2497 réponses à ce sujet

[The Hierophant]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

It seemed like Conner used blood magic on Teagan and the castle guards though?

I would say it was more demonic glamor or enthrallment than blood magic. We've seen them do it before in the circle tower to the templars.

It's possible but i'm still skeptical due to what little we know about the spells they specifically used.

[Hellion Rex]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I was more trying to emphasize the fact that blood magic is more power and can grant a person power quicker.

I get what you are saying. I would certainly agree that using blood magic can grant an easy power boost.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Entropy does not allow direct control. Blood magic does. Entropy is about illusions and exhaustion. Blood Magic mind control is direct influence and/or control of another persons mind.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Silfren wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Silfren wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Conner probably didn't know Blood Magic, but through the demon he did. The second a mage is possessed by a demon, the amge (if he still exists at that point) will have access to blood magic, through the demon inside of him, despite any prior knowledge, or lack thereof.
And what Lotion was arguing, wasn't that Conner was a blood amge, but that all Abominations have the ability to use Blood Magic, despite which mage they possess.

Mages technically have access to blood magic by virtue of their own bloodstream, so I'm unclear what it is you're trying to say here.  That having a demon inside you automatically means that blood magic is being used? 

What is the argument?  That a demon-possessed mage is using blood magic, full stop?  So that's the ONLY kind of magic demons know and use?

If you take some of the codex entries at face value, it would seem a deal with a demon is necessary for blood magic to work, and not just the mere knowledge of its existance. Even if a deal with a demon isn't necessary extensive trainning would probably be needed to learn to control blood magic, just like any other magic. What Conner did, was not some rookie spell. It was mind control of an entire castle. We know that Conner had no prior knowledge of blood magic, so obviously his connection with the demon, allows him to cast blood magic.
And the only argument we were making is that an Abomination, no matter who it is possessing, has access to high level Blood Magic (not the gameplay term). Meaning that if a demon possess a completely worthless rookie mage, it will still have access to powerful blood magic, through itself.
Granted it might only be the higher level demons who gets this. Like Sloth, Desire, Pride and Hate, since it would seem Blood Magic requires a bit more finess than what the average Hunger or Rage Demon has patience for.

Aside from Jowan's assertion that he never had any contact with demons.  Blah blah could be lying blah blah, I've always been certain he was never lying on this point, and that we're meant to take this to mean that demons are by no means necessary for blood magic at all.

However Blood Magic is acquired, we know that it is tied to demons.

Silfren wrote...
As for Connor, again, I think there needs to be some separation between what he did entirely on his own, and what was done with his body through the demon's control.  Either way, I'm not convinced that blood magic is the only means through which mind control is possible.  Seems to me that demons, at least, have this ability without blood.

I admit saying COnner might have beena  bit inaccurate, but it is hard to know what exactly to call that Abomination, if not Conner then what? Anyway my point is, that all Demons have access to Blood Magic no matter which mage host they possess. And so far the amount of control that Conner exercised on the rest of Redcliffe has only been matched by Blood Magic in the past. I'd also say, that if other means of mind control were possible, it would severely diminish the impact of blood magic on the lore. Blood magic would end up just being some "muahaha I am eeeevuul" means of power.

Silfren wrote...
This is veering into a different subject, though, about exactly what kind of magical abilities demons and spirits possess.  I'm not willing to believe that demons alone know and can use blood magic, but spirits somehow are unable or unwilling, especially since the lore seems to be moving in the direction of telling us that the practice of clearly defining spirits and demons as two wholly different species is inaccurate.

The way I see it : Spirits are magic made manifest --> Demons are perversions of Spirits --> So Demons are perversions of magic  --> Demons are Blood Magic made manifest.
Of course that is just the way I see it, I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out very different.

Silfren wrote...
(FYI, your sentences would be a little more easy to read on the first go if you didn't constantly chop them all to hell with random commas).

English isn't my first language, and your comma rules are wierd. So I just sprinkle them liberally and hope some of them sticks.

[dragonflight288]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Entropy does not allow direct control. Blood magic does. Entropy is about illusions and exhaustion. Blood Magic mind control is direct influence and/or control of another persons mind.

I never said it did, but you can mimic the exact same result through the use of illusions and nightmares.

