157 réponses à ce sujet

[Realmzmaster]

I like classes. The question I have is What is the purpose of having a class?

 

In my OP note that I said keep the three classes. Let's add a fourth free form class that allows the gamer to select the skills from the different trees. Arena, Daggerfall and others allowed the gamer to create a custom class and give it a name. The basic classes are still there the fourth class adds flexibility. It also addresses the concerns that gamers have with one class have domain over a particular skill or ability.

 

If the gamer selects from any of the mage trees then by lore the character becomes a mage and the name given to the new class should reflect that. If the tears in the veil change the lore then it may not natter. 

 

I do not know if at this late date it could be implemented in DAI, but it would be interesting. I suspect we will get the base classes plus some (hopefully) interesting specializations.

[Realmzmaster]

The only issue I have with the class system is warriors and mages not being able to pick locks.  Other than that, I fully support the class system and would have no interest in a classless system.

 

Plus, the whole design of the DA world has been low magic intentionally, they aren't suddenly going to make it high magic.

The question I have is why should they be able to pick locks if they have no training in that area? By opening up all the skill trees then the warrior or mage can make that selection at the expense of not putting points into some other skill or ability.

[deuce985]

Classes are there as a distinction to tell the difference between another class. They play differently even if they fill similar roles. See the Arcane Warrior. I like that system personally and think it should remain. As I said earlier, something between is perfect. DAO had a near perfect way to do it. Now they just need to bring AW back and allow rogues to possibly fill a tank that feels different from a warrior. If they wanted to take it a step further, allow warriors/rogues to have healing abilities to fill the healer role. Flasks for rogues in combat and auras for warriors. Healing would feel completely different on them compared to a mage. A warrior would still be able to initate combat due to persistent auras around him but he wouldn't have the heal per second capability of a mage.

 

That's the kind of open system I want but still keep the class barriers between them. It's basically sitting between a classless system and one with class barriers. That's how DAO was and I want that expanded on. It makes even more sense in a game where you grow relationships with your companions and they're important to the player's personality. It makes it far easier to bring along whoever you want in your party when they can fill any role. In DA2, I almost felt it was a requirement to bring Aveline along due to her natural tanking abilities. Was she my favorite companion? No. I would've liked to replace her with someone else but it just so happens she was the best tank companion.

[Wulfram]

Getting rid of the Warrior/Rogue distinction would be fine, but it would make balancing the game a lot more challenging.  There'd be a big risk of there being one uber-build that can do everything, and with so many more potential synergies to check out it'd be hard to keep that under control.

 

The mage distinction is important to the setting and should be kept.

[Cainhurst Crow]

The point is that some forumites have complained about being unable to lockpick, set traps, or dual wield like the rogues. The opposite is why is not possible to have a sword and shield rogue? What stops a rogue from carrying a small shield like a buckler and wielding a long sword?

 

Who are these some you speak of?

[Cainhurst Crow]

I don't think there is a reason to discard the previous gameplay mechanic and story telling setting just to make this happen, and in all honesty that is exactly what happens the moment you make there be no class restrictive skills or talents. Because, in this setting, unlike others, it actually means something to be a mage. Mages are a minority in thedas who have a enhanced connection to the fade due to their circumstance of birth. This increased connection doesn't just let them draw energy from the fade in the form of mana ya know, there's a lot more to being a mage then that. There's also the fact that the stronger fade connection also opens them up to becoming abominations or being preyed upon by demons when in the fade. It's pretty much one of the main reasons the circles exist in the first place, so opening up mage talent trees to everyone would be like turning everyone into a mage, essentially.

 

So there are 2 routes to go with this, either your main character is a lore breaking mary sue with the ability to literally do everything. Not a poor arrangement mind you but one that would cause me to roll my eyes in disgust. Or everyone is a mage, therefore there is no way to feasibly allow the circles to continue, and the collapse of a religion that has a major decree about mages not serving in government being null and void, and pretty much fucks the entire games previously established 1000 year plus lore with a single move of fanservice, which is really all this is. You want the setting to be massively altered so you can be a dual wielding fireball chucking stealth tank, which I don't think would help the game.

[CybAnt1]

So far, there has been one tanking rogue spec. Legion of the Dead/Legionnaire Scout. It was Sigrun's "unique" in DA:A and has not reappeared. Swashbuckler/Duelist (plus base Dual Weapon) is the other typical route to a melee, toe-to-toe rogue. Based more on cleverness than toughness (like LS). 

 

I would say Bard rogues in DAO had the closest thing to magic powers, with their ability to buff the party and fascinate enemies. You could also argue Shadow rogues appear to have powers close to an Illusionist. Then there's the weird stuff going on in Tallis' Infiltrator spec, but that seems unique to her. 

