[quote]TheKomandorShepard wrote...
[quote]dragonflight288 wrote...
So weak compared to other universes, but very powerful in the Dragon Age universe.
[/quote]
Mages weak<blood
mages have practically decent powers<abomnations true killing machine.
[/quote]
A jet of flame is pretty decent, and you don't need to be a blood
mage to throw fireballs.[/quote]
I would say that both i say that
mages are weaker than in others worlds like d&d and second that
mages are weak don't misunderstand me because i think that
mage have more potential than non-
mage becoming dangerous warrior because they have extra weapon but most
mages doesn't have combat training in melee weapon and magic isn't so strong at least when you aren't abomnation or blood
mage you are just easy target what can throw ball what only purpose is annoy opponent or fireball what take time to cast and is rather tool for more powerful and talented
mages because none of circle
mages use that when templars attacked them.[/quote]
As I've previously noted, it's rather unfair to bash
mages for losing to Templars. The Templars are specifically given magic themselves in order to nullify that of the
mages. When that happens, the
mages are just guys in robes, whereas despite the sharply limited magic of the Templars, they're still armed and armored. Which brings me to the
mages being untrained in melee: it's also by design, because Bioware realized how stupidly broken that can get. (They left it in to some extent with the Arcane Warrior, but made it cost a lot of mana. Given how everyone knows its broken, you can bet they won't do that again.) Reading between the lines you can absolutely see that the Templars play this up in DA:O; there's a Codex describing a Senior Enchanter who attempts to teach his apprentices how to actually fight, because it's stupid that they can't defend themselves from "weapons any ditch-digger could shove between their ribs." The Templars confiscate all the equipment he needed for the purpose, specifically so that
mages don't get to be broken as crap; they can already give the Templars some trouble when they have a mind to, which in the context of the Templars being given the power to block magic is downright embarrasing.
[quote]
Abomnations rare nope i don't say that after 2 games and products when we see army of them when you can find abomnation on road it is hardly rare besides 1 abomnation is sufficient to create more and cause huge or even disastrous damage . Chantry send only 7
mages to ostagar because they don't trusted them game try convince me like oh 7
mages thats enough.[/quote]
If this happened regularly, the Chantry would advertise it so that more
mages would go to the Circles. As for why abominations don't seem rare, its because the PC needs enemies to fight and darkspawn get boring. If abominations like Connor or Uldred were commonplace,
there would be no world.
[quote]
As i said look on plot dalish and werewolves what was cause magic, tower and abomnations what was case magic , connor what was case magic , anvil what was case magic , blight what was case well probably magic , harvester what was case magic.benefits in plot for having
mages help in problem that
mages created.[/quote]
The Anvil doesn't count. That was the work of someone who had to
earn his magic.
[quote]
their victories (not including abomnations and blood
mages)
emm maybe you will show me and please not old legends.[/quote]
The Codex about the Qunari wars is not legend, it's history. Written by a body that does not sympathize with the
mages politically and in many cases outright hates them. That makes anything they say in praise of the
mages stronger evidence than you claim. Go ahead and argue that we don't know for sure, but unless you've got something really good you're not going to convince
anyone of whatever alternate explanation you've concocted.
[quote]
their failures
Mages in ferelden tower wrecked by abomnations[/quote]
Patently unfair. Uldred is not far from the mark when he says
mages are the larval form of... him. You adknowledge this yourself when you say their victories don't count.
[quote]
Mages in rivain wrecked by templars [/quote]
With far more trouble than you give them credit for. Let's just say there's a reason the Circle was given up as a lost cause and Annulled. Not bad considering that the Templars are literally designed around being a losing battle for them, and vica versa.
[quote]
mages in kirkwall wrecked by templars despite having abomnations and blood
mages
mages in ostagar wrecked [/quote]
If I remember correctly, your orignal point (several pages ago) was that not many
mages were needed. This absolutely does not help that point; it's a better argument for fielding
a lot of them.
[quote]
mages fighting with slavers wrecked[/quote]
Do you have any examples of this besides Olivia and Feynriel? Who I doubt were combat trained? Also, as I've previously mentioned, one of these groups was led by a
mage. For them to wreck
mages helps your case far less than you claim.
[quote]
mages vs leliana wrecked [/quote]
She's a main character. That doesn't really count. Besides, I don't think any of them were wearing armor, or managed to tag her with a spell. My whole point is that they're more
powerful than she is. That means nothing if they don't actually manage to tag her with that power.
[quote]
sketch vs mercenaries wrecked (well not wrecked thanks to hawke but close)
mages in asunder wrecked
mages in dawn of the seeker wrecked
Shale master wrecked by her (but i can delete that example if you want because we don't know details).[/quote]
He was squishy, and also he was granted freedom from the Chantry due to past services. Due to being Chantry trained, he was also not armored or capable of handling close combat. Hence why he
had a golem.
[quote]
Mages underground wrecked
mages vs qunari wrecked in da 2[/quote]
The Qunari have them too. And were wrecking
everyone.[quote]
http://image.gamespo...0_640screen.jpg (wrecked)
[/quote]
If there's anything I didn't answer, but that can be answered by "Templars block magic because they have magic to do so with", feel free to assume I said that.
As for
mage successes, I'd mention Anders against those darkspawn in the video
you showed me, except that he's a main character and therefore a class above them. (Bear in mind that he was not an abomination at this time.) Whatever
mage you choose singlehandedly taking on the demon in the Fade. Danzig surviving long enough as an outlaw to meet Hawke as an apostate slaver (which is illegal twice, for those keeping score at home), however that eventually turned out for him.
And the reason you're excluding blood
mages, I think, is that you are well aware of how untenable your argument would otherwise be, even to the point of
mages being powerful enough to take on Templars (which is otherwise not even slightly fair.)
Edit: Further note on
mages being unable to fight melee. Yeah. It's fairly standard for
mages to be unable to fight melee or very much gimped in that regard. Otherwise they'd be unstoppable. It's not just Dragon Age that does this: D&D restricts melee magic users too.
Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 15 octobre 2013 - 07:48 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
sorry just my evil twin...
