138 réponses à ce sujet

[Karlone123]

Maybe some weapons for mages can be usable for specialisation like Arcane warrior.

[ScarMK]

Why are people so sure Arcane Warrior is going to be in Da:I? Did I miss something.

[Hellion Rex]

ScarMK wrote...

Why are people so sure Arcane Warrior is going to be in Da:I? Did I miss something.

I missed that memo too.

[Abraham_uk]

Dark Korsar wrote...

yes, swords and heavy armors for mages

open chests and doors for everyone

Templars for rogues

Reavers for everyone

I have an idea.

On character creation you first pick class

Then:

Pick 1 Melee Weapon
Pick 1 Ranged Weapon

Pick 1 of 8 Class Specialisations

[Abraham_uk]

ScarMK wrote...

Why are people so sure Arcane Warrior is going to be in Da:I? Did I miss something.

It's not certainty, it's wishful thinking.
I know I fall into that camp.

I'd love to see the Arcane Warrior return.

[senorbluez88]

Hmm. Creating a new class based on lore friendly tevinter battlemages (similar to arcane warrior) and basically having the armor restrict mana usage by imposing fatigue proportionate to the armor type. This I like. Doesn't have to be an "arcane warrior" specialization per se, just one that allows mages to don armor, melee weapons and use spells more suited to close combat. Flame blast, mind blast, cone of cold..etc.

Modifié par senorbluez88, 11 décembre 2013 - 02:31 .

[Nightdragon8]

ScarMK wrote...

Why are people so sure Arcane Warrior is going to be in Da:I? Did I miss something.

considering we are only going to get to use 1 speicalization, they better give us alot of options. and also considering its going to be a "quest" sort of thing, why shouldn't there be an arcane warroir speicalization in the mix? Also if ai reemmber correctly it was hinted that it would return. Not confirmed but hinted.

and no don't ask me where it was, cause that was like 6 months ago or something.

[Abraham_uk]

senorbluez88 wrote...

Hmm. Creating a new class based on lore friendly tevinter battlemages (similar to arcane warrior) and basically having the armor restrict mana usage by imposing fatigue proportionate to the armor type. This I like. Doesn't have to be an "arcane warrior" specialization per se, just one that allows mages to don armor, melee weapons and use spells more suited to close combat. Flame blast, mind blast, cone of cold..etc.

I love this idea.

[DarthLaxian]

DinoSteve wrote...

pfft they should add armour restrictions, not remove weapon restrictions, if you are not strong enough to wear a piece of armour you shouldn't be wearing it.

this is a little well - i will just blurt it out: retarded => what i mean is: i could stick an untrained person into a knight's armor and they would be well protected etc. they would lose some mobility and tire-out more quickly as they are unused to the armor, but everyone (mostly) can wear amor (same for using weapons - some women might not be able to lift a large 2-handed-sword, but that's about it - someone trained in them always wins in the end (training and knowledge trump untrained people all the time), but why not give players the opportunity to play differently like someone said:

wield sword and staff (gandalf anyone?) or ditch the staff alltogether (some people just don't like them - hell i would prever say a wand or an orb or something and a ritual knive in my off hand (for my blood-magic and cutting people who think up close and personal is great fun ^^))

greetings LAX
ps: so yes: I WANT THIS 

[Sylvius the Mad]

philippe willaume wrote...

like Wulfram i don't see the point of having sub-optimal game options.

And I don't see the point of unnecessary restrictions.  If the default attack animations exist, let any character use them.

[Mirrman70]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

philippe willaume wrote...

like Wulfram i don't see the point of having sub-optimal game options.

And I don't see the point of unnecessary restrictions.  If the default attack animations exist, let any character use them.

