Why do I feel like warriors are gonna be boring again like the previous games? plus there's nothing new from the warrior spec. Rouges, on the other hand, can outdamage warriors while still having utility skills. And Mages, well they're kinda OP ever since the. I usually go for warrior in my first play-through but maybe not this time
you and me have very different ideas about what is boring, I like my warriors.... most of which are reavers.
I wish that we had gotten one new specialization for the warrior. Don't get me wrong, Templar and Reaver make sense, but Champion has always just kind of been "meh."
As for Rogues, I don't typically play as one, but I may have to with awesome-sounding specializations like that.
The Rift Mage sounds interesting, but I am very curious as to where Spirit Healer and Blood Mage have gone. All three specializations are unheard of, which is slightly worrying. Regardless, I'm likely to play a Knight Enchanter when the time comes.
I hope blood-magic comes as a secondery choice for every mage class.
Restricting blood-magic to the summoner type (necromancer) sounds like a horrible idea from RP point of view to me.
Why do I feel like warriors are gonna be boring again like the previous games? plus there's nothing new from the warrior spec. Rouges, on the other hand, can outdamage warriors while still having utility skills. And Mages, well they're kinda OP ever since the first game. I usually go for warriors in my first play-through but maybe not this time
Champion was changed from a buffing spec to a tankish one (why not just name it Guardian like in DAO?). The other two probably received a similar revamp.
I'm liking the warrior specs. Reaver and templar are classics (shame beserker didn't return, but I guess it would have forced tanks to go templar). Champion sounds promising as a spec for tanks, but I agree with azarhal, guardian would be more indicative of what it did as well as kind of sounding more awesome.
I'm glad they scrapped shadow for rogues. That spec had no identity: it was basically a standard rogue but with smoke involved. I'm less glad they scrapped duelist, since the tradition was born and practised in Orlais. Likewise for bard, but particularly since that was a good class, if not the only class, for archers to spec. Assassin is a classic, artificer sounds really cool as well. We have no idea what tempest will involve, but it will likely lack the lore of bard or duelist.
I'm annoyed at what they did with mages. Necromancer just isn't the same as blood mage. Necromancer evokes images of 60 year old cackling men with no sense of personal hygiene and obscure fetishes. Blood mage suggests ambitious, ruthless and a tiny bit flamboyant. Completely different genres of evil. Likewise, Knight Enchanter is a waste of space. Arcane Warrior was overpowered and bore no relation to standard mage playstyle. Hopefully, KE will feel a bit more mage-y this time around. Rift mage sounds interesting and is hopefully something like force mage in DA2. That leaves healers a little strapped for choice (not that they had an awful lot in the previous games mind).
Re. Blood Magic (morality of):
I'm pretty certain the real issue here is that the DA lore has been a bit retconned (or at least changed focus somewhat). Initially I never felt Blood Magic was meant to be inherently evil in Origins - I thought it fit much better that the chantry vilified it because they controlled the lyrium supply and thus checked the power of the mages. Blood Magic, however, allows them more autonomy to perform whatever magic they like. I felt this fitted a lot better with Jowan's story and the rebellious blood mages in the Broken Circle quest, and it generally felt more interesting.
Ultimately, though, Bioware went in a different direction, using DA2 to reinforce and justify the association of blood magic as an evil school of magic. A bit of a shame, perhaps, but so be it. However, the one thing that hadn't changed was that blood mages get a very bad rep! And if there wasn't a way to practically reflect that in DA:I, then I'm glad they decided to ditch it in favour of a new 'morally dubious' spec that doesn't carry the same baggage as Blood Mage. In all honesty, the lack of reactivity was the reason I never played Origins or DA2 as a blood mage. But I'm quite interested to find out about Necromancer and I can see myself giving that a go if it's done well.
RE. The New Specs:
Looking good. I'm guessing Assassin is going to be a bit more Shadow/stealthy, while Tempest will be a bit more Duelist/melee rogue? Which seems fair to me. Also very interested to find out more about Rift Mage. And for Reaver, I'm hoping they really go to town on the whole 'The less health you have the more powerful you are' thing. That could be super fun if taken to extremes.
Also, from dragonage.com:
Each comes with a unique set of abilities, weaponry, special moves, and even class-reactive story content. Further, as your Inquisitor grows in power, you will be able to select a specialization.
So the game will react to your CLASS, not your SPEC? Shame. I imagine they were going with the latter but had to streamline it. A little disappointing, but better than nothing.
I'm liking the warrior specs. Reaver and templar are classics (shame beserker didn't return, but I guess it would have forced tanks to go templar). Champion sounds promising as a spec for tanks, but I agree with azarhal, guardian would be more indicative of what it did as well as kind of sounding more awesome.
I'm glad they scrapped shadow for rogues. That spec had no identity: it was basically a standard rogue but with smoke involved. I'm less glad they scrapped duelist, since the tradition was born and practised in Orlais. Likewise for bard, but particularly since that was a good class, if not the only class, for archers to spec. Assassin is a classic, artificer sounds really cool as well. We have no idea what tempest will involve, but it will likely lack the lore of bard or duelist.
I'm annoyed at what they did with mages. Necromancer just isn't the same as blood mage. Necromancer evokes images of 60 year old cackling men with no sense of personal hygiene and obscure fetishes. Blood mage suggests ambitious, ruthless and a tiny bit flamboyant. Completely different genres of evil. Likewise, Knight Enchanter is a waste of space. Arcane Warrior was overpowered and bore no relation to standard mage playstyle. Hopefully, KE will feel a bit more mage-y this time around. Rift mage sounds interesting and is hopefully something like force mage in DA2. That leaves healers a little strapped for choice (not that they had an awful lot in the previous games mind).
