you went blood-mage on him and he is (or at least was about to become) a templar, same for Anders who constantly riles up Merril for using it....) and so absolutes (meaning: you use blood-magic - so you are evil!) are not something i am fine with (the world is not black and white, and none of the companions are stupid zealots (at least i hope not) who don't have the ability to think for themselves!)

greetings LAX

[Lotion Soronarr]

If you can't do Blood Mage players jsutice by giving them proper contect and represenatation, don't even bother.

Just having a title "blood mage" and a few powers does not a blood mage make.
Ultimatively, making a blood mage work would require TONS of time and resources. And to waste all of those on just one class....no.

[Xilizhra]

Simpler route: have all the companions be sufficiently flexible to accept blood magic.

[The Elder King]

Xilizhra wrote...

Simpler route: have all the companions be sufficiently flexible to accept blood magic.

I'd prefer to have a Reaper arriving in Thedas. 

[Xilizhra]

Er, why?

[The Elder King]

Xilizhra wrote...

Er, why?

Because companions should have different stances, including being completely against blood magic. 
I want the choice of being blood mage having relevance in the game, including the possibility of having some companions being against you. 
While I don't agree with those that say that blood magic can't be used for good, it's still a form of magic that many mages use for evil, and many people fear and are against it. To have all companions be fine with it (expecially companions with a Chantry background) would be illogical, in my opinion.
Plus, there'll be companions with different stance on magic and mages. Some will be pro-templar or pro-Chantry. How could those companions be fine with blood magic?

[Bayonet Hipshot]

When I RP as myself I will not be using Blood Magic, I will go for Shapeshifter (I do not fancy cutting myself up for power..I love myself too much for that )

But if should be there...

Inquisition does not answer to anyone...Not the Chantry or the Qun or the Dalish or the Templars of the Circle..

The Inquisition is there to investigate the threat, find out about it and stop it by any means necessary...so...

[The Elder King]

@The Sin: I agree that the Inquisitor should have the option of using every necessary means to solve the Fade tears; that doesn't mean that the companions should approve all of his/her decisions, expecially those who go against their beliefs.

[Xilizhra]

hhh89 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Er, why?

Because companions should have different stances, including being completely against blood magic. 
I want the choice of being blood mage having relevance in the game, including the possibility of having some companions being against you. 
While I don't agree with those that say that blood magic can't be used for good, it's still a form of magic that many mages use for evil, and many people fear and are against it. To have all companions be fine with it (expecially companions with a Chantry background) would be illogical, in my opinion.
Plus, there'll be companions with different stance on magic and mages. Some will be pro-templar or pro-Chantry. How could those companions be fine with blood magic?

Well, my preferred method would be to have no one be pro-templar and have the pro-Chantry ones be relatively mild. Not having anyone from a Chantry background would help too. But if we're stuck with that... Cassandra seems like the type who can be sufficiently convinced it's for the greater good, and only Cullen might be an actual problem. But given his confusion over allegiances, he might be sufficiently pliable for it to not be a major problem.

[The Elder King]

@Xilizhra: I don't think that Cassandra and Cullen will be easily convinced when you use blood magic. 
And if you think that those might be the only ones that could be against/not keen of blood magic, I think you're probably going to be disappointed. Vivienne or the elven mage (expecially if he's the exiled healer) could be against it; don't forget that Anders was against it due his background. Vivienne could be the same.
Considering what Bioware said about mages and templars, it's likely that the companions will have different stances on magic, blood magic and the war. Some will be against (some of) your beliefs, and I don't think they'll be only Cassandra and Cullen. Keep in mind that the PC will have almost surely the freedom to be anti-mage and anti-blood magic (regardless of the templars' role in the story). There'll be enough companions that agree with this stance.

Modifié par hhh89, 11 septembre 2013 - 01:47 .

[Xilizhra]

And if you think that those might be the only ones that could be against/not keen of blood magic, I think you're probably going to be disappointed. Vivienne or the elven mage (expecially if he's the exiled healer) could be against it; don't forget that Anders was against it due his background. Vivienne could be the same.

They might, but I don't see why it'd be a good idea to make them so. Having two companions in opposition to your specialization of all things is a little much already.

[Taleroth]

hhh89 wrote...

How could those companions be fine with blood magic?

Because having companions abandon group because of your class build is silly. Doubly so when you are singling out one single tree.

Companions should judge the players actions, not their abilities. If the player tries mind controlling the local magistrate, then they can take problem with that.

Modifié par Taleroth, 11 septembre 2013 - 01:54 .

[MisterMonkeyBanana]

The Wardens get away with using blood magic/being apostates I believe, why not the Inquisition? It isn't like the Chantry is in any state to get in a tiff about it. Some companions may disapprove but I imagine they'll be flexible and accept desperate times call for desperate measures/ grudging allegiance (Cassandra Disapproves -30).

[The Elder King]

 @Taleroth: I didn't mean that a companion should leave if he recognized that you're a blood mage. This should happen in every case based on your actions.
That doesn't mean that if there are conversations were a companion recognize that you're a blood mage, he should be happy about it if he doesn't like blood magic (the same should happen in the case you're a templar and there companions against them). Though I honestly doubt that during conversations companions would recognize your spec.

Modifié par hhh89, 11 septembre 2013 - 02:32 .

[Wulfram]

Even a "relatively mild" pro-chantry character should have major issues with blood magic. It's a major taboo that's pretty fundamental to the religion.