68 réponses à ce sujet

[phunx]

Yes, I support this idea.

[Maria Caliban]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Being forced to use a staff as a mage sucks. It's unnecessarily limiting and even worse, forces players to conform to a stereotype.

Like rogues using only bows and 'daggers' while warriors can only use sword and shield or a two-handed weapon?

It's a class based game. Classes are arbitrary and restricting.

[happy_daiz]

I agree to an extent, but only because I generally think staves for mages are kinda silly. A real mage would call forth the powers of destruction through their hands!

I wish classes weren't so weapons restrictive in DA. If my mage feels like using a bow, she should be able to, right? Or maybe I've been spoiled by Skyrim.

And I would support pole arms in general.

Modifié par happy_daiz, 04 septembre 2013 - 01:40 .

[Merkit91]

happy_daiz wrote...

I agree to an extent, but only because I generally think staves for mages are kinda silly. A real mage would call forth the powers of destruction through their hands!

In PAX demo, Vivienne was casting spells with her left hand. Some spells like meteor were casted with both hands.

Not sure why she even carried that staff at all.

[happy_daiz]

^ I haven't seen the video yet; I'll have to check it out.

Modifié par happy_daiz, 04 septembre 2013 - 01:44 .

[Maria Caliban]

You're asking why a woman wearing a mask and horns has a giant staff?

Vivienne = Pimp

[TK514]

Class based game. Classes have arbitrary restrictions.

This is one of them, and you'll get over it.

[RazorrX]

I would love a new form of arcane warrior as a specialization tree. Something that allows the mage to channel power through the polearm (staff, pudao, spear, etc.) in a way that makes it seem like a magic weapon.

You know, like the dragon age 2 trailer showed Hawke fighting the Arishok, first he melee fought THEN he unleashed the magic can of whupass when he was outclassed in melee.

So an elite fight the warrior would be MUCH better at melee than a mage, but a mage could hold their own vs a normal to hard encounter. That way warriors/rogues shine in melee at the top tier, and all are equal in lower tier.

That would make sense from an apostate trying to hide from the chantry, templars, etc. Perhaps call it a Ferelden Apostate (Since the warden could have passed the arcane warrior skill on to the circle).

[Eyerock]

TBH, I'm more miffed that rogues can't wield swords. Mages sticking with staves at least makes sense to me.

[Beerfish]

I'll be frank, and the following is simply the opinion of an old, old school table top player.

I am growing to HATE the 'remove all restrictions!' calls from people in these games.

I hate letting mages wear plate mail.
I hate letting non rogues open locks.
I hate calling for mages to be able to use staves but have them function as a regular weapon.

Want your mage to wear plate? sure, but you cannot cast spells and cannot change outfits in battle.

Want your fighter to open a chest? sure but you have a 80% chance of borking the lock and having it never be openable.

Want your mage to use a halberd or a spear? Sure but you have a huge attack penalty and cannot cast some spells and certain cannot use the staff as a range weapon.

I detest these melding of classes to the point that they have no meaning and you never have to make a meaningful decision when choosing companions.

As I said, just my opinion.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Being forced to use a staff as a mage sucks. It's unnecessarily limiting and even worse, forces players to conform to a stereotype.

Like rogues using only bows and 'daggers' while warriors can only use sword and shield or a two-handed weapon?

It's a class based game. Classes are arbitrary and restricting.

Well......... you didn't have to do that in DAO. Rogues could easily carry a sword and axe. Or Warriors could easily be dual wield or carry bows/crossbow. Hell, one of my playthrough in DAO, I played a mage with spellweaver as my main weapon.

[Paul E Dangerously]

Maria Caliban wrote...
It's a class based game. Classes are arbitrary and restricting.

They don't have to be. D&D lets you pick up weapon proficiencies in various editions, so why not make weapons a general skill, and just give certain classes a bonus to that area?

I'll always point to DA2 Hawke here. He's an apostate mage hiding from the Chantry, who's father and sister were also apostate mages, in a city filled to the brim with Templars. Guess what your only options are due to the class lock on weapons/armor? A staff and robes, of course! Ideally, he could have been wearing even just leather armor and carrying a truncheon instead of a staff, to pass as a mercenary.

[General TSAR]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Here's the thing:

Being forced to use a staff as a mage sucks. It's unnecessarily limiting and even worse, forces players to conform to a stereotype.

Oh noes, a role-playing class is being stereotyped!

Modifié par General TSAR, 04 septembre 2013 - 03:38 .

[Eveangaline]

Maybe if mages don't want to be stereotyped they shouldn't all wear the same stupid hats.

[Ieldra]

Beerfish wrote...

I'll be frank, and the following is simply the opinion of an old, old school table top player.

I am growing to HATE the 'remove all restrictions!' calls from people in these games.

I hate letting mages wear plate mail.
I hate letting non rogues open locks.
I hate calling for mages to be able to use staves but have them function as a regular weapon.

Want your mage to wear plate? sure, but you cannot cast spells and cannot change outfits in battle.

Want your fighter to open a chest? sure but you have a 80% chance of borking the lock and having it never be openable.

