157 réponses à ce sujet

[Innsmouth Dweller]

Skill advancement by in-game use makes you play for the numbers, such as using weaker weapons in order to get more skill-advancing hits in against a given number of enemies, sacrificing role-playing for gaming the system. That's not good. I prefer to not be forced to simulate my training while I'm advancing in the story. General skill availability with fixed points per level, restricted only by attributes and some lore with regard to magic, that works just as well for the same purpose - more flexibility - while enforcing balance much better.  

depends on how you play the game or how interesting the game is. one can always choose to run around with wooden sword just to 'exp' more hits

i don't mind getting standard level points. hell, it won't die in pen and paper, cuz it's hard to keep statistics as human. but for RP alone, that's how you evolve and learn things in real life.

[JCFR]

Your argument is: we need class restrictions because otherwise there would be no point in having classes? Well, my argument is that there is indeed no point in having classes, because most skill restrictions are arbitrary and based on stereotypes, while in real life things are much more fluid. For instance, yes, there might be a statistical (!) tendency for a person with a very "physical" job to be less educated (which does *not* mean less smart btw.), but there is no reason why this should apply to every single character we make, and there is actually every reason to want to break the mould if you want an interesting and distinctive character. 

 

A few examples:

*A rogue specialized in stealing magical artifacts might be more educated in magical lore than your average mage.

*A warrior with a job as a nobleman's bodyguard would profit from being diplomatic and able to detect lies, and would absolutely need to learn the finer points of etiquette. A good general education would also be extremely useful.

*A mage with a "wilderness apostate" background might actually be unable to read while being more physically resilient than the warrior of the above example.

 

So, why again does the class system prevent me from creating these interesting character types?

The problem with what you suggest ist... there has to be a deeper roleplay-system - which inquistion most likely won't have.

I mean, was there any skill a mage or warrior could use outside of battle (other than crafting) inside the last two DA-Games? Only the rogue could steal and pick locks.

Your examples would need about a dozen more skills and the developers would have to rebalance them in the game. Seeing it's release ist his autumn and it wasn't mentioned in any preview it's more than unlikely to happen.  

 

And... there is one thing  i don`t get: Why should a rogue need knowledge in magic just to steal some magic items? A far as i remember, no magic weapon has ever fought back and prevented itself from taking - which would be pretty funny.

 

And once again about open skills: i still don't like the thought... at least for a party-RPG with tactical combat. Why? Because my fear is, that such a system would make some classes imba and results in making tactical use of the different classes in your party - or even building a party - futile. Of course, i like some freedom in how to skill my character, but he has to keep some disadvantages, otherwise it would break the whole concept.

And, well, i've played many  party-rpgs in my life and i don't remember one of them having a complete open sklitree-system.   The closest to my knowledge would be Fallout and even that made you specialize your char according to his stats (like low strenght and close combat won't work out) and therefore had no classes.

 

So could anyone please explain to me, how an open skill system with classes should function, regarding the limits of the skillsystem the Dragon Age-series shows?

i would really like to see the point -REALLY.

[bjuandy]

So could anyone please explain to me, how an open skill system with classes should function, regarding the limits of the skill system the Dragon Age-series shows?

i would really like to see the point -REALLY.

 

Bioware games have historically had a difficulty curve whereby the PC got steadily more powerful to the point where the grunts would only threaten a character if they concentrated in sufficiently large numbers.

 

Classes have also served to mark certain story points in Bioware games, talked about in a thread elsewhere on the DA:I forums.

 

Given these two points, having a character marked as a certain class would have meaning beyond the party battle system, the difficulty curve would not be much different from be fore, and giving the player the freedom to grow their character the way they want to is good for general gameplay and roleplaying. To balance the fact, Bioware can sink more meaning into the stats, so Mages could learn sword skills, but at the expense of being capable of spellcasting effectively, or warriors can cast spells, but lose the ability to wear armor doing so. Like your Fallout example above, by having particular stat spreads for each class could enable an open-skill system to work, and having the ability to express your character the way you want to is kind of the entire attraction of Bioware RPG's.

[efd731]

Honestly, all I can see is 3 groups.
Group 1: what? No
Group 2: maybe, if I makes sense
Group 3: PANDER TO MEEEEEEE!!!!!!

[efd731]

Also, multi-classing is something I like, nothing like smashin heads in with a war hammer while torching my enemies with fire. But dragon age.....is not the setting for that. Especially because "everyone that exists is a secret Mage" is just....sloppy. If there were specs for a more rogue like class for mages (a counter part to knight enchanter) that'd be great. But yeah, group 2 for me, just seems like the execution would suck.

[Auztin]

It already was easy to "role play" in both games.I mean you can be the book smart,silver tongued warrior without being a Mage or Rogue.I did with Warden.I was a badass melee Mage in DA2.I beat people with a staff & used magic while my character was not incredibly book smart but street smart.
@ poster calling classes stereotypes:If anything you are playing to stereotypes with your idea.I need rogue skills to be a smooth talker or I need magical knowledge to use magic.

[Realmzmaster]

I have pointed out before that even in a classless system classes still emerge. There may be variations on the typical class with the classless system, but unless you make all the party members the same with the same skills and talents there will be differences. Those differences will find the character leaning to one of the classes. One of you characters will probably be better at traps than the others. One will be better at melee etc. Call it templates if you want, but the classes exist even in a "classless" system.

[Mirrman70]

I don't think classless systems would work unless your character was always a mage. we know that in thedas being a mage is a stigma. I don't want to be a mage for that reason (also always prefered the whole did it with my own two hands approach over the cosmic powers one). Now you will probably say "well you don't have to invest in magic if you don't want to". The ability to use magic in general would require your character to be a mage. the only way I can see this working is if it had a more open-ended class system such as elder scrolls online. each class has its own stat boosts (merely to give an early advantage that correlate how the average person might play that class) as well as abilities (if it is a mage class give them spells, assassin give them poison and backstab buffs). This way we aren't forced into a mage role and we get more flexibility with our classes.

