Additionally, new TL;DR version: Warrior/Rogue distinction has no place in lore and sucks for gameplay. Talent tree system already separates builds by weapon selection as two weapon types simultaneously don't work in practice. Present system results in minimal build choice, forces players to bring companions they don't want, slams everyone into prescribed combat roles, and misses the bulk of possibilities proffered by the new crafting system. To fix it, define classes by lore (mages vs non-mages only) and by weapon choice, and use specializations and equipment choice to determine combat role. Result is a more diverse group of options with more variety and uniqueness without forcing players into undesired roles.
//EDIT END
Inspired by the create-a-class thread, I thought I would create a scenario for what I think DA classes should be. Actually, I was going to edit in an expansion to my previous post in that thread, but that was then. I could edit it in now, or I could make a new topic because BSN is my personal blog. In any case, now that I get around to posting it, here's something that will likely never happen in DA but would be the direction I'd do if I were, like, Glorious Dictator of BioWarestan.
The only real character distinction in DA lore is between mages and non-mages. There's certainly no fundamental distinction between warriors and rogues, as both are merely combatants. You'll never approach an NPC and have them run away from you because you're a bow-wielding rogue and not a zweihänder-toting warrior. The distinction is purely for gameplay purposes, and I find it more intrusive than beneficial. It's especially awkward that enemies don't really obey these distinctions either: there are plenty of dual-wielding Templars out to backstab you in DA2, but you cannot do the same. Naturally, this exists as part the gameplay band-aid to keep the warrior-rogue dichotomy. Back in DA:O, warriors could take any weapon skill they should have desired, including dual weapons. That made warriors more reasonable, but also reduced the uniqueness of both.
Of course, that also meant rogues were just weapon-limited warriors with superior talent sets. In that situation, either dual weapons had to be useless for warriors, or rogues had to be fully superior to warriors. The latter turned out to be the case. Nevertheless, it was totally unnecessary because the distinction was unnecessary. That could well have just been a talent choice instead of a class choice. Instead, the solution BioWare took was to further differentiate warrior and rogue, and that lead to the aforementioned issues. That approach really just becomes a sort of false choice. You aren't really getting something unique; you're just splitting your options haphazardly. It makes little sense that carrying a bow teaches you to pick locks while carrying a large sword does not. Not to mention the poor mage peasants who can't pick locks because magic apparently takes over that part of their brains or something.
Speaking of mages, the lack of martial skills for mages, especially among apostates and apostate mercenaries, makes little sense. The last thing I'd be doing as a mage on the run is wear robes that broadcast your location and carry no weapon with which to defend myself except by outing myself as a mage. And it can't possibly be a loss to carry a sword, as that sword is definitely a better tool than a stick when push comes to shove. Especially years after the mage rebellion, and with the behaviors of less Circle-type mages elsewhere in Thedas, I'd expect some weapon styles for mages. There's generally a spec to fill the gap, but it's never large enough to really flesh out what a mage with a weapon should be (because it's a spec). But a spec really isn't too much smaller than any other skill tree: differentiation requires more than one skill tree. This applies to current non-mage classes in DA:I especially. All weapon choices within a class are largely meaningless. In DA2, you could spec both W&S and Two-handed talents, but there's no good reason to do so due to overlap, lack of additional utility, and scarcity of talent points. Thus, in DA:I, a rogue or warrior is essentially 1 weapon tree, 2 class trees, and 1 spec. That is an unfortunate lack of choice and variety, especially when there are least 2 companion pairs with identical weapon sets.
In any case, all the issues here can be addressed by abolishing the current class system and creating a council of eight sensible, diverse military options separated by the two important and unavoidable factors: magical prowess and weapon choice. The rogue/warrior distinction would go the way of the Federalist Party; DW warrior would exist again because your combat role would be defined by your choice of talents, specialization, and equipment. In its place, you have the four weapon styles for non-mage defining each class, and a similar selection for mages. We presently have only two choices: staves and AW/KE swords. We're also ostensibly missing a rogue-type mage, and because this came out of that other thread, I'm going to just state that the last would be magical monk-type fighter and get on with it. Obviously, I would be remiss to omit skill tree design after discussing it. Each class would need two unique skill trees to define their weapon style. From there, you have an additional one based on their particular alignment (explained further later), then one based on simply being a mage or non-mage, then the specialization tree. That setup would require a total of 30 trees, up from 21 in DA:I and 27 (+6 companion specs) in DA2 but nowhere near the 64 (!) trees in DA:O. All of these will be used to ensure class differentiation as well as offering wide potential.
Each class is named after a previous specialization, with the exception of two newcomers rogue-mage Illusionist and hybrid mage Spirit Monk. These are names largely appropriate to the class, but are not the specializations themselves. For example, Ranger does not summon animals; it is merely the bow class. There are also four specializations for each of the two groups (mage and non-mage). Each of these specializations fills a combat role rather than being a flavor selection. The combat roles are: Healer, Tank, Pet/Summoner, and Stealth. Only one specialization can be selected, but any class can fill any role by selecting the appropriate specialization.
New Class Plan Revision 2
Spoiler
In terms of specializations, I did omit Reaver and Blood Mage from the previous version due to being incompatible with certain classes (Reaver doesn't work with bows, Blood Mage doesn't work for characters without weapons), and due to not filling any particular role in combat. I also cut Templar due to filling no role, and having no counterpart in mages. For a non-mage pet class, I chose the Ash Warriors from lore and their mabari companion due to making sense (unlike DA:O Ranger) and being awesome. Also, Ash Warriors make a lot more sense in the game once you remove the Rogue-Warrior dichotomy, since they're mostly reformed criminals (rogues gone warrior, more or less). Artificer is re-imagined as a potion-based healer, with a wink and a nudge covering the cost required to actually produce said potions. Balance between the two is essential to keep the player from being forced to choose one or the other out of need instead of appeal. As for tanks, Keeper has always been a very tank-appropriate spec, bringing debuffs, CC, and minor self-heals. It would parallel Guardian's chain-hook pulls with tangled roots dragging the opponent back to the Keeper. And I think that's about all for specializations that could possibly require explanation.
OLD VERSION (for posterity):
Spoiler
Retour en haut
The class system is a kind of in the middle of both games. You have class specific armour and weapons, but you can change your class at any point in the game! If you decide to come back to the class, you keep all the skills you had already unlocked and if there are any multi-class skills, you carry them over 
So fun!