 

Two of the warrior specs which gave them magical abilities (besides templar) have also been uniques:  Justice's in DA:A, Spirit Warrior, and Fenris' Lyrium Ghost/Tevinter Fugitive. Will be hard to duplicate, unless another warrior gets possessed by a spirit, or has lyrium put in their veins. 

 

There have been many specs to make mages able to wade into melee battle: Arcane Warrior and Shapeshifter in DAO, and Battlemage in DA:A. 

 

There do not appear to have yet been specs to make mages a bit more rogue-like, or warriors more rogue-like, either. That may help keep rogues viable as the third class choice. 

[CybAnt1]

You want the setting to be massively altered so you can be a dual wielding fireball chucking stealth tank, which I don't think would help the game.

 

For some reason, this made me think of Johnny Storm/Human Torch at the end of Fantastic Four 2, when he managed to combine all four team member's powers (super stretching, flying/throwing fire, invisibility/force shields, and toughness/super strength) into his own body, all at once. 

[CybAnt1]

Getting rid of the Warrior/Rogue distinction would be fine, 

 

No, I think three classes are already too few, and having only two classes makes this into a binary class game. 

 

Which is sort of a classic dichotomy, of course (Wizards and Warriors, Might and Magic), but even still, do not want. 

 

I'll take classes 4 and 5 (though I don't want a "blank"/"virtually classless" class), not reduction down to 2. 

[Cainhurst Crow]

They;re adding out of combat features to make rogues, mages, and warriors unique, so I doubt lockpicking will be that major an issue come the next game. Right now there's an imbalance, but that'll soon be remedied.

 

Adding more classes would work only if you are willing to cut back on specializations and give up certain specializations to other classes, since I really doubt the team want 6 classes with 6 different variations to their specializations to choose from. It'd be more like DA2, where each class has 3, possibly 2, and that will be that.

[CybAnt1]

Already know they considered adding a fourth class, for this game, and decided against it. Maybe DA4. 

 

Personally, I think there's a certain symmetry to 4 classes and 4 playable races for 4 party members ... i.e. now in a party, you can have all classes and all races uniquely represented ... but anyway. 

 

Hmmm, didn't I just post about Fantastic 4? I think that number is getting stuck in my brain. 

[Realmzmaster]

What would gamers think about the ability to shift class in DAI. The gamer starts as one class and selects skills from those trees. At a certain level and provide they have the necessary attribute numbers the character can shift to a different class . The character picks skills from the new class while still retaining the old class. This shift can be allowed at certain levels (like 5 15 25). The only problem warrior and rogue could not pick from the mage class due to lore considerations.

[The Spirit of Dance]

No, I like the class system though I wasn't a fan of limiting characters to certain weapon types in DA2.

[ames4u]

Sound's like someone want's to have their cake and eat it too. I think mixing classes is a bad idea.

Adding more classes however, would be welcome.

[CybAnt1]

Multi-classing within a 9-12 class system (like early 2E D & D's) makes sense.

 

Within a 3 class system? Kind of weird. There's only three classes. If you triple classed (like you could there), you'd be everything. 

 

Anyway, I would observe that there was one positive leap between DAO and DA2 (what, don't look at me funny, I have said that before) ... specializations in DAO were kind of shallow (usually only carried 4 abilities and often 2 were just passives, and 1 was sustained ability and 1 activated ability), but specs in DA2 typically carried 7-9 abilities -- rich as the "base" trees and often carrying the "sub" modifiers as well -- closer to "prestige classes" or "kits" in other games. 

 

I think this whole issue comes out of "why do I need a rogue to open locks" question/thing that keeps coming up. Well, look, people, 4 party slots, would it kill you to put a rogue in 1 of them? The other 3 can be mages & warriors. 

 

I don't see any reason not to give mages utility spells ... they never have really in DA, but could give them something like the knock spell. 

And, yeah, fine, let warriors bash open chest locks, with a risk that doing so could do damage to items inside. I think that works. 

 

I think something interesting's coming with the Exploration Skills, as always we need to be patient and actually find out (other than continuing to squint at last year's planning board screenshots.) 

[Fast Jimmy]

 

I think this whole issue comes out of "why do I need a rogue to open locks" question/thing that keeps coming up. Well, look, people, 4 party slots, would it kill you to put a rogue in 1 of them? The other 3 can be mages & warriors. 

 

Not to mention how everyone gushes about how awesome Varric is... do people like him and not ever put him in the party? He was the only archer in the entire base game if your Hawke wasn't one. There was tons of reason to include him in your party mix for most of DA2.

[Realmzmaster]

"why do I need a rogue to open locks" is part of the issue. The other part is gamers do not wish to include certain companions in the party because the gamer does not like the companion's personality or actions. Like I do not  care for Fenris whining why can't Aveline be a two hander.

I do not like Anders why can't Merrill have a heal spell? In DAO I was able give Morrigan a heal spell and leave the annoying Wynne in camp. I do not like Aveline as a tank why can't Fenris tank and use a sword and shield. Or insert your own concern or complaint.

