226 réponses à ce sujet

[EmperorSahlertz]

Why not?

Because if you were, then why would you ever bring one of the melee designed clases, when you can get a "two-in-one" package deal with the mage?

[The Baconer]

Because if you were, then why would you ever bring one of the melee designed clases, when you can get a "two-in-one" package deal with the mage?

 

That logic doesn't make sense, though. Warrior and Rogue are both (or can be, with the latter) melee classes, but it's not like one is more "good" than the other, they're both dedicated to doing different things. I don't see why Knight Enchanter has to be about trying to emulate either of them in some mediocre fashion.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Which niche would the Knight-Enchanter then fulfill, that the warrior or rogue doesn't already fulfill?

 

The Knight-Enchanter is probably just gonna end up being a more durable mage.

[mlgumm]

I'm cool with sacrificing a bit of firepower for endurance. My mages have a habit of dying unless I'm playing a healer or have a tank in the party, but sometimes it would be nice to choose a party based on personalities and a mage with purely offensive powers and still be able to survive longer than five minutes. Let me wear heavy armor and not be so squishy! I don't even care if my blizzards only kill two or three guys instead of five.

[KainD]

Not at all, one is more useful for one scenario, the other is more useful in another. Its like you have a vendetta against anyone who's not a mage, refusing to admit anything despite lore, gameplay, and other players telling you otherwise. Just a textbook case of denial

So less versatile = better in some scenarios? Oxymoron much? No vendetta, one is just better than the other.

[KainD]

Not this person, anything that isnt magic is labelled as pointless

Not pointless, just less optimum.

[KainD]

More BS than other magic? You're just using spellpower to mimic physical strength. How is that any worse than transforming into a bear or willing a fireball or flying boulder into existence?

It's better to use more effective ways to fight no?

[KainD]

You know only a few masters of the force can do that and its easier/cooler to use the saber right?

Easier and basic is not more cooler. Complex and more effective is.

[KainD]

Because if you were, then why would you ever bring one of the melee designed clases, when you can get a "two-in-one" package deal with the mage?

Roleplaying.

[SerCambria358]

So less versatile = better in some scenarios? Oxymoron much? No vendetta, one is just better than the other.

How is that an oxymoron? A hammer is more versatile than a saw, but a hammer cant cut wood. You're just ignorant than. Any dev would agree that warrior skill sets would benefit a mage, they wouldnt have made these classes otherwise. Tevinter wouldnt train mages to use armor and weapons if you were correct, the dalish wouldnt have made arcane warriors if you were correct. You're wrong in every area, yet the only reason this debate has continued is because YOU say they arent, without giving any legitimate support, because you dont think so, that makes the world wrong and you right

[EmperorSahlertz]

Roleplaying.

Yeah, people cannot be arsed with that.

[KainD]

How is that an oxymoron? A hammer is more versatile than a saw, but a hammer cant cut wood. You're just ignorant than. Any dev would agree that warrior skill sets would benefit a mage, they wouldnt have made these classes otherwise. Tevinter wouldnt train mages to use armor and weapons if you were correct, the dalish wouldnt have made arcane warriors if you were correct. You're wrong in every area, yet the only reason this debate has continued is because YOU say they arent, without giving any legitimate support, because you dont think so, that makes the world wrong and you right

I gave you plenty lore reasons in my support, you just keep chanting that I am in denial.

I can say: "if it was silly to blow up a chantry to further the cause that Anders was fighting for, he wouldn't do it". And yet plenty people think it was silly and that he only worsened the situation instead of helping mages.

[KainD]

Yeah, people cannot be arsed with that.

And that's why we have gameplay lore segregation. The most sad part is people often take gameplay for lore.

[The Baconer]

Which niche would the Knight-Enchanter then fulfill, that the warrior or rogue doesn't already fulfill?

 

Positioning control, unique buffs, unique status effects, enchanting options... There's a ton of stuff that they could potentially do that wouldn't be available to warriors, rogues, or regular mages.

[EmperorSahlertz]

And that's why we have gameplay lore segregation. The most sad part is people often take gameplay for lore.

And this is relevant to the discussion at hand, how?

[KainD]

And this is relevant to the discussion at hand, how?

Very.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Positioning control, unique buffs, unique status effects, enchanting options... There's a ton of stuff that they could potentially do that wouldn't be available to warriors, rogues, or regular mages.

So basically they would be doing what warriors do, just slightly different flavor text to try and fool the player.

 

Chances are the Knight-Enchatners are going to have their own unique spells yes, but their melee aspects will always be second to the classes dedicated to it.

[SerCambria358]

I gave you plenty lore reasons in my support, you just keep chanting that I am in denial.

I can say: "if it was silly to blow up a chantry to further the cause that Anders was fighting for, he wouldn't do it". And yet plenty people think it was silly and that he only worsened the situation instead of helping mages.

WHat lore? You've only given examples of mages doing things, nothing directly tying into your point. Giving me an example of when a mage killed a warrior isnt supporting your point, my Tevinter example is directly showing elite mages using warrior skills because they know its useful, which is directly my point. Im telling you you're in a form of denial because you are

 

That example doesnt even fit this debate, none of your analogies or comparisons have.

[SerCambria358]

Very.

That doesnt answer his question

[EmperorSahlertz]

That doesnt answer his question

Oh I've given up by now. If he wants to be so deadset on claiming that one specialization is going to be intrinsically worse than all others, then he should feel free to do so. Even if he is empirically wrong.

[Adaar the Unbound]

Knight enchanter is the most silly specialization for a mage to have. If I wanted to play a warrior I would play that instead. 

Im not going to be Knight Enchanter (atleast with my main save) but I disagree. I dont think specializations like Arcane Warrior (and Knight enchanter if it is going to be like Arcane Warrior) are silly. Its like you were born with magic, but instead of using it as attack you use it to be a better warrior with magical shields and barriers to make yourself take more damage.

[Hellion Rex]

I have a question - who in the hell cares? (other than Kain, of course)

[KainD]

WHat lore? You've only given examples of mages doing things, nothing directly tying into your point. Giving me an example of when a mage killed a warrior isnt supporting your point, my Tevinter example is directly showing elite mages using warrior skills because they know its useful, which is directly my point. Im telling you you're in a form of denial because you are

 

That example doesnt even fit this debate, none of your analogies or comparisons have.

 

Spells are stronger than swords. Carrying a sword impairs spell casting. Learning how to use said sword leaves less time to practice spell casting. I don't know what other points are needed really. 

 

Neither does your analogy of hammer/saw fits as well.. 

[KainD]

Oh I've given up by now. If he wants to be so deadset on claiming that one specialization is going to be intrinsically worse than all others, then he should feel free to do so. Even if he is empirically wrong.

 

It's not going to be bad gameplay wise. I'm talking lore, this is a story forums after all. 

[KainD]

Im not going to be Knight Enchanter (atleast with my main save) but I disagree. I dont think specializations like Arcane Warrior (and Knight enchanter if it is going to be like Arcane Warrior) are silly. Its like you were born with magic, but instead of using it as attack you use it to be a better warrior with magical shields and barriers to make yourself take more damage.

 

Yes you were born with the ability to use superior attacks, and you use inferior ones instead, not silly at all.