157 réponses à ce sujet

[HiroVoid]

They've already confirmed dwarves can't be mages, so this obviously isn't going to happen even with all the other obvious reasons abound.

[Realmzmaster]

The point her is that certain gamers do not want certain companions in their party because they do not like the companion's personality or actions within the story Bioware wishes to tell. The companions come with their own backstory and experiences. That is made evident in the their choice of class, weapons, armor, temperament, lifestyle and general outlook on life. 

 

Basically what some want is for customization to trump story. Does not matter if the story has Cassandra as a sword and shield type I want to make her a two hander because I do not like the two hander companion. 

 

Others still want the choice to change any companion within the class specifications.

 

Let's restrict the opening of classes to only within the trees for each class. So all warrior trees are open to warriors etc.

 

But that still does not please those who want Dual wielding, lockpicking, poison and trap making. Take those skills away from the rogue and make them open to every class. More customization which leans more to the classless system except not as far.

 

So Rogue class must be worked on to make it more distinct from the warrior class or otherwise dump the rogue class and have a two class system of generic warriors and wizards. Which is  the old Fantasy Trip system which evolved into GURPS.

 

Would that make everyone happy? I doubt it!

[Eveangaline]

Eh, I like the 3 class system better honestly.

[rocsage]

Sandal: one day, the magic will all be back.

 

With that in mind, such a mechanism would be plausible from a plot standpoint.

 

However, is that necessary?

 

In origins-awakening, players saw the potential might of each class.

warriors can now pull mobs even more effectively, and gain some magical power as arcane warrior.

rogues can, for short duration, completely shield themselves from harm.

mages...keep their op spec trees.

 

The mountains of bugs aside, awakening had more diversity and kink than any player could possibly desire...except for a viable, cohesive shape shift tree.

 

I don't mind warriors and rogues being able to deal elemental damage; burst of arrows, cleanse, and the Fenris lyrium shock are all welcome additions to non-nightmare dragon age 2 gameplay.

 

But if a warrior can freeze an enemy in place and a rogue knock a group of enemies flying with a powerful axe swing, loss of class integrity becomes an issue.

[addiction21]

 

 

Would that make everyone happy? I doubt it!

 

No. nothing BIoware ever does will make everyone happy. I think we all know this.

 

A class based system is there for a reason and it is there for players to make that choice. If you choose a warrior to start with and don't like any of the rogues and refuse to take them with you then you are actively making a choice to deny you the benefits or their skills because you dislike them. I personally believe that's as a important choice as going left or right in a dialogue.

 

I thought choice was a big thing in rpgs?

 

Now I don't know much about this exploration tree that is supposed to be in DAI if it is class specific but what I would prefer is that it would be something shared between all classes.  Either its like DAO where you choose these skills every few levels or at every level up one would need to choose between taking a skill point in their combat or in the shared exploration tree.

[Realmzmaster]

If a warrior freezes an enemy in place you would have the warrior-mage class, or battlemage (in some other games) . If a rogue can wield an axe you have the rogue-warrior or bandit in some games.

 

Why would the hybird classes be strange? 

[The Antagonist]

It would be nice if we could just right-click on a lock and the Varric would open it without me having to assume control of him

[Mirrman70]

I am pretty sure that companions are no longer going to be locked into a single weapon skill. they said something about varric being able to use daggers.

[Jaspe84]

i have nothing against classless system but i don't think Dragon Age should take that path since it seems that almost every other rpg out there is already adopting it

[Loremaster Nick]

There are several options for those who desire a classless system. Not everyone does and not every game has to go down that path. Some people prefer a system with clear classes and roles for characters to fulfill. The jack-of-all-trades system from TES is something I want to stay miles away from my RPGs.

[Realmzmaster]

I still would like to see more than three classes. A fourth custom class as at least allows some variation on the basic three.

[Petroclis]

It's too late for a classless system (though I too prefer those.) What would thrill me is if rogues could become Templars, that would be enough.

[BlueMagitek]

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?

 

I remember trap-setting and dual wielding being available to every class in DA:O if you invested the skill points.  Abilities and skills are completely different things, in that context.

 

Edit: I initially had lockpicking above; I had it confused with pick-pocketing.

[JCFR]

Yeah sure, my warrior throws fireballs... makes a lot of sense and the whole class-system would be sooooo expendable.

In short: i don't like the thought.

DA shall be a party-RPG with classic tactical-combat system where every class has it's own abilities and limits. That's how it should be.

This whole "let's skip the class and give everyone everything" might fit into 3rd-Person RPGs like Skyrim where all comes down to playing a single charakter and not controling a party.  PERIOD.

[CybAnt1]

Realmz and I agree on a lot of things, but on this one, I would simply reiterate there's a lot of room in this game for a 4th class, but it doesn't have to be either "open"/"jack of all trades" or a hybrid of the existing 3 ... which is not to say, of course, that its abilities and roles wouldn't overlap with the others. 

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Yeah sure, my warrior throws fireballs... makes a lot of sense and the whole class-system would be sooooo expendable.

In short: i don't like the thought.

DA shall be a party-RPG with classic tactical-combat system where every class has it's own abilities and limits. That's how it should be.

This whole "let's skip the class and give everyone everything" might fit into 3rd-Person RPGs like Skyrim where all comes down to playing a single charakter and not controling a party.  PERIOD.

 

Classless systems work fine in party RPGs. The idea is to have a variety of roles (not the MMO standard tank, hitter, healer, mage thing) but roles and utility that intersect and allow all characters of being capable at various things and excelling at one particular thing. This allows your party members to be flexible and cover for each other to a limited degree.

 

Though there are several issues with how it relates to Dragon Age. 

 

First and foremost, magic. Magic is an innate ability that not everyone can learn. There are Arcane Warriors, but a classless system would assume that everyone is capable of magic. 