So let me get this straight.
You don't like Mage specs, because we're not plagued again by the same old specializations, but you like the Warrior ones, where Templar and Reaver again capped 2 out of 3?
If anything, i would like new specializations for every class.
If Knight Enchanter is a waste of space, is something to be discovered, i take it you don't like Melee Mages, but really? Because the AW was overpowered(mostly in conjuction with BM or SH mind you), this means the KE is a waste? I fail to graps this logic, what does the AW and DA:O have to do with the KE now?
Are Mages just D&D Wizards to some of you i wonder? Well they are not. They are just magic users, which could mean anything.
I'll have to disagree with you. I understand you don't like what you saw, but i also don't like some -in my opinion- lame specializations, taking up 2 spaces ALWAYS.
And for the last time. Healing is probably going to be available without dedicated specialization, as it should be.
Blood Magic, we have no idea if it's a tree without a specialization or just doesn't exist.
I'm liking the warrior specs. Reaver and templar are classics (shame beserker didn't return, but I guess it would have forced tanks to go templar). Champion sounds promising as a spec for tanks, but I agree with azarhal, guardian would be more indicative of what it did as well as kind of sounding more awesome.
I'm glad they scrapped shadow for rogues. That spec had no identity: it was basically a standard rogue but with smoke involved. I'm less glad they scrapped duelist, since the tradition was born and practised in Orlais. Likewise for bard, but particularly since that was a good class, if not the only class, for archers to spec. Assassin is a classic, artificer sounds really cool as well. We have no idea what tempest will involve, but it will likely lack the lore of bard or duelist.
I'm annoyed at what they did with mages. Necromancer just isn't the same as blood mage. Necromancer evokes images of 60 year old cackling men with no sense of personal hygiene and obscure fetishes. Blood mage suggests ambitious, ruthless and a tiny bit flamboyant. Completely different genres of evil. Likewise, Knight Enchanter is a waste of space. Arcane Warrior was overpowered and bore no relation to standard mage playstyle. Hopefully, KE will feel a bit more mage-y this time around. Rift mage sounds interesting and is hopefully something like force mage in DA2. That leaves healers a little strapped for choice (not that they had an awful lot in the previous games mind).
I actually liked Arcane Warrior specifically because it wasn't the same playstyle as the mage. It's almost like picking an entirely new fourth class in the game that's a mixture of warrior and mage. The only thing that was really annoying about it was certain spells requiring you to sheath your weapon before you can cast them. I'll agree that it was overpowered(especially with certain specs as Morn said), and hopefully they don't make it quite so ridiculous this time around.
Not surprising that Spirit Healer didn't get to return given the changes to healing they're doing. A dedicated healing spec could easily start feeling mandatory. I imagine that we'll still get some standard healing spells outside of the spec.
No Rivaini Seer?
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
As a Rogue, I'm a bit disappointed in Artificer. It sounds like it deals mostly in trap-making which was (hands-down) the most pointless perk set in Origins. Assassin is on that I've never been very fond of though I always used it for my Rogues due to it's sheer strength. I look forward to learning more about Tempest as it sounds like the most mobility-based specialization. That's what I look for with Rogues.
As a Rogue, I'm a bit disappointed in Artificer. It sounds like it deals mostly in trap-making which was (hands-down) the most pointless perk set in Origins.
As a Rogue, I'm a bit disappointed in Artificer. It sounds like it deals mostly in trap-making which was (hands-down) the most pointless perk set in Origins. Assassin is on that I've never been very fond of though I always used it for my Rogues due to it's sheer strength. I look forward to learning more about Tempest as it sounds like the most mobility-based specialization. That's what I look for with Rogues.
As someone who pretty much played Artificer in DA:O, I was ecstatic when I discovered this would be a specialization. With the gameplay content we've seen, it looks like it'll be an interesting spec to play.
So the game will react to your CLASS, not your SPEC? Shame. I imagine they were going with the latter but had to streamline it. A little disappointing, but better than nothing.
I hope they still react to your spec, that was the big reason why they were only allowing one spec a piece. Hopefully we can get clarification from Bioware soon.
Sorry if this has been answered, where are we getting the names for the other spec's from? I know Templar and reaver is inferred from their logo's on the website, but what about the Mage and rogue spec's. Have they been announced somewhere?
If you go to the official dragon age website and go to any of the class pages it will list one revealed specialization and give symbols for two others. If you right click on the symbols for the un-named specializations and click save the images are named for the specialization it represents.
...why would they make a specialization out of it then just import the system from Origins? Clearly it won't be like in Origins.
We don't know. I can only speak to what I've seen already. Perhaps it will be better than I am currently imagining it. I look forward to finding out.
We do know. Traps and bombs and such weren't a specialization in Origins. It is inherently different in Inquisition and to assume it will be just like Origins is nonsensical.
Can't wait to play my Reaver.
heh, I was just watching this. Good old One-Eye.
Hopefully Artificer will fill the niche of a DoT/debuff/CC Rogue that I've wanted for a while. For those who play SWTOR, the Artificer being something akin to a Madness Sorc or Lethality Op would be pretty cool.
Lethality Operative is OP. OMG, it knocked me down and managed to cut through half my health before I could get up and THEN stunned me. Nerf Operative.
ALSO, their troll roll covers twice the distance of a leap. TWICE. If you start a roll at the edge of the Huttball platform, you continue perfectly horizontal until the end of the roll and then fall. That makes it the best movement buff in the game.
No class should be so OP!
Signed,
A hybrid balance Sage
I don't play any PvP, so I can't really comment. The playstyle itself just appeals to me, with a bunch of little tools and tricks up your sleeve, and a concentration on DoT effects with burst capabilities linked to those DoT effects.
Retour en haut