[dragonflight288]

The Hierophant wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

It seemed like Conner used blood magic on Teagan and the castle guards though?

I would say it was more demonic glamor or enthrallment than blood magic. We've seen them do it before in the circle tower to the templars.

It's possible but i'm still skeptical due to what little we know about the spells they specifically used.

It could be a combination of both.

[EmperorSahlertz]

dragonflight288 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Entropy does not allow direct control. Blood magic does. Entropy is about illusions and exhaustion. Blood Magic mind control is direct influence and/or control of another persons mind.

I never said it did, but you can mimic the exact same result through the use of illusions and nightmares.

Not really. Waking Nightmare is the closest thing. And that doesn't really exert any control over the subject. It merely manifest some horrifying illusions inside his mind, and the subject then fights them off. Entropy simply doesn't allow for the same complexity of manipulation that Blood Magic does.

[dragonflight288]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Entropy does not allow direct control. Blood magic does. Entropy is about illusions and exhaustion. Blood Magic mind control is direct influence and/or control of another persons mind.

I never said it did, but you can mimic the exact same result through the use of illusions and nightmares.

Not really. Waking Nightmare is the closest thing. And that doesn't really exert any control over the subject. It merely manifest some horrifying illusions inside his mind, and the subject then fights them off. Entropy simply doesn't allow for the same complexity of manipulation that Blood Magic does.

*shrug* I did say it was simply a theory, and I figured a very skilled entropic mage would be able to mimic the same effects of blood magic through a different method. I mean, spirit magic is often mistaken for blood magic according to the school of spirit description. Spirit Warriors are non-mages that templars rarely make the distinction of them being mages or nonmages, again according to the specialization description.

Heck, in the books there is a non mage pretending to be a healer, charlatan really, and he's killed by an overzealous templar who thought he was a mage because he was pretending to be one.

It's not like there isn't a blurring of the lines about the schools of magic and their effects in the canon.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Silfren wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

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.

he was war veteran *whistle*

I'm staying out of most of this, but I do have to say that your example of Wilhelm is grossly unfair.  He didn't get squished by Shale because he was a weak mage, he got squished by Shale because getting crushed by a giant stone golem is a fatal condition for anyone.

You're not taking context into consideration for ANY of your examples.  In this case, Wilhelm wasn't in battle, he was at home, on his turf, which means above all else, that he was not on his guard for any sort of an attack at all, much less from his own golem!  Nobody is so bad-ass that they are immune from being taken by surprise, and trust me, that's all it takes to kill a person---especially when all you have to do to accomplish that is, well, step on 'im.

On the subject of the qunari, sorry but the Qunari wars are not so far distant in time to qualify as legends, the way that the life of Calenhad is.  We're not going to get anywhere if your method of disputing an example is to say it's too legendary to count...and by responding to examples that dispute your claims with "oh, those don't count because reasons!" doesn't help your case much--most people will regard this as you not wanting to admit the flaws in your argument.

If we want make excuses we can do it without end because you can justify everything and that because he didn't eat breakfast and that because he was tired and that because grilfriend broke with him.

we can take any context but i have many examples but you have only old legeds on your side mages ass is kicked so many time when they don't win practically nothing sorry weak and weak .

if some one takes beat down without end he is just weak but if you want justify that you can do that without end.
associating that alistair is another dragonborn that will probably be more than legend.
 

[Silfren]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Silfren wrote...
(FYI, your sentences would be a little more easy to read on the first go if you didn't constantly chop them all to hell with random commas).

English isn't my first language, and your comma rules are wierd. So I just sprinkle them liberally and hope some of them sticks.

LOL!  Reminds me of the story of a writer who had no use for punctuation and sent in his manuscripts with a printed sheet of punctuation and a note to his editor to apply them as necessary.

[Silfren]

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

Silfren wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

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.

he was war veteran *whistle*

I'm staying out of most of this, but I do have to say that your example of Wilhelm is grossly unfair.  He didn't get squished by Shale because he was a weak mage, he got squished by Shale because getting crushed by a giant stone golem is a fatal condition for anyone.