Then I want to be a warrior that uses a staff and flings fireballs. since the animations exist for both exist. The weapon restrictions aren't there to limit each class, they are there to define them. There is the Warrior, Rogue and Mage. If they were to bring back the arcane warrior I would rather it be a seperate class that can't do as much as a pure mage or pure warrior. Less spellpower and maybe not as heavy armor. by creating a hybrid standalone class they could more easily solve the problem of class balance.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mirrman70 wrote...

Then I want to be a warrior that uses a staff and flings fireballs. since the animations exist for both exist. The weapon restrictions aren't there to limit each class, they are there to define them.

The weapon abilities already do that.  The mage can't learn any sword talents.  The mage can't even be any good with the sword (without the Arcane Warrior, which I am not assuming will exist in DAI).

Furthermore, why do the classes even need to be differentiated in this way?

Look, I don't like the Arcane Warrior.  I don't play an Arcane Warrior.  I'm not asking for the Arcane Warrior to make a return.

I'm asking for the game world to allow a person who is strong enough to hoist a sword to be able to do that, and then swing it around ineffectively.

It doesn't make any sense within the game world that a mage without a staff is necessarily unarmed, or that a warrior can't pick up a bow and shoot things if that's the only weapon available.

If a warrior is escaping from prison, and the only weapon he can find is a dagger, can he pick up that dagger and use it, even ineffectively, in combat?  If the answer is no, I need an explanation within the game world that makes sense.

[Anomaly-]

[quote]philippe willaume wrote...

like Wulfram i don't see the point of having sub-optimal game options.[/quote]

I found being restricted to only optimal options in DA2 very stagnant and unnecessary. If other options are made more viable (within reason), that can only be a good thing. It doesn't even need to be optimal. If a mage runs out of mana or an enemy is immune to magic, what's stopping said mage from pulling out a sword and swinging away? I just see no reason not to allow it.

[quote]
The skills and attribue need to use weapons or Armour could be the result of magic and a specific magic school.
so the mage can still pump point in magic and sword and armour is just a magic school like any other.
[/quote]

Then you really haven't added any options. You are still just dumping points into a single attribute, which is exactly what I hated in DA2. A mage should be required to invest in strength if they want to wear armor, just like any other class. That way, every point they spend in strength is a point they don't spend in magic. The system balances itself.

[quote]The Flying Grey Warden wrote...

So what are the melee stats of these things going to be? Useless? Effective? What? And how are mage characters going to use melee staffs and magic? Or will they not have the option?[/quote]

They would be whatever the stats of the weapon are + relevant attribute(s). I don't really understand the second question.

[quote]
Mages though, they don't seem able to effectively use any other weapon but staffs. [/quote]

Why not? They have arms and a shoulder joint with a rotator cup, do they not? Then surely they can swing a weapon, provided their strength is high enough for that weapon. I found the whole pew pew pew staff thing in DA2 kind of silly.

[quote]
So will mages be retooled to be able to switch between melee and magic? Or jsut be stuck with one or the other while everyone else gets nice stuff?[/quote]

I don't really understand this question, either. What kind of switch would be required? In DA:O, a mage could cast a spell regardless of what weapon they were or were not wielding. I see no reason to change that.

[quote]
All for the idea actually, but I just can't see it being implemented, well, fairly or in a balanced way. [/quote]

It existed in DA:O, and it worked fine. Maybe it could use a little tweaking, but it wouldn't need much.

[quote]Plaintiff wrote...

I don't see the point in letting mages wield swords if you're jut gonna gimp them for doing it.[/quote]

It wouldn't have to gimp them.

[quote]
If you're going to remove weapon restrictions, then everyone should be able to wield any weapon perfectly capably, as long as they put points in the skill.[/quote]

Yes, but now you're describing a classless system. In a class based system, each class is defined by their skill/talent pool and attribute distribution.

[quote]senorbluez88 wrote...

