81 réponses à ce sujet

[Schreckstoff]

And again, that explains why they should start with different abilities, not why they should be incapable of learning them.

 

And anything Dorian learns after joining the party should absolutely be available to the other mages.  If Dorian shows up with unique abilities, that's very different from him having exclusive access to abilities he hasn't yet learned.

 

Look at Isabela's ability All Hands On Deck.  If she has the ability when she meets Hawke, it would make sense that no one else could have learned it yet (though I wonder why they can't learn it later if Isabela's willing to teach them).  But if Isabela learns that ability while she's with the party, why couldn't Hawke learn it too?  Where is Isabela learning these things that Hawke can't, when they're spending all of their time together?

Maybe they were taught to them but they weren't yet skilled enough to use them. 

 

Following your train of thought Mages should be able to be taught all skills.

[number 1 dragon age fan]

And again, that explains why they should start with different abilities, not why they should be incapable of learning them.

 

And anything Dorian learns after joining the party should absolutely be available to the other mages.  If Dorian shows up with unique abilities, that's very different from him having exclusive access to abilities he hasn't yet learned.

 

Look at Isabela's ability All Hands On Deck.  If she has the ability when she meets Hawke, it would make sense that no one else could have learned it yet (though I wonder why they can't learn it later if Isabela's willing to teach them).  But if Isabela learns that ability while she's with the party, why couldn't Hawke learn it too?  Where is Isabela learning these things that Hawke can't, when they're spending all of their time together?

its not as simple as that, for that kind of knowledge to be passed between party members it has to fit various criteria

 

1. The individual has to show an interest in learning 

2. The other party member has to want to teach

2. there should be a reason why they would spend time to teach someone else their knowledge (I don't see anders teaching merril his knowledge of healing magic because quite frankly he doesn't  even like her that much.

 

So for me its more important that what our companions know and do is consistent with lore and their personalities 

[Adaar the Unbound]

I can understand why people would hate the companion specializations in DA2, but I think they could still make unique specializations for the companions in DAI and make them better. It doesnt look like they're doing that though.

[Enigmatick]

its not as simple as that, for that kind of knowledge to be passed between party members it has to fit various criteria

 

1. The individual has to show an interest in learning 

2. The other party member has to want to teach

2. there should be a reason why they would spend time to teach someone else their knowledge (I don't see anders teaching merril his knowledge of healing magic because quite frankly he doesn't  even like her that much.

 

So for me its more important that what our companions know and do is consistent with lore and their personalities 

Then choose to teach them the skills that fits with the lore and their personalities.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Following your train of thought Mages should be able to be taught all skills.

Assuming they meet the requirements, absolutely.

Arbitrary class distinctions diminish the setting.

[Sylvius the Mad]

So for me its more important that what our companions know and do is consistent with lore and their personalities

If that's the case, then we shouldn't get to control them at all. But we can. We assign attribute points and skills and talents. We choose equipment. We choose tactics.

We can put all of mage's points into Strength. We can take away a warrior's armour. If we're allowed to do that, why can't we assign other talents?

And, as Enigmatick pointed out, if you don't want to violate their personalities, don't. If you need the restrictions to tell you what their personalities are, however, then the restrictions clearly aren't that important.

[Sylvius the Mad]

so you would be all for mage in heavy armour? wielding a great sword or even sword n board mage?

You could wear the armour in DA2, and you could do both in DAO. You couldn't learn the talents (the writers hung a lampshade on that with the Codex entries from the Circle Tower), but you could wear the gear.

But assuming mages don't have some relevant physical deficiency (not evident in either previous game), why shouldn't they be able to learn those talents?

They be less effective mages, having spent talent points on melee abilities, and having diverted attribute points away from Magic, but I can think of no good in-world reason to prohibit it.

This is why I think they should use a classless system rather than a class-based system.

[Schreckstoff]

Assuming they meet the requirements, absolutely.

Arbitrary class distinctions diminish the setting.