You're not taking context into consideration for ANY of your examples.  In this case, Wilhelm wasn't in battle, he was at home, on his turf, which means above all else, that he was not on his guard for any sort of an attack at all, much less from his own golem!  Nobody is so bad-ass that they are immune from being taken by surprise, and trust me, that's all it takes to kill a person---especially when all you have to do to accomplish that is, well, step on 'im.

On the subject of the qunari, sorry but the Qunari wars are not so far distant in time to qualify as legends, the way that the life of Calenhad is.  We're not going to get anywhere if your method of disputing an example is to say it's too legendary to count...and by responding to examples that dispute your claims with "oh, those don't count because reasons!" doesn't help your case much--most people will regard this as you not wanting to admit the flaws in your argument.

If we want make excuses we can do it without end because you can justify everything and that because he didn't eat breakfast and that because he was tired and that because grilfriend broke with him.

It's not an excuse.  You cannot say that Wilhelm being killed by his golem is proof that magic is weak, because, again, the most powerful person around can still be subject to being taken by surprise.  Being powerful doesn't equate to being infallible to mistakes or impervious to death.

we can take any context but i have many examples but you have only old legeds on your side mages ass is kicked so many time when they don't win practically nothing sorry weak and weak.

And again, the qunari wars are not legends.  They are relatively recent history.

[The Hierophant]

dragonflight288 wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

It seemed like Conner used blood magic on Teagan and the castle guards though?

I would say it was more demonic glamor or enthrallment than blood magic. We've seen them do it before in the circle tower to the templars.

It's possible but i'm still skeptical due to what little we know about the spells they specifically used.

It could be a combination of both.

I wish someone in the know would grace us with their presence and answer.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 15 octobre 2013 - 08:42 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

Silfren wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

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.

he was war veteran *whistle*

I'm staying out of most of this, but I do have to say that your example of Wilhelm is grossly unfair.  He didn't get squished by Shale because he was a weak mage, he got squished by Shale because getting crushed by a giant stone golem is a fatal condition for anyone.

You're not taking context into consideration for ANY of your examples.  In this case, Wilhelm wasn't in battle, he was at home, on his turf, which means above all else, that he was not on his guard for any sort of an attack at all, much less from his own golem!  Nobody is so bad-ass that they are immune from being taken by surprise, and trust me, that's all it takes to kill a person---especially when all you have to do to accomplish that is, well, step on 'im.

On the subject of the qunari, sorry but the Qunari wars are not so far distant in time to qualify as legends, the way that the life of Calenhad is.  We're not going to get anywhere if your method of disputing an example is to say it's too legendary to count...and by responding to examples that dispute your claims with "oh, those don't count because reasons!" doesn't help your case much--most people will regard this as you not wanting to admit the flaws in your argument.

If we want make excuses we can do it without end because you can justify everything and that because he didn't eat breakfast and that because he was tired and that because grilfriend broke with him.

Those factors also wouldn't help, but no, the argument given is that he was squishy due to still being human. Things might have been different if Shale hadn't been at close range; that's not the ideal fighting condition for a mage. (Or maybe it wouldn't have made much difference; Shale had those magical crystals, and is made of rock.)

we can take any context but i have many examples but you have only old legeds on your side mages ass is kicked so many time when they don't win practically nothing sorry weak and weak .

You have yet to reply to our distinction that it's history, and my note that the people who write history in this setting are at best ambivalent towards magic. It seems you only adknowledge points you think you can argue against.

if some one takes beat down without end he is just weak but if you want justify that you can do that without end.

There's reasons you'd lose a fight other than a weak weapon of choice. Such as being deliberately weakened (which would support your point if you argue its users are weak) and having soldiers specifically trained to deny you the only weapon you rely on. The fact that Templars can deny that weapon using a specizalized version of it does not help your case at all. (The fact that you haven't even tried to reply to this argument yet despite my raising it repeatedly makes you look like a troll.)

associating that alistair is another dragonborn that will probably be more than legend.

Most legends are more than that, if only slightly. The difference is that Calenhad consuming dragon blood proves that element of the qunari version of the legend true.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 15 octobre 2013 - 08:51 .

[TheKomandorShepard]

Silfren wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

Silfren wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

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.

he was war veteran *whistle*

I'm staying out of most of this, but I do have to say that your example of Wilhelm is grossly unfair.  He didn't get squished by Shale because he was a weak mage, he got squished by Shale because getting crushed by a giant stone golem is a fatal condition for anyone.

