74 réponses à ce sujet

[Laughing_Man]

What's so hard to understand?
Many people, me included, think that the "accepted" notion that magic class should be expressed only by the fragile staff waving glass cannons - is an artificial restriction that makes little sense.

Go look Adept class from Shadowrun, multiple classes from D&D, Jedi & Sith, and many many others. The combination between resonable martial ability to magical prowess, creates a character that is both thematically cool, and is someone you can easily connect to the image of a hero the game creates.

[Grieving Natashina]

TheRedVipress wrote...

What's so hard to understand?
Many people, me included, think that the "accepted" notion that magic class should be expressed only by the fragile staff waving glass cannons - is an artificial restriction that makes little sense.

Go look Adept class from Shadowrun, multiple classes from D&D, Jedi & Sith, and many many others. The combination between resonable martial ability to magical prowess, creates a character that is both thematically cool, and is someone you can easily connect to the image of a hero the game creates.

^  We have a winner!

[rasloveszev]

AutumnWitch wrote...

DRTJR wrote...


It would be nice if mages could have other options.

Why? If you want to use weapons why not be a warrior of rogue? I don't get the desire to have both.

Because it was already established in DAO, why take the arcane warrior out now? 

[rasloveszev]

AutumnWitch wrote...

I think I am the ONLY person who plays DA that doesn't want the arcane warrior ability. Why? I'm perfectly happy to play a Mage who uses magic. If I wanted to use weapons I'd be another class. (yea yea I know I am an old stick in the mud).

Why do you want to restrict other people's choices just because you wouldn't pick it? 

[Nuloen]

i want to use "BOOM,ENCHATMENT" instead of staves

[King Cousland]

I don't really care to use blades or bows as a mage, but I would like the option to cast with my hands instead of a staff. It felt a little jarring in DA II that there was always an unequippable weapon.

[Fetunche]

If Gandalf can fight with a sword in one hand and a staff in the other I don't see why the inquisitor can't.

[Swoopdogg]

I want a mage that duel wields swords and can also cast spells, but something tells me that may not happen.

If I can just get mage+sword, I'll be happy enough. Think medieval Jedi.

[Swoopdogg]

Fetunche wrote...

If Gandalf can fight with a sword in one hand and a staff in the other I don't see why the inquisitor can't.

Oh that would be glorious 

[Spectre slayer]

Starsyn wrote...

TheRedVipress wrote...

What's so hard to understand?
Many people, me included, think that the "accepted" notion that magic class should be expressed only by the fragile staff waving glass cannons - is an artificial restriction that makes little sense.

Go look Adept class from Shadowrun, multiple classes from D&D, Jedi & Sith, and many many others. The combination between resonable martial ability to magical prowess, creates a character that is both thematically cool, and is someone you can easily connect to the image of a hero the game creates.

^  We have a winner!

I agree with you, and in other games like oblivion and skyrim, Dragons dogma,  I created a number of powerful mage and battle mages that weren't fragile and very powerful. If there was a decent melee mage specialization I would use it, didn't really use the arcane warrior build in DAO.

I really didn't need to since depending on your build your mage can have high defense and when equipped with certain robes, helmet, belt, they can hold up fairly well without having a lot constitution.

 Because it was already established in DAO, why take the arcane warrior out now?

It's not just arcane warrior one the chopping block, all of the old one's are probably gone from DAI as for why this might help.

If all the combat systems were exactly the same (and the VFX were the same), tanslating a spec from one game to the next would be quite simple. That's not the case, and thus every spec in DAI must be built anew from the ground up.
Meaning one should not assume any specialization from previous games is necessarily going to appear in DAI, no matter how much of a given you might think it is. I'm sure Mike (or someone) will talk about them at some point in the future.

You can assume that if you like, but you'll probably end up disappointed.

 

social.bioware.com/%20http:/social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/371/index/17609981

Again the devs said there might a melee mage specialization and that it's something they would like to do during the crafting and customization one but weren't sure if they were doing it or not or they couldn't talk about it yet.


Assume that none of them will be back due to them having to rebuild the combat system from the ground up in DAI.

Modifié par Spectre slayer, 19 janvier 2014 - 11:40 .

[Mirrman70]

I don't think that mages should get an arcane warrior spec. if there is a magic and sword wielding combination it should be a seperate class (Vanguard from Mass Effect) that has a balance between the two classes. perhaps only having close range spells with less damage as well as wielding medium armor and a one hander.

[Paul E Dangerously]

No armor and weapon restrictions for any class, please.

[Mirrman70]

restrictions make for balanced gameplay, Dragon Age will forever be first and foremost a game and in a game with classes there must be balance so that none out-play the other.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Nope.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 20 janvier 2014 - 12:50 .

[Hellion Rex]

Sopa de Gato wrote...

No armor and weapon restrictions for any class, please.

I do believe they said that Mages can wear armor in the game, but I think there still might be some class restriced outfits.

[AresKeith]

Fetunche wrote...

If Gandalf can fight with a sword in one hand and a staff in the other I don't see why the inquisitor can't.

Gandalf >>>>>> than any DA mage

[Hrungr]

Sopa de Gato wrote...

No armor and weapon restrictions for any class, please.

Well, we do know there aren't going to be any armor restrictions, for any class, but there will be weapon restrictions.

Now, maybe those weapon restrictions will include, say... one-handed weapons. In which case you wouldn't really need an Arcane Warrior specialization.

[KiwiQuiche]

What's with all the irrelevant crap about Miley Cyrus in your OP? :\\


On whatever topic you barely mentioned, at least in DA2 your mages started physically striking someone melee attacking them.

[Mr.House]

Fetunche wrote...

If Gandalf can fight with a sword in one hand and a staff in the other I don't see why the inquisitor can't.

You really compairing a mighty Maia to petty mortals of DA?

[Texhnolyze101]

AutumnWitch wrote...

DRTJR wrote...


It would be nice if mages could have other options.

Why? If you want to use weapons why not be a warrior of rogue? I don't get the desire to have both.

Because those classes are boring and contrary to popular belief mages body's are no different from anyone else's so being able to wear armor and use weapons that are not staffs is possible.

[Mirrman70]

101ezylonhxeT wrote...

AutumnWitch wrote...

DRTJR wrote...


It would be nice if mages could have other options.

Why? If you want to use weapons why not be a warrior of rogue? I don't get the desire to have both.

Because those classes are boring and contrary to popular belief mages body's are no different from anyone else's so being able to wear armor and use weapons that are not staffs is possible.

I think magic is boring regardless of if I can wear plate armor and wield a massive battle-ax, Ithink you really just liked how overpowered arcane warrior was.

[Deebo305]

I actually don't want this.

I thought the arcane warrior was great because between casting time my sword would help immensely more than any Origins staff but in DA2 being a mage felt downright awesome. Spells felt powerful and none felt useless, passives were never better and at melee range I felt unstoppable rather than made of cheese

I like to see this continued in Inquisition rather than drumming up the AW for fanservice sake.

[Texhnolyze101]

Mirrman70 wrote...

restrictions make for balanced gameplay, Dragon Age will forever be first and foremost a game and in a game with classes there must be balance so that none out-play the other.

Then maybe they need to get rid of classes if its going to restrict how people want to play especially when games like Dragons Dogma lets you be whatever you want and stay balanced.

[General TSAR]

Then go play Dragons Dogma if you don't like the class system for Dragon Age.

[Mirrman70]

you need classes in a world where only a small percent of the population is capable of using magic.