Hmm. Creating a new class based on lore friendly tevinter battlemages (similar to arcane warrior) and basically having the armor restrict mana usage by imposing fatigue proportionate to the armor type. This I like. Doesn't have to be an "arcane warrior" specialization per se, just one that allows mages to don armor, melee weapons and use spells more suited to close combat. Flame blast, mind blast, cone of cold..etc.[/quote]

Everything you just described was already present in DA:O, and it didn't require a new class. It just made better use of the attribute system.

[quote]Mirrman70 wrote...
The weapon restrictions aren't there to limit each class, they are there to define them. [/quote]

Classes should be defined by their playstyle. This means talent/skill pool and attribute distribution. There is no reason why a Rogue can't wield a single sword, or a Warrior can't use a bow, or what have you. For all that DA2 tried to "define" classes more with gear restrictions, all it did was limit options and make everything more homogenous. Rogues were pretty much all the same, and playing a Rogue felt the same as playing a Warrior. It just looked more different.

[quote]
Less spellpower and maybe not as heavy armor. by creating a hybrid standalone class they could more easily solve the problem of class balance.
[/quote]

Or they could just leave it up to the player and how they choose to allocate their attributes. If the attributes were more fleshed out and better balanced between classes, they would do a perfectly good job of balancing gameplay on their own.

Modifié par Anomaly-, 13 décembre 2013 - 09:48 .

[philippe willaume]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

philippe willaume wrote...

like Wulfram i don't see the point of having sub-optimal game options.

And I don't see the point of unnecessary restrictions.  If the default attack animations exist, let any character use them.

This is not mutually exclusive, brother 

Personally i am in favour of plenty of viable options for a given charater in a given play though.
IE in DA:0 you could have the rogue "tank" for a few rounds to block a chocke point and that usable and viable.
So I dont mind, in fact i am all in favor for a mage to do the same.

ideally the difference between classes should not be the physical abilities or what weapons that can use, but the difference should come from the frequency of the attacks, the ammount of stamina lost and how fast  they can move when they use those phylical abilities.

ie for exemple is we take a defensive posture to protect a choke point or a persone.
let say it creates a zone where the enemy can only move at reduce speed and gives a bonus in defense
every class get the same zone
for the warrior the stance should cost the least stamina, attack talents cool down reduced, normal movements
for the rogue, the stance cost  stamina, attack talent  cool down reduce, normal movement
for the mage, the stance cost the most stamina, talent coold down at normal rate, reduced movement.

phil




 

[Sylvius the Mad]

In DAO, your Rogue could be your full-time tank. A dex-tank in DAO was probably the most effective style of tank (the best one was probably a heavily armoured dagger&shield warrior dex-tank). But you could also just avoid tanking altogether.

However, I do the a point to having sub-optimal game options.

If it's not possible to make a sub-optimal character - if every character permitted by the rules of the game world is capable - then what makes my character special?

[Sidney]

Anomaly- wrote...

I found being restricted to only optimal options in DA2 very stagnant and unnecessary. If other options are made more viable (within reason), that can only be a good thing. It doesn't even need to be optimal. If a mage runs out of mana or an enemy is immune to magic, what's stopping said mage from pulling out a sword and swinging away? I just see no reason not to allow it.

Isn't the point that it is about effetiveness. Yes they can pick up a sword and swing it but that is a long, long, long way from being able to use it in any meaningful sense. I mean I can pick up a gun and point and click but shooting someone under combat conditions is a wholly different thing. I guess you can argue that you should still be able to swing the sword even with a 0% chance of hitting something but at that point you might as well argue that the game should let you pick up a rock and throw it at things because that could really hurt soemthing as well or break chairs to create clubs (thanks you Jade Empire).

[Paul E Dangerously]

I was always kinda miffed I couldn't use a longsword and a small shield as a rogue. I know animation's the issue there, but still.

And yes please, mages with non-stick weapons.

[MichaelStuart]

I support removing all weapon restrictions for all classes

[LinksOcarina]

Normally I would say yes, but honestly from a practical standpoint, outside of say making optimized builds for characters like a dex-warrior with a knife,what is the point?