 

So why roll anything but mage?

 

I modded both DAO as well as DA2 to be able to play a spellsword and it made both my characters ridiculously overpowered. 

 

Balancing 3 distinct classes is totally different to balancing 30 or so trees. If you want no classes play TES.

[metatheurgist]

Despise RPGs where NPCs have access to different rules than the PC. It's just a lazy way to differentiate the characters. The better way would be to create a complex and flexible class system that allows things like:

so you would be all for mage in heavy armour? wielding a great sword or even sword n board mage?

That would be awesome. As long as there's a trade-off for it.

[JadePrince]

Personally, I loved the unique skills. 

 

I hope we have companions who can do things no one else can do this time around too. It makes them more interesting. I mean, for example, what would have been the point of giving Fenris that nifty phasing trick if he couldn't actually use it in combat? It made sense that only he had those skills-- he was the only one with lyrium tattoos. 

 

For DA:I, perhaps Iron Bull might have some kind of attack that involves using his horns. It'd be unique skill that made sense for only him to have-- only he has those bull-like horns (that's assuming you can't give your qunari PC the same upward pointing horns). 

 

Personally, I hope that the Inquisitor is gonna be able to use the glowy green Fade hand in combat somehow. It'd be cool if there was a skill tree for that that you could unlock as you learned what it could do.

[Nuclear]

I love companion specific trees, makes them all the more unique.

 

The problem is when they only have those trees with no variation, like DA2. As some people have already stated, the best option is to have one unique tree specific to that character while still having the choices from the generic class skill trees readily available.

[Hiemoth]

I love companion specific trees, makes them all the more unique.

 

The problem is when they only have those trees with no variation, like DA2. As some people have already stated, the best option is to have one unique tree specific to that character while still having the choices from the generic class skill trees readily available.

 

I don't quite understand your point as the system you describe was exactly the one in DA2 with the exception of Merrill not having access to Creation tree and Anders not having access to one school.

[Schreckstoff]

I don't quite understand your point as the system you describe was exactly the one in DA2 with the exception of Merrill not having access to Creation tree and Anders not having access to one school.

Well that was the problem, Merrill not having the creation tree made Anders almost mandatory to non mages.

[Th0r1369]

I hated those talent trees.  The game's rules should be clearly laid out, and available to all characters.

 

I modded that feature out of the game, making all of the talent trees available to all of the characters.

 

There are going to be companions I dislike based on their personalities.  Zevran.  Fenris.  I don't ever want to take those guys with me, but if they have unique skills then I'm forced to tolerate them.  That's not fun.  I'd much rather have more control than that over my party's composition.

 

Also, those unique trees, in DA2, were used to limit those characters to specific combat roles.  I quite liked Varric's personality, but I didn't like his combat performance, so I couldn't take him with me either.  Companions that have fixed personalities and fixed combat roles are vastly less useful than companions where one or more of those things is fluid.

That's just nitpicking. Think of LOTR, did Samwise like Golem tagging along with him and Frodo? No. He hated him, but Frodo brought him in the group because Golem had something, a unique skill, that he needed in order to finish his quest.

 

I think all the companions should have specific talent trees, with in reason. I wouldn't want Varric, for instance, running around with daggers.. but I also wouldn't want to exclude him on, let's say, some stealth skills.

[DarthLaxian]

I hated those talent trees.  The game's rules should be clearly laid out, and available to all characters.

 

I modded that feature out of the game, making all of the talent trees available to all of the characters.

 

There are going to be companions I dislike based on their personalities.  Zevran.  Fenris.  I don't ever want to take those guys with me, but if they have unique skills then I'm forced to tolerate them.  That's not fun.  I'd much rather have more control than that over my party's composition.

 

Also, those unique trees, in DA2, were used to limit those characters to specific combat roles.  I quite liked Varric's personality, but I didn't like his combat performance, so I couldn't take him with me either.  Companions that have fixed personalities and fixed combat roles are vastly less useful than companions where one or more of those things is fluid.

