90 réponses à ce sujet

[Rawgrim]

stop, I made it clear their abilities are gained from lyrium, or fade energy

 

Their abilities will be the similar to Fenris', the Templas', and Spirit warriors, but are horned to a new level.

 

Look at Elder Scrolls 4 oblivion, there was a whole class of un-armed combat, Monk, it fitted well and was used, you guys are just afraid of progress, 

 

Bioware gives you something, you complain, they take it back, you complain.....you are stuck, you complain...you are released, you complain again,

 

gain an open mind, be creative

 

Making "alot more Fenrises" is hardly creative. It just makes Fenris one of a thousand others, and it removes what made him special in the first place.

 

The "classes" in Oblivion wern`t really classes. It just picked your main skills for you. It wasn`t there in Skyrim...Skyrim wasn`t progress?

[Nyeredzi]

Making "alot more Fenrises" is hardly creative. It just makes Fenris one of a thousand others, and it removes what made him special in the first place.

 

The "classes" in Oblivion wern`t really classes. It just picked your main skills for you. It wasn`t there in Skyrim...Skyrim wasn`t progress?

I give up!!! Maker help us all!! *slits wrists*

[AlanC9]

Look at Elder Scrolls 4 oblivion, there was a whole class of un-armed combat, Monk, it fitted well and was used, you guys are just afraid of progress, 

 

Bioware gives you something, you complain, they take it back, you complain.....you are stuck, you complain...you are released, you complain again, 

 

 

Who says adding stuff like this is progress? The kitchen-sink approach of AD&D was a problem, not a feature.

[Lobos1988]

Please do NOT make Dragon Age an anime game. There is already enough of those around.

[nightscrawl]

If someone thinks this is just silly, that's a good enough reason for him to not want dev time spent on it.

 

Not necessarily. I think it's silly, but if Bioware did decide to add this class or spec into the game they would find ways and I'm sure it would be fun. I just happen to disagree with the OP on how it could be put into the game and what form it would take. Furthermore, I think the OP has unreasonable expectations for such a class and hasn't attempted to bring his ideas down to earth one iota.

[Amfortas]

I doubt Bioware is open to adding new classes. But as a warrior specialization it could work, a talent tree that gives certain buffs when the player fights without armour and weapons, and adds new activated unnarmed abilities. I don't see why not. It would be a matter of making sure some of the generic warrior trees are useful to the monk as well, probably some synergy with the tanking tree.

 

I don't think calling it monk in game would be correct, since DA monks are not like that, but apart from that, I find all the negative comments surprising.

[CybAnt1]

I doubt Bioware is open to adding new classes. But as a warrior specialization it could work, a talent tree that gives certain buffs when the player fights without armour and weapons, and adds new activated unnarmed abilities. I don't see why not. It would be a matter of making sure some of the generic warrior trees are useful to the monk as well, probably some synergy with the tanking tree.

 

I don't think calling it monk in game would be correct, since DA monks are not like that, but apart from that, I find all the negative comments surprising.

 

Actually, Mike Laidlaw said they considered adding a 4th class to DAI, but dropped that out of the dev cycle, preferring to work on other things. 

 

There were many 4th class mods for DAO, I used one. Of course, one mod was for playable clerics, which totally breaks the lore; they had spells like "Fist of the Maker". 

 

The name "monk" doesn't work, I agree, Brother Genitivi and other Thedan monks are not fighting men, it's just the name that is given to what might be called more generically "Oriental-flavored unarmed martial artist archetype" but usually called "monks" in most games. 

 

Anyway, to be honest, here's where I think there's the most room for a new class. The holy class trinity of DA is basically defined by roles: rogues doing the DPS (or some ranged), warriors doing the tanking, and mages the ranged AOEs and healing. Nobody's really filling the 4th role of D & D, the leader/controller (though some specs fill it). A bard class (not specialization) could fit that role nicely. 

[CybAnt1]

The problem I have always had with DA's three classes plus three specs system, is that especially in DAO, the specs were weak and largely inconsequential. At least in DA2, they felt more fleshed out, kind of like "prestige classes". The other is that you can't take them until level 7; until you do, your character is basically generic (other than possibly having different ability tree focus, like sword & shield vs. 2-handed). But even still, whether it's for simplicity of balance (whether the holy trinity is currently balanced in actuality, but we digress) or simplicity of options for players or just ease of development, the 3-class system is getting old. There's room for at least one more. 