 

I do not wish to take Varric or Isabella, why can't my warrior pick locks (or insert any other skill you desire). He/she has enough cunning. Which ignores the point that the class also indicates certain training has been acquired.  I simply providing a way to please those gamers and add more flexibility to the game. At the same time keeping the three base classes.

 

Do I think that dual or triple classing with three classes is optimum. No, I do not. More classes make more sense, allow for dual classing and provide better character development. 

[ImperatorMortis]

Whats even the point of having seperate classes now? Aside from Mage? 

 

Also why would you choose any other character than a Mage if it worked out like this? (This is assuming you're a min/maxer)

[CybAnt1]

"why do I need a rogue to open locks" is part of the issue. The other part is gamers do not wish to include certain companions in the party because the gamer does not like the companion's personality or actions. Like I do not  care for Fenris whining why can't Aveline be a two hander. (1)

 

I do not like Anders why can't Merrill have a heal spell? (2) In DAO I was able give Morrigan a heal spell and leave the annoying Wynne in camp. I do not like Aveline as a tank why can't Fenris tank and use a sword and shield. (1) Or insert your own concern or complaint. 

 

I do not wish to take Varric or Isabella, why can't my warrior pick locks (or insert any other skill you desire). (3) He/she has enough cunning. Which ignores the point that the class also indicates certain training has been acquired.  I simply providing a way to please those gamers and add more flexibility to the game. At the same time keeping the three base classes.

 

Do I think that dual or triple classing with three classes is optimum. No, I do not. More classes make more sense, allow for dual classing and provide better character development. 

 

(1) Maker's Sigh. 

(2) "cheat" console, or mods. (cuz I think even with Maker's Sigh, you still can't take spirit healer with her.) 

(3) as I recall, there was a DAO mod for this, it allowed any character to pick locks. Don't think there was one for DA2. 

[Realmzmaster]

(1) Maker's Sigh. 

(2) "cheat" console, or mods. (cuz I think even with Maker's Sigh, you still can't take spirit healer with her.) 

(3) as I recall, there was a DAO mod for this, it allowed any character to pick locks. Don't think there was one for DA2. 

(1) Must have Black Emporium dlc not in base game. Will it be in DAI?

(2) DAI will most likely not have a toolset so there is a wait for any mods.

(3) Unless in base game otherwise see 2.

 

I understand where you are coming from, but it did not stop any of the complaints or concerns. Some gamers do not mod or cheat when they play.

[Mockingword]

The automatic level up is for gamers who choose not to manually do the work. A class enables the developers to pick the skills that fit  for the gamer. So all those gamers have to do is hit the automatic level button and continue playing. They can check the character sheet to see what was automatically done

I would rather that the class I chose had multiple development paths within it, as is the case with the previous Dragon Age games.

 

In fact, if anything, I think the classes should be made more distinct from each other.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

I posted it before but within each class you should be able to do what you want with your character Cassandra should be able to use sword and shield or 2h, and the same with rogues and mages, I should not have to take characters I don't enjoy playing in my team, and yes I'm talking about Anders and Merrill. On the lock picking thing I can see an argument being made as to why can't a warrior smash it open and why can't a mage use magic on the lock.

[CybAnt1]

(1) Must have Black Emporium dlc not in base game. Will it be in DAI?

(2) DAI will most likely not have a toolset so there is a wait for any mods.

(3) Unless in base game otherwise see 2.

 

I understand where you are coming from, but it did not stop any of the complaints or concerns. Some gamers do not mod or cheat when they play.

 

Personally, I hope Maker's Sigh is in DA:I and can be made, without any DLC, at your stronghold's alchemy lab (or whatever). 

 

And of course, you didn't note the other relevant point, whether there's a Toolset or not, the "cheat" (*) console and mods work only on PC, not on gaming consoles. 

 

Anyway, yes, Maker's Sigh lets you "redo" any NPC from level 1, but not change their class, or let them take normally blocked-off ability trees/specs. 

 

(*) BTW, the reason I prefer to use the word "customization" console rather than "cheat" console is - a) IMHO, all possible uses of it are not necessarily "cheating" (as in giving you an unfair advantage in the game) -- you can also use it to make yourself look like something else (though that has no impact on the game) and b.) I don't honestly believe "cheating" exists outside of a multiplayer game. 

 

Also, incidentally, c.) there are even ways you can use it to make things more difficult for yourself, not less, and some do. There certainly have been mods whose function is to increase difficulty. 

[Realmzmaster]

I would rather that the class I chose had multiple development paths within it, as is the case with the previous Dragon Age games.

 

In fact, if anything, I think the classes should be made more distinct from each other.

The automatic level up button is optional. It does not preclude gamers from manually leveling. It is for gamers who do not care to that involved with the build.