 

Indeed (or if there's some skills they have based on background, make it skills every character (of the same class) can learn, but they get "free of charge" (without looking at the character-level...something like basic skills )

 

but yeah, I disliked those skills, too (hell, I dislike the implication, that the Inquisitor is only getting his/her post because he/she is the only one who can close the rifts (it's illogical, that for example great mages from the circles or elven keepers can't do the same...or let's say it otherwise, I would have loved to be a character that got to were he is on his own merrits, not freak chance

 

greetings LAX

[Fast Jimmy]

Given that we know that only one specialization is available to take, I think it would make sense that some companions already have their specialization before the Inquisitor meets them. And that they may even have a specialization that the PC does not have available to them.

That being said, it would be nice if some enemies had access to those same specs. I could see someone like Fenris or Cole being truly unique in the world, but it wouldn't make sense to me if Viviene had skills as a Circle Mage that could be found nowhere else in all of Thedas.

[The Hierophant]

And again, that explains why they should start with different abilities, not why they should be incapable of learning them.
 
And anything Dorian learns after joining the party should absolutely be available to the other mages.  If Dorian shows up with unique abilities, that's very different from him having exclusive access to abilities he hasn't yet learned.
 
Look at Isabela's ability All Hands On Deck.  If she has the ability when she meets Hawke, it would make sense that no one else could have learned it yet (though I wonder why they can't learn it later if Isabela's willing to teach them).  But if Isabela learns that ability while she's with the party, why couldn't Hawke learn it too?  Where is Isabela learning these things that Hawke can't, when they're spending all of their time together?

I think it's another gameplay abstraction for the sake of balance. The companions would be overpowered if they knew their whole talent tree upon recruitment.

Storywise you'd expect the companion to have already learned all their unique talents as that's what sets them apart from the rest in DA's setting.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I hope they have skill tress unique to them and only them. For example Cassandra = Seeker and/or Dragonhunter, Iron Bull = Ben-Hassarath, Dorian = Tevinter Magister, etc. 

[SilkieBantam]

Well what I'd worry about in regards to Companion Specific Trees is how they could constrict how we build our companions. 

 

Considering we're supposed to be able to swap weapons in the game it seems like forcing a specialization may be a bit restrictive?

 

Take Aveline for instance, she was a sword and shield warrior and her Guardian specialization was specifically there to enhance her ability as tank so even if you could give her a two handed sword and try to make her into a DPS character she wouldn't be as effective as Fenris whose specialization was geared towards damage. So there really wouldn't be much point in it.

 

If they did use unique specializations I would hope that there would be...some sort of branching path that allowed them to complement various builds. For instance Sera's specialization tree could have a path for archery and one for duel wielding as well.

[Sylvius the Mad]

So why roll anything but mage?

Because you'd be a better warrior by not playing a mage. To be mage, there should be a cost. I suggest making the magic ability so expensive as to make hybrid builds inefficient.

[Sylvius the Mad]

you mean something like skyrim?

The earlier TES games did it better by allowing more diverse starting positions.

[addiction21]

I only skimmed so I may have missed it... but is it confirmed these are in DAI?

[Schreckstoff]

Because you'd be a better warrior by not playing a mage. To be mage, there should be a cost. I suggest making the magic ability so expensive as to make hybrid builds inefficient.

It'd still be stupid to have all abilities available for one class but only 2/3rds for the others. It'd also turn spellswords into complete sustainable characters again seeing as those are usually the first abilities to be unlocked on a tree.

There's also the matter if resources. Mages use mana to.cast their spells other classes use stamina. It shouldn't be possible to do attacks w/o stamina but Willpower the 2ndary stat to Magic (Str/Con Dex/Cun) only provides mana for mages while providing stamina for other classes. If you make it willpower providing both they'd have to limit the available mana and stamina compared to each for itself which in turn just hinders the pure mage who needs only mana.

Classless just doesn't fit the system Bioware created for DA.