If anything, give more weapon specializations to classes instead of removing restrictions. Instead of two, how about four, and with the way skill trees and specializations works, you can increase diversification if you add more trees in.

[Fast Jimmy]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Normally I would say yes, but honestly from a practical standpoint, outside of say making optimized builds for characters like a dex-warrior with a knife,what is the point?

If anything, give more weapon specializations to classes instead of removing restrictions. Instead of two, how about four, and with the way skill trees and specializations works, you can increase diversification if you add more trees in.

Having skills actually be affected by stats, instead of just completely stand alone moves that are in the Skill Tree, is the solution to this.

Since stats, however, affect nothing but the gear you wear, the HP/mana you have and your ability to hit/crit, it does, in fact, seem pointless.

Which is why more holistic build systems are inherently more slanted towards customizability. Systems where stats drive everything, including combat and non-combat skills as well as equipment limitations, allow for an inherently more diverse amount of builds. 

In the DA system, where your stats do nothing more than increase your damage output or your ability to equip gear, with a few extra points spread out to make your character have more HP or mana, then it seems almost perfunctionary. There will be an uber build. It will be (extremely) sub-optimal to chase much of anything else, including weapon loadout and stats. 

And that is why the "DPS max build" menatliy of power leveling is so flawed. If that mentality can be applied to your system across the board, then your system is, inherently, limited in the number of builds anyone would logically pursue. Which basically leaves RP reasons alone to consider lifting weapon restrictions. Which makes it a hard argument to sell. When, in reality, a more holistic system that provides a more realistic balance between all stats, skills and builds is the real solution for opening the doors of multiple viable builds, for any reason.

[Abraham_uk]

Here are some games where weapon restrictions are not an issue.
Elder Scrolls III Morowind
Elder Scrolls IV Oblivion
Elder Scrolls V Skyrim

These games are not party based games. Yes I know Skyrim has followers, but they stand in doorways blocking progress. Urgh!

Elder Scrolls series has you travelling on your own, doing whatever you want, being whatever you want. Classes don't restrict. They just decide which skills you level up faster in. As for Skyrim, classes are alluded to but ultimately replaced with a perk system.


Dragon Age series is about party interactions. So classes and specialisations are important for story, role playing and character. Each character has their own identity. No character is meant to be good at everything. They are supposed to complement each other.



In short:

Solo games are about one character doing everything. So if a character can't do something it is frustrating.

Party games are about a team doing everything. So if one character can't do something another party member will be able to (as long as you were smart enough to bring a balanced party).

[Abraham_uk]

 I love both Elder Scrolls and Dragon Age series.Let me compare the two most recent protagonists.


Elder Scrolls V Skyrim:

Lock Picking: Dragonborn
Enchantment: Dragonborn
Smithing: Dragonborn
Alchemy: Dragonborn
Wizard Combat: Dragonborn
Rogue Combat: Dragonborn
Warrior Combat: Dragonborn
Killing Dragons: Dragonborn

The Dragonborn does everything well.
Only trouble is, the Dragonborn is a terrible leader.



Dragon Age 2 Rise To Power:

[If Hawke is a warrior]


Lock Picking: Varric, Sebastion or Isabella
Enchantment: Sandal
Smithing: Shop Keepers
Alchemy: Requisition a potion and some guy off screen does it.
Wizard Combat: Bethany, Anders and Merrill
Rogue Combat: Varric, Sebastion or Isabella
Warrior Combat: Hawke, Aveline, Fenris
Killing Dragons: Everybody works together to kill the dragon. Oh and the dragon doesn't fly around in circles so in that sense it's even more satisfying.


Warrior Hawke is an amazing warrior, but an even better tactician.
Because Warrior Hawke relies on allies and team work, Hawke is the superior choice.

Leadership trumps lone wolf.

