Well if your intent on panicing over the fact that we've seen 1/2 the abilities in 1 tree and 3-4 in a second tree with no mention at all yet of the other 2 (possibly more) there isn't anything I can do. But calling all mages primal heavy nukers when we know about 10% of the total spells in the game (or potentially less) is bit premature.
2 trees out of 4 ie half, are elemental trees that were in 1 tree in DA2. Not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater but its cause for concern.
Yes... For me it would be perfect like this:
Fire tree, Ice tree, Lightning tree, New spirit tree (support), Creation tree (earth-nature spells)- Entropy (mix between debuffs and spirit damaging spells) + Specs
Too many, I know 
Yes... For me it would be perfect like this:
Fire tree, Ice tree, Lightning tree, New spirit tree (support), Creation tree (earth-nature spells)- Entropy (mix between debuffs and spirit damaging spells) + Specs
Too many, I know
I agree.
We need this. Bioware, please!
It's not too many, it's enough and acceptable 
I agree.
We need this. Bioware, please!
It's not too many, it's enough and acceptable
Yeah... we could definitely come up with more trees we need! You cannot show us wonderful trees such as the Force mage tree or the Keeper tree and then take them away 
I wonder if exploration skill trees are still a thing in the game or are they integrated in a different way than the skill trees?
Yeah... we could definitely come up with more trees we need! You cannot show us wonderful trees such as the Force mage tree or the Keeper tree and then take them away
Not really digging the whole elemental and primal for everything spells. I mean they had 4 schools of magic in Dragon Age and now they are all mashed up ?
I know there is the whole Veil Tear and Breach but it is odd to see spells change so much in the span of three games / in a few short decades in Thedas.
There is a lack of consistency.
I might just switch to using rogue as my go-to Inquisitor because of this.
2 trees out of 4 ie half, are elemental trees that were in 1 tree in DA2. Not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater but its cause for concern.
We actually know 1/2 of the abilities in Inferno, the rest are assumptions based on icons, which my or may not be final. We know 0 abilities in Winter (we can guess a few, but none have been confirmed) and that is entirely based upon the icons. We know maybe 8 spells out of a potential 40ish, which is 20%. We can make educated guesses about 3-4 more, which bring it to 30%. Guesses based upon icons are absolutely unreliable, given how much we've seen the trees and icons change over the past few months there is absolutely no indication that the icons are in any way final.
Thus we know very little about what the direct damage vs utility ratio is.
Don't jump to conclusions.
We actually know 1/2 of the abilities in Inferno, the rest are assumptions based on icons, which my or may not be final. We know 0 abilities in Winter (we can guess a few, but none have been confirmed) and that is entirely based upon the icons.
Watch the upper left corner, as the spells are cast. We might not see the description, but we can tell right about what Firestorm does, and they explain quite thoroughly how Wall of Fire works.
That's why I upped the # of spells known from 4 (the 4 we actually see descriptions for) to 8. To account for the spells we've seen in action, but not seen descriptions for. Stonefist, Ice Blast, the four shot one, fire storm, fire wall. We saw Ice Wall a long time ago (a year ago), but who knows if it is still in. So all-n-all my point stands.
I just hope we get some actual entropy spells.
There might be some, but maybe not an actual entropy tree. Maybe there are debuffs in the Necromancer spec, or maybe there are some debuffs in other trees (winter, fire, etc). Just because the spells are fire-based does not mean they are all nuking spells. Keep in mind for example the frost glyph, it did no damage, it was the glyph of paralysis from previous games! 
Also, entropy/debuffing spells are really not impressive to show, so I would never show those spells in demos. You might have a chance to seeing them
Yeah... we could definitely come up with more trees we need! You cannot show us wonderful trees such as the Force mage tree or the Keeper tree and then take them away
Yeah, I think this is due to the gameplay of the games being so so different.
In DA2, you had so many enemies and waves, that a Force Mage was not so broken as it would be in DAO or DAI. I guess that is why force mage has not come back, because they would either have to change them a lot (and people would complain), or they would break the game (cast 1 spell, win combat automatically).
Heh, I'm kinda dissatisfied with the trees generally in DA3. There are too few spread too awkwardly. Non-mages have a dump tree in the weapon they don't choose, meaning they basically have 3 trees and a spec. You can max 2 trees and a spec if they let you get to level 30, so the number of viable builds is pretty limited. A few cookie-cutter setups aren't necessarily bad, but it does hurt when your options are already limited to Mage-Warrior-Rogue. This might be intentional, but it does feel limited for a modern CRPG.