You're not taking context into consideration for ANY of your examples.  In this case, Wilhelm wasn't in battle, he was at home, on his turf, which means above all else, that he was not on his guard for any sort of an attack at all, much less from his own golem!  Nobody is so bad-ass that they are immune from being taken by surprise, and trust me, that's all it takes to kill a person---especially when all you have to do to accomplish that is, well, step on 'im.

On the subject of the qunari, sorry but the Qunari wars are not so far distant in time to qualify as legends, the way that the life of Calenhad is.  We're not going to get anywhere if your method of disputing an example is to say it's too legendary to count...and by responding to examples that dispute your claims with "oh, those don't count because reasons!" doesn't help your case much--most people will regard this as you not wanting to admit the flaws in your argument.

If we want make excuses we can do it without end because you can justify everything and that because he didn't eat breakfast and that because he was tired and that because grilfriend broke with him.

It's not an excuse.  You cannot say that Wilhelm being killed by his golem is proof that magic is weak, because, again, the most powerful person around can still be subject to being taken by surprise.  Being powerful doesn't equate to being infallible to mistakes or impervious to death.

we can take any context but i have many examples but you have only old legeds on your side mages ass is kicked so many time when they don't win practically nothing sorry weak and weak.

And again, the qunari wars are not legends.  They are relatively recent history.

Hmm yes it was excuse another of many i heard here but as far we seen only mages failures in story you have examples when and where as i said powerful nope they keep loosing if you are great warrior you don't loose every your fight...

as i said thedas have many misrepresented facts to make someone look good or bad.And again what we see to this point only mages failures many of them.

Those factors also wouldn't help, but no, the argument given is that
he was squishy due to still being human. Things might have been
different if Shale hadn't been at close range; that's not the ideal
fighting condition for a mage. (Or maybe it wouldn't have made much
difference; Shale had those magical crystals, and is made of rock.)

As i said you can do excuses in war time you have 10000 more of them if mage fall with the smallest excuse he is useless.

You have yet to reply to our distinction that it's history, and my note that the people who write history in this setting are at best ambivalent towards magic. It seems you only adknowledge points you think you can argue against.

Didn't i answer on that already?

There's reasons you'd lose a fight other than a weak weapon of
choice. Such as being deliberately weakened (which would support your
point if you argue its users are
weak) and having soldiers specifically trained to deny you the only
weapon you rely on. The fact that Templars can deny that weapon using a specizalized version
of it does not help your case at all. (The fact that you haven't even
tried to reply to this argument yet despite my raising it repeatedly
makes you look like a troll.)

If you have 1 win on 100 then you know you suck:) that is in mage case all you have is "history" what don't have
seat in that what we have seen so far.Templars don't turn off mages power they still have it unless they touch you then they suck your mana we have plenty others battles where mages were wrecked and why that makes me look like troll i can write grass is green if you don't answer you are troll.

Most legends are more than
that, if only slightly. The difference is that Calenhad consuming dragon
blood proves that element of the qunari version of the legend true.

And that thedas version is wrong.

[Silfren]

TheKomandorShepard wrote...
Templars don't turn off mages power they still have it unless they touch you then they suck your mana

....That is exactly what Templars do.  The very purpose of their anti-magic abilities is to drain mana and cancel spells.  Kind of hard to believe you've played the game if you would deny this.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

[quote]TheKomandorShepard wrote...

[quote]Silfren wrote...

[quote]TheKomandorShepard wrote...


If we want make excuses we can do it without end because you can justify everything and that because he didn't eat breakfast and that because he was tired and that because grilfriend broke with him.[/quote]

It's not an excuse.  You cannot say that Wilhelm being killed by his golem is proof that magic is weak, because, again, the most powerful person around can still be subject to being taken by surprise.  Being powerful doesn't equate to being infallible to mistakes or impervious to death.