[Anomaly-]

[quote]Sidney wrote...
Isn't the point that it is about effetiveness. Yes they can pick up a sword and swing it but that is a long, long, long way from being able to use it in any meaningful sense. [/quote]
If they're swinging it, that's better than punching with their fists or whacking with their stick if their magic is ineffective.

[quote]
I guess you can argue that you should still be able to swing the sword even with a 0% chance of hitting something but at that point you might as well argue that the game should let you pick up a rock and throw it at things because that could really hurt soemthing as well or break chairs to create clubs (thanks you Jade Empire).[/quote]
Why would it be a 0% chance? If you meet the strength requirement to wield it, chances are your odds of hitting with it are greater than 0%.

And yes, I would make the argument for rocks and chairs, but those simply aren't in the game, at least at this point. Swords are, however, so I see no reason a mage meeting the strength requirement shouldn't be able to wield one.

[quote]Abraham_uk wrote...
In short:

Solo games are about one character doing everything. So if a character can't do something it is frustrating.[/quote]
I love Skyrim, but that isn't how I play it. I don't like my character to be good at everything. That shouldn't be possible, either, as there is a finite number of perks a single character can allocate.

I think you're missing the point. No one here is arguing that we should be able to do everything in DA:I. Just because a Warrior can equip a sword, or a dagger, or a bow, doesn't mean he/she can do everything. It just allows for more variety and approaches to whatever it is they can do. It's also about logic and consistency in the game's universe.
[/quote]

[quote]Abraham_uk wrote...
Elder Scrolls V Skyrim:

Lock Picking: Dragonborn
Enchantment: Dragonborn
Smithing: Dragonborn
Alchemy: Dragonborn
Wizard Combat: Dragonborn
Rogue Combat: Dragonborn
Warrior Combat: Dragonborn
Killing Dragons: Dragonborn

The Dragonborn does everything well.[/quote]
Not at the same time.

[quote]
Only trouble is, the Dragonborn is a terrible leader.[/quote]
I think that's subjective and irrelevant to this discussion.

[quote]
Warrior Hawke is an amazing warrior, but an even better tactician.
Because Warrior Hawke relies on allies and team work, Hawke is the superior choice.

Leadership trumps lone wolf.
[/quote]

Again, I'm not sure what this has to do with anything.

Modifié par Anomaly-, 14 décembre 2013 - 01:39 .

[Sidney]

Anomaly- wrote...

Sidney wrote...
Isn't the point that it is about effetiveness. Yes they can pick up a sword and swing it but that is a long, long, long way from being able to use it in any meaningful sense.

If they're swinging it, that's better than punching with their fists or whacking with their stick if their magic is ineffective.

I guess you can argue that you should still be able to swing the sword even with a 0% chance of hitting something but at that point you might as well argue that the game should let you pick up a rock and throw it at things because that could really hurt soemthing as well or break chairs to create clubs (thanks you Jade Empire).

Why would it be a 0% chance? If you meet the strength requirement to wield it, chances are your odds of hitting with it are greater than 0%.

And yes, I would make the argument for rocks and chairs, but those simply aren't in the game, at least at this point. Swords are, however, so I see no reason a mage meeting the strength requirement shouldn't be able to wield one.

Not much more than 0%. Fencing is a skill. Just walking over and picking up a sword and thinking you would ever hit a skilled swordsman (and any foe you face is skilled in some fashion)  is laughable really - I've tried in fencing to hit my trainer who was on the Olympic team. I mean, it isn't even close.

Again, not arguing mages shouldn't be able to "train" to use a sword just that the rationale for the restriction is less about not physically pikcing the weapon up than functional use. it would be like saying a mage should be able to pick a lock (not use a knock spell) just try and pick a lock with a 100% failure rate.

Not carrying around a staff seems like it should be a priorty for mages (along with not wearing robes) since they sorta standout and they shouldn't be standing outside the circles.

[Rawgrim]

If a character is strong enough to lift a weapon, he should be able to equip it. Simple as that.