100% agree with you.
The moment I say the demo of Iron Bull having 5 skill trees, I pointed this out in the feedback forum asking for a chance to customize more our characters, maybe giving us the option to choose the spec of our companions or something. Having Iron Bull with the selection of a weapon, and then having 2 basic skill trees + his set-spec, means that all Iron Bulls in the planet will be the same...
At least we have so many fkin companions in this game, 3 of each class, that can all choose the weapon of their choice, that we have the replayability guaranteed!
Heh, I'm kinda dissatisfied with the trees generally in DA3. There are too few spread too awkwardly. Non-mages have a dump tree in the weapon they don't choose, meaning they basically have 3 trees and a spec. You can max 2 trees and a spec if they let you get to level 30, so the number of viable builds is pretty limited. A few cookie-cutter setups aren't necessarily bad, but it does hurt when your options are already limited to Mage-Warrior-Rogue. This might be intentional, but it does feel limited for a modern CRPG.
Hmm... I like the mage's trees so far, as long as they give us more than 4... I (almost) never use a warrior, but I love rogues, so I feel you. But maybe the class is now more defined by its specs? Actually, if you think about it, in DAO and DA2 the situation was similar, wasn't it? In DAO you'd have the 4-2 weapon trees (normally you'd only choose 1) and then the warrior-rogue trees were pretty limited + spec. In DA2 I don't know about the warrior, but with the rogue, you chose archery or DW and then you had your specs and 4 trees that any rogue would want to spend some talent points in.
So, if we now only have 1 spec, there's more place for replayability/different builds, right?
Yeah, I think this is due to the gameplay of the games being so so different.In DA2, you had so many enemies and waves, that a Force Mage was not so broken as it would be in DAO or DAI. I guess that is why force mage has not come back, because they would either have to change them a lot (and people would complain), or they would break the game (cast 1 spell, win combat automatically).
Could be true, yeah... I'll miss it anyway
This reminds me. Do we know if all companions are functionally identical (aside from race bonuses to attributes)? Or there will be some perks/skills/spells/specs unique to each that'd influence their effectiveness in certain ways? Like, we know that theoretically you can give Iron Bull sword and shield, but will he have something innate that'll make two-handers preferable to use on him? Pre-spent points in certain trees?many companions
So far I've been happy with the mage stuff we've seen but I like that Fire and Ice have gotten a lot more focus and doing some stuff that's a little less 'make it explode'. Someone in here said we don't know any ice spells? Yeah we do. May not know the exact 'names' of them but we've seen plenty of them in action. They had a blizzard during the 2nd E3 video. We've seen multiple times in the E3 videos an AoE 'where you target' burst that freezes things. They've also shown off a Wall of Ice before and an Ice Rune that allows you to lay a freezing trap.
That is 4 Ice Spells, and they all have some kind of good tactical advantage besides 'blow **** up'. Unlike Wall of Fire, the ice variant is an actual, solid, wall. It can block enemy ranged fire completely. That's pretty damn awesome and something we haven't seen at all in ANY Dragon Age game. So yeah I'm not bummed fire and ice got there own trees. I like it personally.
This reminds me. Do we know if all companions are functionally identical (aside from race bonuses to attributes)? Or there will be some perks/skills/spells/specs unique to each that'd influence their effectiveness in certain ways? Like, we know that theoretically you can give Iron Bull sword and shield, but will he have something innate that'll make two-handers preferable to use on him? Pre-spent points in certain trees?
Good point. What if Iron Bull can use either weapon style, but doesn't have a Guardian tree?
We actually know 1/2 of the abilities in Inferno, the rest are assumptions based on icons, which my or may not be final. We know 0 abilities in Winter (we can guess a few, but none have been confirmed) and that is entirely based upon the icons. We know maybe 8 spells out of a potential 40ish, which is 20%. We can make educated guesses about 3-4 more, which bring it to 30%. Guesses based upon icons are absolutely unreliable, given how much we've seen the trees and icons change over the past few months there is absolutely no indication that the icons are in any way final.
Thus we know very little about what the direct damage vs utility ratio is.
Don't jump to conclusions.
I implied that I'm waiting to see the actual detail. Be that as it may its not a matter of damage vs utility its that fire and ice spells in general are mundane and cliched and they appear to be increasing the prevalence of them.
Hmm... I like the mage's trees so far, as long as they give us more than 4... I (almost) never use a warrior, but I love rogues, so I feel you. But maybe the class is now more defined by its specs?