[quote]we can take any context but i have many examples but you have only old legeds on your side mages ass is kicked so many time when they don't win practically nothing sorry weak and weak.[/quote]

And again, the qunari wars are not legends.  They are relatively recent history.
[/quote]

Hmm yes it was excuse another of many i heard here but as far we seen only mages failures in story you have examples when and where as i said powerful nope they keep loosing if you are great warrior you don't loose every your fight...

as i said thedas have many misrepresented facts to make someone look good or bad.And again what we see to this point only mages failures many of them.[/quote]

I'm sorry, you must have missed the part of this thread where I pointed out that the people who write the history books had incentive to do the latter to mages. (Did I say part? I meant several parts.)

[quote]
[quote]
Those factors also wouldn't help, but no, the argument given is that
he was squishy due to still being human. Things might have been
different if Shale hadn't been at close range; that's not the ideal
fighting condition for a mage. (Or maybe it wouldn't have made much
difference; Shale had those magical crystals, and is made of rock.)
[/quote]
As i said you can do excuses in war time you have 10000 more of them if mage fall with the smallest excuse he is useless. [/quote]

Unless that slightest excuse is actually getting hurt. That's the tank's job. In every setting that includes magic at all.

[quote]
[quote]You have yet to reply to our distinction that it's history, and my note that the people who write history in this setting are at best ambivalent towards magic. It seems you only adknowledge points you think you can argue against.
[/quote]
Didn't i answer on that already?[/quote]

As I recall, you less answered the distinction than evaded it.  And I don't think you touched my comment that the people who wrote the history are at best ambivalent towards magic, and thus would be no more flattering towards mages than they deserve. And then gave an argument that it perfectly answers.

[quote]
[quote]There's reasons you'd lose a fight other than a weak weapon of
choice. Such as being deliberately weakened (which would support your
point if you argue its users are
weak) and having soldiers specifically trained to deny you the only
weapon you rely on. The fact that Templars can deny that weapon using a specizalized version
of it does not help your case at all. (The fact that you haven't even
tried to reply to this argument yet despite my raising it repeatedly
makes you look like a troll.)
[/quote]
If you have 1 win on 100 then you know you suck:) that is in mage case all you have is "history" what don't have
seat in that what we have seen so far.Templars don't turn off mages power they still have it unless they touch you then they suck your mana we have plenty others battles where mages were wrecked and why that makes me look like troll i can write grass is green if you don't answer you are troll.[/quote]

Is the issue at hand that mages suck, or that magic is weak? Much of what you have said supports the former, whereas the vast majority of the mages losses had some mitigating factor that makes the power of magic (protip: Fire hurts, and if you can conjure it you are safe from any rational being disputing that you have something going for you) less relevant. Like being squishy enough that you're out cold or dead before using it. (If your counterargument to this one is from DA2, don't post it.)

And this is the first I'm hearing that the Templars actually need to touch you to drain your mana.

Also, grass is green, and when you disregard valid arguments and then give arguments that they answer you really do look like a troll.

[quote]
[quote]Most legends are more than
that, if only slightly. The difference is that Calenhad consuming dragon
blood proves that element of the qunari version of the legend true.
[/quote]
And that thedas version is wrong.

[/quote]

"Incomplete" might be a better term. Calenhad existed and took over the country. They just forget that he did so partially due to having infused himself with magic. (Hey, let's talk about that...)

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 15 octobre 2013 - 09:34 .

[TheKomandorShepard]

Silfren wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...
Templars don't turn off mages power they still have it unless they touch you then they suck your mana

....That is exactly what Templars do.  The very purpose of their anti-magic abilities is to drain mana and cancel spells.  Kind of hard to believe you've played the game if you would deny this.

eeer?
Where Evangeline had do slash mage to drain his mana in dawn of the seeker they can bounce spell but we didn't see in game how that work except gameplay and meredith when she killed mage.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

Silfren wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...
Templars don't turn off mages power they still have it unless they touch you then they suck your mana

....That is exactly what Templars do.  The very purpose of their anti-magic abilities is to drain mana and cancel spells.  Kind of hard to believe you've played the game if you would deny this.

eeer?
Where Evangeline had do slash mage to drain his mana in dawn of the seeker they can bounce spell but we didn't see in game how that work except gameplay and meredith when she killed mage.

Templars have that draining slash in-game, as well as an area dispel and an area damage effect that also drains mana. You're going to argue that the only evidence of those last two is mere gameplay, which is fine, but Alistair explicitly states outside of gameplay that Templars have various abilities that block magic. Presumably including that magic-deflecting thing, which is mentioned in the Codex by a Templar who survived dealing with an abomination.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 15 octobre 2013 - 09:50 .