 

BTW, though, I would say there is a good case - in this case - for making a "martial artist" (let's use that word) archetype either a rogue or warrior spec rather than a class, and probably better, a rogue. 

[Amfortas]

My favourite (the most fun gameplay wise) playthroughs of IW2 and Storm of Zehir consist of 1 paladin, 2 clerics, 1 bard, 1 sorcerer and 1 wizard. Of those bioware decided to keep only the sorcerer more or less.

 

Still, I'm not in favour of adding more classes, I'd prefer if they added more trees to each class, to increase the amount of possible playstyles with each class, allowing for more varied builds and moving closer to a classless system.

 

I agree that specializations were better in DA2, but they should be increased. The way I see it the game could benefit from having things like a melee armored caster, an archer/mage, a monk like spec, a bard ofc (did that spec exist in DA2?) and many more. But all those can be integrated in the basic 3 classes I think.

[CybAnt1]

What DA needs is a class that fulfills the role of Leader/Controller. There are some warrior specs or mage spell schools that ... nudge in this direction, but only somewhat. 

 

http://dnd4.wikia.com/wiki/Role

 

A character with the controller role primarily handles crowds by creating hazardous terrain and repositioning enemies, or spreading conditions and damage over multiple enemies.

 

A leader primarily supports the party by aiding allies, and making enemies more vulnerable to attack.

 

[end]

 

The Entropy and Creation schools are sorta doing this for mages, but most of their schools focus on offensive or healing magic. 

 

Basically, the class with this role would focus on buffs, de-buffs, and crowd control. That's the bard! And while I agree the lore for DA bards (like Leliana) has given them a kind of 'grittier' reputation (of seduction and assassination, not just inspiration), having these kinds of skills would actually match the class lore well. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Amfortas]

Do not forget the force mage spec, an entire tree dedicated to cc, and the best mage tree. I hope it still exists in Inquisition.

 

I agree with you about the bards, if they were to add a new class I believe it'd be the best candidate. But lets look at it this way, what does a bard have that other classes don't? You have the songs, used to buff/debuff, stun and whatever you like, that's exclusive. In D&D they have access to spellcasting as well, but bards in DA have already been defined, and we know they are not casters. So what other abilities can use instead? throwing flasks, maybe using "dirty fighting" moves? This is actually covered in the rogue's sabotage tree. Sure you could create different moves, but why?

 

My point is, which is better, having a class that can dps with minor cc capabilities, the rogue, and a class that can primarily do a support role, the bard, or expanding the rogue class so that it can be built as an strictly support/control class, a dps or a mix of both?

 

The way I see it, the 2nd option gives the player more freedom, and I prefer it. It is true that it can probably lead to more "failed" builds, and I bet Bioware doesn't like that, so in that way more classes with a single role would be better.

[AlanC9]

The problem I have always had with DA's three classes plus three specs system, is that especially in DAO, the specs were weak and largely inconsequential. At least in DA2, they felt more fleshed out, kind of like "prestige classes". The other is that you can't take them until level 7; until you do, your character is basically generic (other than possibly having different ability tree focus, like sword & shield vs. 2-handed).

To some extent this is a problem with relative efficiency of the DA2 trees, isn't it? You generally want to run up your character's primary offensive tree before picking too much of the flavor stuff, whether specialization or not.

[AlanC9]

 
The way I see it, the 2nd option gives the player more freedom, and I prefer it. It is true that it can probably lead to more "failed" builds, and I bet Bioware doesn't like that, so in that way more classes with a single role would be better.

I don't think Bio's too worried about that. DA2 offers lots more ways to fail than DAO.

[renfrees]

I give up!!! Maker help us all!! *slits wrists*

You made a suggestion, which didn't find support even on the boards. Why must you go on about this? The thought that it might be not them , who is wrong, has never crossed your mind?

 

Everything that was said, was said before me.

[sunnydxmen]

It can be a mage specialization similar to arcane warrior but using your fists and feet.