I think it is but the problem with that is from what we've seen the spec trees aren't very large and therefore won't necessarily offer a lot of variety once you choose the spec.
I think it is but the problem with that is from what we've seen the spec trees aren't very large and therefore won't necessarily offer a lot of variety once you choose the spec.
Who knows? Maybe the passives in the spec-trees change completely your play style... I don't know, we'll have to wait and see. But so far, let's say you chose S&S, Reaver and Vanguard -> those are 14 activated abilities + 2 or 3 of Battlemaster = 16-17 active talents. How many would you have in DA2? 13 if you choose S&S, Vanguard, some battlemaster, some warmonger, and reaver+berserker...
So maybe it's not that bad, is it?
So far I've been happy with the mage stuff we've seen but I like that Fire and Ice have gotten a lot more focus and doing some stuff that's a little less 'make it explode'. Someone in here said we don't know any ice spells? Yeah we do. May not know the exact 'names' of them but we've seen plenty of them in action. They had a blizzard during the 2nd E3 video. We've seen multiple times in the E3 videos an AoE 'where you target' burst that freezes things. They've also shown off a Wall of Ice before and an Ice Rune that allows you to lay a freezing trap.
That is 4 Ice Spells, and they all have some kind of good tactical advantage besides 'blow **** up'. Unlike Wall of Fire, the ice variant is an actual, solid, wall. It can block enemy ranged fire completely. That's pretty damn awesome and something we haven't seen at all in ANY Dragon Age game. So yeah I'm not bummed fire and ice got there own trees. I like it personally.
I wouldn't mind that if it didn't come at the expense of other abilities that I enjoy using more. I like that Elemental spells are more in depth but if It means we are losing allot of entropy and creation then I am not too happy about that. We don't know what all the trees will be yet though and we know the demo wasn't final so I am just gonna hope for the best.
Yeah I agree if it kills the other stuff to much it'll be an issue. I'm hoping it gets split up between base tabs and necromancy. But in the end Entropy only had 5 spells in it, that should be able to fit into one of those tabs. 5th one was like a large super redundant spell where it just did all crappy version of all the other spells though. Not that it was bad but... yeah.
I hope they keep the 4 base ones (or versions of them) in one of the base tabs but come up with some more interesting and add it into the Necromancy stuff you know? Honestly, I hope they come up with more interesting varied stuff across the board, regardless if its getting a dedicated tab or not.
I wouldn't mind that if it didn't come at the expense of other abilities that I enjoy using more. I like that Elemental spells are more in depth but if It means we are losing allot of entropy and creation then I am not too happy about that. We don't know what all the trees will be yet though and we know the demo wasn't final so I am just gonna hope for the best.
Perhaps there will be more skill trees.
I'm thinking:
8 Regular skill trees
Some of the entropy spells will make it into the Necromancy skill tree.
Perhaps there will be more skill trees.
I'm thinking:
8 Regular skill trees
Its confirmed that there are only 4 base skill trees per class
Its confirmed that there are only 4 base skill trees per class
I missed this. Was it only because the demos always show 4 + spec, or is there another source?
It's been answered in interviews and twitter. Each class has 4 tabs, but each tab has a lot more skills in it then the past game. I've made a post on this already but in DA2 the avg skills was about 5. That's not 5 skills you can use, that's 5 active, sustained or passives. The other 5 where upgrades. If you look at DAI each tab has 9 or 10 (except specializations which seem to have 7). Then somewhere from 3-5 upgrades on top of that (it's definitely isn't a set total like DA2).
Point is, even with 4 'tabs', we have more skills overall then DA2 had. So like Fire, Cold? Each one has 9 abilities and 3-4 upgrades. Part of why they have so much variation in Cold/Fire now is due to that. That's about 18-20 other skills in the other 2 tabs combined. Which is basically 4 'tabs' in DA2. If you think about it like that, you can see where they could easily fill it up with past stuff, or more interesting variations on that.
Ultimately, the biggest difference, is it's not so segmented. Keep in mind unlike DnD (said this before) Spell Schools aren't a fundamental thing to the mechanics of Spells. It's just how 1 part of the world classifies stuff. It's far more freeform then that, and as such I think each tab will be a tad more abstract in its name like fire and cold currently are.
Its confirmed that there are only 4 base skill trees per class
Lame... mages should have extra trees to reflect the wide variety of available magic. It doesn't need to be perfectly balanced with warriors and rogues.
Retour en haut