[TheKomandorShepard]

I'm sorry, you must have missed the part of this thread where I
pointed out that the people who write the history books had incentive to
do the latter to mages. (Did I say part? I meant several parts.)

so we have peoples who write books and you know what they want to do?

Unless that slightest excuse is actually getting hurt. That's the tank's job. In every setting that includes magic at all.

Well in the war you are actually getting hurt but you know thats may be only legends unless this are pillow war.

As I recall, you less answered the distinction than evaded
it.  And I don't think you touched my comment that the people who wrote
the history are at best ambivalent towards magic, and thus would be no
more flattering towards mages than they deserve. And then gave an argument that it perfectly answers.

*sigh*
We have "history" where mages are powerful and winners and we have that what we see mages loosing once after once many times with almost no wins what is better to take as truth that what we seen many times or old stories?

Is the issue at hand that mages suck, or that magic is weak? Much of
what you have said supports the former, whereas the vast majority of
the mages losses had some mitigating factor that makes the power of
magic (protip: Fire hurts, and if you can conjure it you are safe from
any rational being disputing that you have something going for you) less
relevant. Like being squishy enough that you're out cold or dead before
using it. (If your counterargument to this one is from DA2, don't post
it.)

And this is the first I'm hearing that the Templars actually need to touch you to drain your mana.

Also,
grass is green, and when you disregard valid arguments and then give
arguments that they answer you really do look like a troll.

Hmm i don't think that magic is weak in da universe still if we compare to other but well mages suck ,blood mages hmm have much more power then mage becomes powerful and we have abomnations where magic starts become rly powerful so magic in itself is powerful not mages.If you want protect endless mages failures with every excuse that is major factor well you can i will think along with you finding new excuses why deadeye duncan lose every battle.

"Incomplete" might be a better term. Calenhad existed and took over
the country. They just forget that he did so partially due to having
infused himself with magic. (Hey, let's talk about that...)

Wha they have Knight in shining armor and reaver rather different versions.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

Silfren wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...
Templars don't turn off mages power they still have it unless they touch you then they suck your mana

....That is exactly what Templars do.  The very purpose of their anti-magic abilities is to drain mana and cancel spells.  Kind of hard to believe you've played the game if you would deny this.

eeer?
Where Evangeline had do slash mage to drain his mana in dawn of the seeker they can bounce spell but we didn't see in game how that work except gameplay and meredith when she killed mage.

Templars have that draining slash in-game, as well as an area dispel and an area damage effect that also drains mana. You're going to argue that the only evidence of those last two is mere gameplay, which is fine, but Alistair explicitly states outside of gameplay that Templars have various abilities that block magic. Presumably including that magic-deflecting thing, which is mentioned in the Codex by a Templar who survived dealing with an abomination.

block magic like it did dawn of the seeker yeah turn it off nope.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

Silfren wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...
Templars don't turn off mages power they still have it unless they touch you then they suck your mana

....That is exactly what Templars do.  The very purpose of their anti-magic abilities is to drain mana and cancel spells.  Kind of hard to believe you've played the game if you would deny this.

eeer?
Where Evangeline had do slash mage to drain his mana in dawn of the seeker they can bounce spell but we didn't see in game how that work except gameplay and meredith when she killed mage.

Templars have that draining slash in-game, as well as an area dispel and an area damage effect that also drains mana. You're going to argue that the only evidence of those last two is mere gameplay, which is fine, but Alistair explicitly states outside of gameplay that Templars have various abilities that block magic. Presumably including that magic-deflecting thing, which is mentioned in the Codex by a Templar who survived dealing with an abomination.

block magic like it did dawn of the seeker yeah turn it off nope.