Want your mage to use a halberd or a spear? Sure but you have a huge attack penalty and cannot cast some spells and certain cannot use the staff as a range weapon.

I detest these melding of classes to the point that they have no meaning and you never have to make a meaningful decision when choosing companions.

As I said, just my opinion.

I'm been a tabletop rpg player for more than 30 years, and I've preferred skill-based class-less systems with no arbitrary restrictions since I know they exist. This just to show that being a tabletop rpg veteran doesn't predispose you to a certain opinion.

Now for the details: penalties are fine, but they have to make sense. "Mages can't cast spells in heavy armor" is an arbitrary restriction (I don't have anything in particular againsst this one, I'm just using it as an example). The reality is that heavy armor requires strength, and most mages don't bother to develop their physical attributes. Now....if a mage develops his strength in order to wear heavy armor, sacrificing the magical power he'd have gained by putting those points into Magic, I can see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to wear heavy armor. It's not as if it would be hugely useful for him, for he'll never be a tank, but if the player wants a mage in armor and this doesn't become unbalanced, WHY THE HELL NOT?

The same with lockpicking and warriors. Warriors need strength, dexterity and constitution. Now, if a warrior bothers to develop his Cunning so far as to balance the boni a rogue gets by developing the lockpicking skill the warrior doesn't have, why shouldn't a warrior be able to pick locks?

A regular sword isn't a ranged weapon, so of course if a mage uses one, he can't use standard ranged attacks, but I can see no reason why a mage shouldn't be able to cast spells while using a sword. In fact, mages need their hands to cast spells, and it's more plausible to be able to cast spells while holding a one-handed weapon instead of a two-handed one. "Mages can't use swords" is as arbitrary a restriction as they get.

The problem is, classes came to exist to make character creation easy and fast, but if implemented with too many restrictions, they also restrict characters to particular styles, when in roleplaying, that should be the player's choice.

It comes down to this: a character of a certain class needn't be effective in every possible style, but a role-playing game shouldn't force a particular style on any class. Characters should be defined by their abilities, not their equipment.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 05 septembre 2013 - 08:49 .

[Karach_Blade]

^ THIS. I agree with all of it as a fellow tabletop gamer.

I may not have been the biggest fan of DA 2 but one thing I loved was the naginata/halberd staves. I thought it makes perfect sense for mages to know some form of "mundane" combat. Think of it this way: the notion of mages wearing heavy and medium armour or wielding magic swords/axes/bows is the prefect way to blend in when evading Templars. Pretend to be Bob McNoMagicHere and you are halfway there!.

[someguy1231]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

I'll be frank, and the following is simply the opinion of an old, old school table top player.

I am growing to HATE the 'remove all restrictions!' calls from people in these games.

I hate letting mages wear plate mail.
I hate letting non rogues open locks.
I hate calling for mages to be able to use staves but have them function as a regular weapon.

Want your mage to wear plate? sure, but you cannot cast spells and cannot change outfits in battle.

Want your fighter to open a chest? sure but you have a 80% chance of borking the lock and having it never be openable.

Want your mage to use a halberd or a spear? Sure but you have a huge attack penalty and cannot cast some spells and certain cannot use the staff as a range weapon.

I detest these melding of classes to the point that they have no meaning and you never have to make a meaningful decision when choosing companions.

As I said, just my opinion.

I'm a tabletop gamer of 30 years, and I've preferred skill-based class-less systems with no arbitrary restrictions since I know they exist. This just to show that being a tabletop rpg veteran doesn't predispose you to a certain opinion.

Now for the details: penalties are fine, but they have to make sense. "Mages can't cast spells in heavy armor" is an arbitrary restriction (I don't have anything in particular againsst this one, I'm just using it as an example). The reality is that heavy armor requires strength, and most mages don't bother to develop their physical attributes. Now....if a mage develops his strength in order to wear heavy armor, sacrificing the magical power he'd have gained by putting those points into Magic, I can see no reason why he shouldn't be allowed to wear heavy armor. It's not as if it would be hugely useful for him, for he'll never be a tank, but if the player wants a mage in armor and this doesn't become unbalanced, WHY THE HELL NOT?

The same with lockpicking and warriors. Warriors need strength, dexterity and constitution. Now, if a warrior bothers to develop his Cunning so far as to balance the boni a rogue gets by developing the lockpicking skill the warrior doesn't have, why shouldn't a warrior be able to pick locks?

A regular sword isn't a ranged weapon, so of course if a mage uses one, he can't use standard ranged attacks, but I can see no reason why a mage shouldn't be able to cast spells while using a sword. In fact, mages need their hands to cast spells, and it's more plausible to be able to cast spells while holding a one-handed weapon instead of a two-handed one. "Mages can't use swords" is as arbitrary a restriction as they get.

The problem is, classes came to exist to make character creation easy and fast, but if implemented with too many restrictions, they also restrict characters to particular styles, when in roleplaying, that should be the player's choice.

It comes down to this: a character of a certain class needn't be effective in every possible style, but a role-playing game shouldn't force a particular style on any class. Characters should be defined by their abilities, not their equipment.