[Thumb Fu]

There are other games which use this character building system, some use it very well, others poorly, i don't think it has a place in DA as the character classes are one thing that identifies DA, i like diversity in my games so i don't want every game to use the same system. If you want a game that has this system a good example is Path of Exile.

[Roar Hilmarsen]

Very interessting idea, and i would be fine by having it in the game. Its not like we lose out on having a rogue, mage or warrior either, so why not? 

If you dont wanna play the "Open class"/"Free class" then you can just opt out of it. no harm done right?

[bairdduvessa]

so like an onion knight in final fantasy?

[The Hierophant]

Meh. I think they should just meld the rogue and warrior into one class. Mage serves as the only other class due to lore consistency. Make weapon talents available for both of the physical and magical classes, leave the specializations as class restricted, while ability/talent point allocation could be used to balance out both classes.

[The Baconer]

No. The state of magic in Thedas does not lend itself to a classless system.

[metatheurgist]

No. The state of magic in Thedas does not lend itself to a classless system.

Of course it does. You have a 1st level only talent named magic. You can only pick it at character creation. Choosing it marks you as a mage for the rest of the world. It's game design, not rocket surgery.

[Mirrman70]

Of course it does. You have a 1st level only talent named magic. You can only pick it at character creation. Choosing it marks you as a mage for the rest of the world. It's game design, not rocket surgery.

 

but it is a very game changing and most likely overpowered game design. I see no reason for them to change the class formula after three games have it.

[Deflagratio]

I can't get behind this, Dragon Age functions well as a Class-based game, not just for the player characters but for the entirety of the encounter design as well. Having no Class Rigidity makes it a game about min/max strides toward a First Order Optimal Strategy. Turning Dragon Age "Classless" would essentially turn Chess into Checkers, except every checker has already been kinged. Nuance gets thrown right out the window.

[yullyuk]

i dont mind classless systems, but its a staple in dragon age and it wouldnt work well, having effectively total control over all skills and abilities would just make the game seem more like a elders scrolls game, and the reason why that is a classless system is because its not a party based game, each class in dragon age has a use in battle and if you take away that specific distsinction there would be no need for certain characters in your party, like ever, so having a class based system allows for specific party building and makes you build strategies around that, having a classless system would still require planning, but it wouldnt be easy to balance and wouldnt you effectively still have to make a role for party memebers, tank, healer and dps, no matter which way you go about it in a dragon age game you cant escape that you need these 3 staples in combat since dragon age has always worked this way and will continue to do so.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I can't get behind this, Dragon Age functions well as a Class-based game, not just for the player characters but for the entirety of the encounter design as well. Having no Class Rigidity makes it a game about min/max strides toward a First Order Optimal Strategy. Turning Dragon Age "Classless" would essentially turn Chess into Checkers, except every checker has already been kinged. Nuance gets thrown right out the window.

You're assuming that any combination of skills would be an effective character.

What if that wasn't the case?

It was possible in both DAO and DA2 to build ineffective characters (though in DA2 you basically had to try to do that). As long as the classless system required some thought on the part of the player, I don't see why we should expect all the characters to be overpowered.

We're not turning chess into checkers. We're inserting new pieces into chess, and changing the shape of the board.

[Sylvius the Mad]

each class in dragon age has a use in battle and if you take away that specific distsinction there would be no need for certain characters in your party, like ever, so having a class based system allows for specific party building and makes you build strategies around that, having a classless system would still require planning, but it wouldnt be easy to balance and wouldnt you effectively still have to make a role for party memebers, tank, healer and dps, no matter which way you go about it in a dragon age game you cant escape that you need these 3 staples in combat since dragon age has always worked this way and will continue to do so.

Neither DA game required those combat roles. Especially DAO, which never needed a tank unless you didn't have any mages in your party (and a Rogue made just as good a tank as a Warrior did).

DAO didn't have rigidly defined class roles. Why would we want to add that?

[Icy Magebane]

I see classes as a reflection of a character's background and training, so unless we're dealing with hired mercenaries, this is out of the question for companions.  With that said, I would only be okay with creating a custom class at the beginning of the game, not giving people the ability to choose whatever abilities they want at from start to end.  Unless you start as an infant, you will have been training along a certain path for years... someone trained in the use of greatswords is probably going to be too clumsy to effectively start using daggers halfway through the game, just as a scholarly mage won't have enough time to master swordsmanship.  If, however, these nuances were integrated into the character at the start, I probably wouldn't object.

 

Either way, I think there would have to be a lot of restrictions in place, or it would be too easy to make OP characters... the balancing process for attributes, armor types, weapon skills, and spells would need to be very in depth.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I would like to be able to create both overpowered and underpowered characters.

[The Hierophant]

I would like to be able to create both overpowered and underpowered characters.

I just want to create a sword & board assassin archetype and a dual wielding warrior.

[The Baconer]

Of course it does. You have a 1st level only talent named magic. You can only pick it at character creation. Choosing it marks you as a mage for the rest of the world. It's game design, not rocket surgery.

 

Yeah, we could do that, but unless we're going to overhaul everything related to abilities/talents/skills, that would just be stupid.

[Icy Magebane]

I would like to be able to create both overpowered and underpowered characters.

There have to be some kind of restrictions governing character creation.  God mode and low difficulty settings are ways to make your character OP without removing any notion of challenge from the base game.  Self-imposed restrictions, non-optimized builds, and high difficulty settings allow you to play as underpowered characters.

[Sylvius the Mad]

There have to be some kind of restrictions governing character creation.

Why?