Even if you don't aknowledge Templars turning magic off (which is fine, there's no real proof that you couldn't at least make some case for disclaiming) blocking it still put mages at a disadvantage. The mages presumably don't know how to shoot a bow, and blocking an arrow is somewhat difficult even for a mage. Wynne aknowledges in conversation that an arrow is death if it hits in the right place. Even disregarding the Templar army in gameplay, which you see using them, the Templars would have to be incredibly dense not to use bows. Forget mages, that would put them at a disadvantage against any army of note.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

Silfren wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...
Templars don't turn off mages power they still have it unless they touch you then they suck your mana

....That is exactly what Templars do.  The very purpose of their anti-magic abilities is to drain mana and cancel spells.  Kind of hard to believe you've played the game if you would deny this.

eeer?
Where Evangeline had do slash mage to drain his mana in dawn of the seeker they can bounce spell but we didn't see in game how that work except gameplay and meredith when she killed mage.

Templars have that draining slash in-game, as well as an area dispel and an area damage effect that also drains mana. You're going to argue that the only evidence of those last two is mere gameplay, which is fine, but Alistair explicitly states outside of gameplay that Templars have various abilities that block magic. Presumably including that magic-deflecting thing, which is mentioned in the Codex by a Templar who survived dealing with an abomination.

block magic like it did dawn of the seeker yeah turn it off nope.

Even if you don't aknowledge Templars turning magic off (which is fine, there's no real proof that you couldn't at least make some case for disclaiming) blocking it still put mages at a disadvantage. The mages presumably don't know how to shoot a bow, and blocking an arrow is somewhat difficult even for a mage. Wynne aknowledges in conversation that an arrow is death if it hits in the right place. Even disregarding the Templar army in gameplay, which you see using them, the Templars would have to be incredibly dense not to use bows. Forget mages, that would put them at a disadvantage against any army of note.

yep it seems mages disadvantage is pretty much everything templars , seekers , qunari , mercenaries and slavers damn this kryptonite.

[dragonflight288]

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

Silfren wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...
Templars don't turn off mages power they still have it unless they touch you then they suck your mana

....That is exactly what Templars do.  The very purpose of their anti-magic abilities is to drain mana and cancel spells.  Kind of hard to believe you've played the game if you would deny this.

eeer?
Where Evangeline had do slash mage to drain his mana in dawn of the seeker they can bounce spell but we didn't see in game how that work except gameplay and meredith when she killed mage.

Templars have that draining slash in-game, as well as an area dispel and an area damage effect that also drains mana. You're going to argue that the only evidence of those last two is mere gameplay, which is fine, but Alistair explicitly states outside of gameplay that Templars have various abilities that block magic. Presumably including that magic-deflecting thing, which is mentioned in the Codex by a Templar who survived dealing with an abomination.

block magic like it did dawn of the seeker yeah turn it off nope.

Even if you don't aknowledge Templars turning magic off (which is fine, there's no real proof that you couldn't at least make some case for disclaiming) blocking it still put mages at a disadvantage. The mages presumably don't know how to shoot a bow, and blocking an arrow is somewhat difficult even for a mage. Wynne aknowledges in conversation that an arrow is death if it hits in the right place. Even disregarding the Templar army in gameplay, which you see using them, the Templars would have to be incredibly dense not to use bows. Forget mages, that would put them at a disadvantage against any army of note.

yep it seems mages disadvantage is pretty much everything templars , seekers , qunari , mercenaries and slavers damn this kryptonite.

While at the same time, mages are what make up the difference in nearly every victory in Thedas history.

[TheKomandorShepard]

dragonflight288 wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

Silfren wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...
Templars don't turn off mages power they still have it unless they touch you then they suck your mana

....That is exactly what Templars do.  The very purpose of their anti-magic abilities is to drain mana and cancel spells.  Kind of hard to believe you've played the game if you would deny this.

eeer?
Where Evangeline had do slash mage to drain his mana in dawn of the seeker they can bounce spell but we didn't see in game how that work except gameplay and meredith when she killed mage.

Templars have that draining slash in-game, as well as an area dispel and an area damage effect that also drains mana. You're going to argue that the only evidence of those last two is mere gameplay, which is fine, but Alistair explicitly states outside of gameplay that Templars have various abilities that block magic. Presumably including that magic-deflecting thing, which is mentioned in the Codex by a Templar who survived dealing with an abomination.

block magic like it did dawn of the seeker yeah turn it off nope.