 

Second, the gameplay. There simply isn't a large enough variety of non-combat gameplay to warrant a classless system. There's no real exploration, there's no bantering or economic system that can be played with, any hopes of herbalism and survivalism are turfed and made moot to begin with due to no permadeath. etc etc etc. Look at a classless party game such as Darklands or Wasteland, there are simply more roles for characters to occupy.

 

That said, there is a lot of room to create new classes that occupy different niches to the current classes IMO. 

 

Off the top of my head, some popular D&D type classes that could fit DA without many issues are Barbarian, Cleric and Bard.

[Realmzmaster]

Yeah sure, my warrior throws fireballs... makes a lot of sense and the whole class-system would be sooooo expendable.

In short: i don't like the thought.

DA shall be a party-RPG with classic tactical-combat system where every class has it's own abilities and limits. That's how it should be.

This whole "let's skip the class and give everyone everything" might fit into 3rd-Person RPGs like Skyrim where all comes down to playing a single charakter and not controling a party.  PERIOD.

 

No your warrior would not throw fireballs because by definition of the lore and birth he/she would be a mage. Therefore you would have a mage that learned warrior skills which was in DAO as the Arcane Warrior specialization.

[Realmzmaster]

Realmz and I agree on a lot of things, but on this one, I would simply reiterate there's a lot of room in this game for a 4th class, but it doesn't have to be either "open"/"jack of all trades" or a hybrid of the existing 3 ... which is not to say, of course, that its abilities and roles wouldn't overlap with the others. 

 

I agree. It does not have to be a custom class. I would like to see an expansion of the base classes from just three. A custom class simply allows flexibility, but if the gamer takes anything from the magical trees then by definition the character is a mage,. That keeps with the lore.

[KaiserShep]

I'd really only see the arcane warrior specialization being the only sensible hybrid class, but with the mage's capability to use the staff as a melee weapon not even that really matters. I don't mind having certain talents available to all though. Like, if my mage can do archery (why cuz I said so I guess), I'd still need my tank or trap tripper from time to time.

[CybAnt1]

Off the top of my head, some popular D&D type classes that could fit DA without many issues are Barbarian, Cleric and Bard.

 

The Beserker spec for warriors is kinda already a Barbarian. 

No (playable) Clerics in this game: no known, active deities granting spells. You'll meet people in the Chantry, but they won't adventure with you. 

 

As for Bard, yeah, I'm a fan of removing it from being a Rogue spec (like in DAO), and making it its own class. 

 

Personally, like I've said a few times, I'd also make a Ranger class (also again removing it from being a DAO Rogue spec), make it the best at Archery special abilities (not that I'd remove the ability of rogues or warriors to use bows, though), also give it some tracking/survival skills and summonable combat pets, and possibly give it additional specs, like Arcane Archer. (They wouldn't have to be a mage, just capable of enchanting their arrows, and as we've seen, non-mages can do enchantment in this game.) 

[Realmzmaster]

I would like to see the Ranger as it own class with emphasis on tracking and survival skills. I would like pets that could be summoned but not just appear out of thin air or give the ranger the ability to calm and seek cooperation  from  one of the animals in the wild. 

[JCFR]

No your warrior would not throw fireballs because by definition of the lore and birth he/she would be a mage. Therefore you would have a mage that learned warrior skills which was in DAO as the Arcane Warrior specialization.

Which is a SPECIALISATION but no OPEN SKILL TREE. Big difference. And the Arcane warrior was alwys to imba because of that.  .

 An open skill tree means: Everyone can learn everything like in Skyrim - therefore there are no classes and that's okay since Skyrim is a 3rd-Person-RPG whith mostly action-based combat. 

IN DA we have a  party, we have different NPCs and different classes and every single one should have their advances and disadvances... that's how tactical combat works out. 

So once again: NO open skilltree. PERIOD.

[Realmzmaster]

Which is a SPECIALISATION but no OPEN SKILL TREE. Big difference. And the Arcane warrior was alwys to imba because of that.  .

 An open skill tree means: Everyone can learn everything like in Skyrim - therefore there are no classes and that's okay since Skyrim is a 3rd-Person-RPG whith mostly action-based combat. 

IN DA we have a  party, we have different NPCs and different classes and every single one should have their advances and disadvances... that's how tactical combat works out. 

So once again: NO open skilltree. PERIOD.

 

The classless system does not preclude advantages and disadvantages,. That is an invalid assumption. The gamer forming the party is still going to have certain characters that perform better at a task than other characters in the party. The party dynamics and synergy remain.

[JCFR]

The classless system does not preclude advantages and disadvantages,. That is an invalid assumption. The gamer forming the party is still going to have certain characters that perform better at a task than other characters in the party. The party dynamics and synergy remain.

Well, then what does the warrior do? he takes the offensive to make sure, mages can cast their spells without the risk of being attacked.  Do mages go into close combat? Originally no.

What do rougues? They try to get in the back of their enemies to deal massive damage.

Can mages use Armor? No. Can rougues use armor? Only light.

That's the role of their classes and that's how it works out in battle.  Yeah, sure, there are some veriationsa and exceptions but basically this is the way any tactictal Party-RPG works.

I don't understand what you mean by open skill system. Could you PLEASE explain?  I olny know: Either it's open for everyone or it's limited according to classes.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Shadowrun: Returns is a recent example of open skill systems in a party based game. To be sure, there are archetypes and the like, but that's no different to the "classes" in Elder Scrolls pre-Skyrim.

 

I still think the biggest thing holding Dragon Age back from classless systems is the issue with magic characters, and the lack of utility gameplay or non-MMO centric combat roles. Simply put, there aren't enough moving parts to support such a design.