What's the point of giving a class the capability to do something if it's impossible for them to do it effectively? It's like giving a warrior class a dinky, useless little fireball spell just for kicks.

[FDrage]

I always thought to be effective at something one needs to training (aka put significant resources into it). A warrior (or soldier type) should always be better at melee (physical) weapons then a mage. For a Mage to be able to hold their own (at least somewhat) in a melee fight they would need to diverted resources to that effect, resources that would miss from their chosen specialization (i.e utilizing magical abilities). There is always a trade off. The staff (which could be used as a melee weapon) is just "signifying" that element.

While I personally would like to see the return of said "arcane warrior" or a specialization to that degree it would need to reflect the choice (which DA:O did not) with limits based on the increase melee weapons style practice.

[Ieldra]

someguy1231 wrote...
What's the point of giving a class the capability to do something if it's impossible for them to do it effectively? It's like giving a warrior class a dinky, useless little fireball spell just for kicks.

Players have different preferences, and for me - and others - visual style is as important as effectiveness for a character I'm watching for dozens of hours on my screen, and I happen to hate the stereotypical "robes and staff" style.

Mages are defined by one thing: the ability to cast spells. They are not defined by a specific visual style. That should be the choice of the player. If I want to sacrifice the ability to use standard ranged magical attacks by wielding a sword rather than a staff, looking way cooler (in my opinion) in the process, that should be my choice. If I want to dispense with the silly DAO-style mage hats and wear a floppy wide-brimmed hat like that one, that should be my choice as well.

It's all very well if *default* mages, warriors and rogues adhere to specific visual styles in order to make them more easily recognizeable, especially in promotional material, but it is fundamentally undesirable to force the player to adhere to a specific visual style.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 06 septembre 2013 - 08:02 .

[David7204]

That argument would have held a lot more weight if it wasn't based on "forces us to conform to a stereotype."

That was -50 points for me right there. Maximum grade is now a 50.

[JJDXB]

You may not get a range of weapons as a mage, but you so get a range of damage types: everybody else is stuck to just the one. In other words, you have more variety than regular warriors/rogues, it just isn't as obvious. Also, since they upped the damage staves caused in DA2, using other weapons became, well, unnecessary.

That isn't to I wouldn't like a return of the arcane warrior, I'm not particularly fussed about it.

EDIT: Also, they should be able to hit people with it in melee, but unless it's got something sharp/pointy on the end, I shouldn't expect it to be particularly powerful.

Modifié par JBDXB, 06 septembre 2013 - 08:14 .

[Ieldra]

David7204 wrote...
That argument would have held a lot more weight if it wasn't based on "forces us to conform to a stereotype."

That was -50 points for me right there. Maximum grade is now a 50.

If we have no choice but to wear robes and use staffs as a mage "forcing us to conform to a stereotype" is exactly what happens. Why do you have a problem with putting it that way?

[Ieldra]

JBDXB wrote...
You may not get a range of weapons as a mage, but you so get a range of damage types: everybody else is stuck to just the one. In other words, you have more variety than regular warriors/rogues, it just isn't as obvious. Also, since they upped the damage staves caused in DA2, using other weapons became, well, unnecessary.

That isn't to I wouldn't like a return of the arcane warrior, I'm not particularly fussed about it.

As I said, for me it's more about visual style than effectiveness. I'm fine with a sword-wielding mage being less effective because he loses the spellpower bonus from the staff and the ability to use standard ranged attacks. As long as I can still cast spells, I'm fine.

As for the AW, the two talents "Shimmering Shield" and "Fade Shroud" made them overpowered, but apart from that, I don't see any reason why this specialization shouldn't return.

EDIT: Also, they should be able to hit people with it in melee, but unless it's got something sharp/pointy on the end, I shouldn't expect it to be particularly powerful.

DA2 had staffs that looked like naginatas. I'd be fine if they just worked and like naginatas as well, and were animated as such.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 06 septembre 2013 - 08:29 .

[JJDXB]

Ieldra2 wrote...

JBDXB wrote...
You may not get a range of weapons as a mage, but you so get a range of damage types: everybody else is stuck to just the one. In other words, you have more variety than regular warriors/rogues, it just isn't as obvious. Also, since they upped the damage staves caused in DA2, using other weapons became, well, unnecessary.

That isn't to I wouldn't like a return of the arcane warrior, I'm not particularly fussed about it.

As I said, for me it's more about visual style than effectiveness. I'm fine with a sword-wielding mage being less effective because he loses the spellpower bonus from the staff and the ability to use standard ranged attacks. As long as I can still cast spells, I'm fine.

As for the AW, the two talents "Shimmering Shield" and "Fade Shroud" made them overpowered, but apart from that, I don't see any reason why this specialization shouldn't return.

EDIT: Also, they should be able to hit people with it in melee, but unless it's got something sharp/pointy on the end, I shouldn't expect it to be particularly powerful.

DA2 had staffs that looked like naginatas. I'd be fine if they just worked and like naginatas as well, and were animated as such.

He should also be less effective with swords as well.  I think this is one of those jack-of-all-trades moments. 

I agree with having staves that look like naginatas.