Even if you don't aknowledge Templars turning magic off (which is fine, there's no real proof that you couldn't at least make some case for disclaiming) blocking it still put mages at a disadvantage. The mages presumably don't know how to shoot a bow, and blocking an arrow is somewhat difficult even for a mage. Wynne aknowledges in conversation that an arrow is death if it hits in the right place. Even disregarding the Templar army in gameplay, which you see using them, the Templars would have to be incredibly dense not to use bows. Forget mages, that would put them at a disadvantage against any army of note.

yep it seems mages disadvantage is pretty much everything templars , seekers , qunari , mercenaries and slavers damn this kryptonite.

While at the same time, mages are what make up the difference in nearly every victory in Thedas history.

yep "history" is good word because now they wipe the floor their own faces or just start turn into abomnation their only way to win.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

I'm sorry, you must have missed the part of this thread where I
pointed out that the people who write the history books had incentive to
do the latter to mages. (Did I say part? I meant several parts.)

so we have peoples who write books and you know what they want to do?

I know what institution wrote the books, I know what that insititution's biases are. That's reasonably good fuel for inductive logic.

Unless that slightest excuse is actually getting hurt. That's the tank's job. In every setting that includes magic at all.

Well in the war you are actually getting hurt but you know thats may be only legends unless this are pillow war.

You're not supposed to get hurt if you can fight at range and the majority of the infantry are swordsmen. (Having tanks is very much a help with this purpose, but not neccesary if you can off them fast enough. The fact remains, however, that without a meat shield you really are in danger regardless of your weapon.) This is why archers didn't suck too badly in actual warfare (not to be confused with gameplay, where they do in every game, Skryim being a possible exception which I have not played.) Meanwhile, even the nerfed mages of Thedas can do things archers cannot dream of.

As I recall, you less answered the distinction than evaded
it.  And I don't think you touched my comment that the people who wrote
the history are at best ambivalent towards magic, and thus would be no
more flattering towards mages than they deserve. And then gave an argument that it perfectly answers.

*sigh*
We have "history" where mages are powerful and winners and we have that what we see mages loosing once after once many times with almost no wins what is better to take as truth that what we seen many times or old stories?

Both. The two can be reconciled if you note that mages never really seem to be fighting in ideal conditions.

Is the issue at hand that mages suck, or that magic is weak? Much of
what you have said supports the former, whereas the vast majority of
the mages losses had some mitigating factor that makes the power of
magic (protip: Fire hurts, and if you can conjure it you are safe from
any rational being disputing that you have something going for you) less
relevant. Like being squishy enough that you're out cold or dead before
using it. (If your counterargument to this one is from DA2, don't post
it.)

And this is the first I'm hearing that the Templars actually need to touch you to drain your mana.

Also,
grass is green, and when you disregard valid arguments and then give
arguments that they answer you really do look like a troll.

Hmm i don't think that magic is weak in da universe still if we compare to other but well mages suck ,blood mages hmm have much more power then mage becomes powerful and we have abomnations where magic starts become rly powerful so magic in itself is powerful not mages.If you want protect endless mages failures with every excuse that is major factor well you can i will think along with you finding new excuses why deadeye duncan lose every battle.

The only battle of his I know the details for was a loser from the start due to the sheer number of darkspawn. Though Cailan charging out from cover didn't help even slightly, and if there was any hope despite these two factors it got shot to hell when the beacon went off at the wrong time (due to Loghain not accepting Uldred's plan, which doesn't help your case in the main argument.) It must be said that Duncan doesn't look too good in that battle either, so on that we're agreed if apparently for different reasons. Sure, Duncan puts up a good show as an actual fighter, but it was his job as the Warden sitting in on the planning to inform the people making the plan what ending the Blight entails, and the Wardens would not have all been on the front lines had he done so.

Though really, it would not surprise me overmuch if he looks even worse in the books...

As for mages loosing when fighting in any circumstance except as part of a larger army, well, look at it this way; their party balance sucks. The ideal disposition for a mage would be behind an army of swordsmen, beside a wall of archers, and ideally standing right in front of a Templar with the dual purpose of backstab prevention and abomination insurance.

"Incomplete" might be a better term. Calenhad existed and took over
the country. They just forget that he did so partially due to having
infused himself with magic. (Hey, let's talk about that...)

Wha they have Knight in shining armor and reaver rather different versions.

Yes, but except on that matter the two versions agree.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 15 octobre 2013 - 10:45 .