38 réponses à ce sujet

[Tarvesh]

Alistair says in DA:O that you don't need lyrium to learn Templar abilities, only that lyrium makes the abilities more potent an effective.

He also goes on to teach you Templar abilities without the use of lyrium.

So wouldn't the only way a Templar could become addicted is if they took it to improve their abilities?

[wcholcombe]

and David Gaider and company have basically said Allistaire was either full of BS on that comment or his brain was already addled by lyrium and that templars do need lyrium for their powers.

 

Also, Allistaire specifically mentions getting back on lyrium to get his powers back in one of the comics.

[Tarvesh]

and David Gaider and company have basically said Allistaire was either full of BS on that comment or his brain was already addled by lyrium and that templars do need lyrium for their powers.

Also, Allistaire specifically mentions getting back on lyrium to get his powers back in one of the comics.

So yes, until they decided that they didn't want it to work without lyrium and retconned it via an interview snippet? XD

Love it.

[Tarvesh]

Couldn't lower ability damage/affective was or ability failure chance be a way to convey lyrium withdrawl? The longer you go without it, the more common the problem becomes?

But still, when all one has to do is pop a potion... It becomes a moot point anyway.

[TheEternalStudent]

Well, they sent her to Kirkwall to kill some maleficar, so...

She was sent to Kirkwall to gain information for the Divine. Her information showed they were connected, and so she eliminated them, she worked (as all proper rogues do) from the shadows. She didn't charge in, nor is it a typical part of her mandate.

[Gtdef]

Addiction mechanics would be nice. I roleplayed a mentats addict in New Vegas. I was rolling a d10 everytime I had to initiate a dialogue without mentats. If I got 1-5, I'd be consistent. If 6-9 I'd be more aggressive than usual. If 10 someone would probably die, either immediately or in a very short amount of time. Not perfect, but I can work on it.  

[The Baconer]

She was sent to Kirkwall to gain information for the Divine. Her information showed they were connected, and so she eliminated them, she worked (as all proper rogues do) from the shadows. She didn't charge in, nor is it a typical part of her mandate.

 

Charging in shouldn't be a typical part of any Seeker's mandate, barring perhaps a group of them dedicated to just hunting down and killing abominations and maleficar. But even if a team like that exists, Cassandra definitely isn't one of them.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

Alistair uses his abilities without lyrium.

[raging_monkey]

Alistair uses his abilities without lyrium.

not now he doesnt retcons

[Gtdef]

Pretty much everything that Alistair said was inaccurate. Lifespan of Wardens, Templars and lyrium, his mother. Good thing I never paid much attention to him.  

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

Pretty much everything that Alistair said was inaccurate. Lifespan of Wardens, Templars and lyrium, his mother. Good thing I never paid much attention to him.

I actually preferred all of that to the retcons. His explanations made more sense to me.

[Gtdef]

Kind of agree. I went by the original lore for the templars for a while. I liked the part about chantry controlling the lyrium out of interest and not out of necessity.

[wcholcombe]

It isn't a retcon.  Did you people read the lore before DAO came out?  Allistaire saying he didn't need lyrium for the powers was a retcon.  They have said in numerous DAO interviews that they tried to make a lyrium addiction component work and it came off as clunky, just like the blight disease mechanic.  The lore they released before DAO plainly stated that templars took lyrium to get their powers.  The table top RPG game said it before DAO came out, I want to believe one of the books either Stolen throne or The Calling references it and not to mention all the stuff they released prior to DAO about templars mentioned it.